On Sept. 13, news broke of yet another     high-level executive parting ways with Binance.US.  
    This time, it was none other than Brian Shroder, the CEO and    president of the exchange, who, after two years in the hot    seat, was heading for a deserved break, as Binance CEO    Changpeng CZ Zhao was     quick to announce on X (formerly Twitter) that same day.  
    The news coincided with the announcement that around 100 people    had also lost their jobs that day  about a third of the    workforce.  
    A massive outflow of funds followed, with the highest being    just over $66 million in a single transaction. Zhao was keen to    underline that Shroders departure was amicable and that he had    achieved everything he had set out to do.  
    Ignore the FUD, was the call from the parapets, the common    plea for calm when any kind of disruption occurs.  
    In an industry strained and battered by tales of fraud and    wrongdoing, however, this call went unheeded once again. The    days since the news broke have seen significant outflows from    Binance to platforms such as Jump, AU21 Capital, QCP Capital    and Wintermute.  
    Once again, it raises issues that have long dogged the    cryptosphere, chiefly those of influence and trust. There are    few other sectors where layoffs or a change at the top of a    company can have such an impact.  
    Such things are generally accepted as the natural ebb and flow    of the business world, and while there may be a momentary blip,    more often than not, things are back on track fairly soon    afterward.  
    Even in this instance, from the chart, it is apparent that    there were still sizeable inflows to Binance during the period.    The two incidents may be completely unrelated. With so many    factors involved, no one can say for sure.  
    Magazine:AI    has killed the industry: EasyTranslate boss on adapting to    change  
    Jim Graham, a cryptocurrency analyst at think tank PsyBold,    told Cointelegraph: While we cant attribute the shift in    funds wholly to last weeks announcement, we most certainly    cant reject it, either. There have been several key managerial    changes in the past few months, and virtually all of them have    been accompanied by a dip in holdings on the platform. Trust    remains a massive obstacle for crypto platforms, and its an    obstacle they are failing to overcome.  
    Money is a valuable commodity, and even the hint that it may be    in jeopardy is reason enough to react quickly and decisively.  
    As the saying goes, trust is earned, not given away, and the    recent negative events involving crypto platforms have done    little to raise that level of trust. Graham added:  
    So, how do the platforms get to that level of trust? Most    people would simply say, stop doing bad things. Once crypto    platforms act more like banks, people may trust them    more.  
    But this is much easier said than done. For one, most banks    have been around for years, some even hundreds of years. Trust    has an element of longevity to it, which people like. The    general feeling is if something or someone has acted    responsibly and transparently for a long time, there is more of    a chance that they will continue to do so.  
    Crypto platforms dont have that luxury, of course. Most can    only look back on a few years of existence; the only pledge    they can give is their word.  
    On top of that, there is the age-old discussion of regulation.    Licensed banks are regulated. That means an authority monitors    what they do and is there to step in if things go wrong.  
    The last thing such an authority or the bank wants is a bank    run, as this represents a complete breakdown in trust for all    concerned, with the consequences that go with that. Once that    has happened, it is tough to win that trust back, as witnessed    during the economic crisis of 2008.  
    In the unregulated world of crypto exchanges, there is    currently a stalemate. Some investors are in the middle,    clamoring for regulation, fearing for their investments. In    contrast, others are vehemently opposed, stating regulation is    the very thing cryptocurrency was created to avoid.  
    And on either side are the exchanges and the authorities, each    accusing the other of this and that in what seems like an    endless spiral, with neither ready to back down.Sandra    McAllister, an attorney specializing in tech litigation with    Clifford Chance, told Cointelegraph:  
    The power of social media is also a pressure on the market.    The bounce in the Ripple price we saw in July following the    court ruling on XRP underlines that perfectly. The decision was    anything but conclusive and, in reality, nothing more than a    step along the path, but it was blown up on social media as a    huge victory that drove up prices. We only have to see where    the Ripple price is today to see how much of a victory it    actually was, she said.  
    Recent:Stablecoin    exodus: Why are investors fleeing cryptos safe    haven?  
    Moving assets around between different exchanges or different    assets is nothing new or unusual, of course. In times of    economic downturn, funds tend to flow toward the safer    havens, such as bonds and gold, before reverting to more    profitable areas when things pick up.  
    Graham commented, While diversifying holdings and being ready    to react to ensure you are not unduly affected by negative    pressures is sound financial advice, the problem facing crypto    holders right now is which platform is safer than another. The    FTX demise showed us that too big to fail does not apply, so    what remains?  
Read more from the original source:
Binance exit aftershock: Can one resignation tip the crypto trust ... - Cointelegraph