Attributing the October 11 crash entirely to Binance is a stretch, but Binance certainly bears some responsibility. The version I've heard is that a delay occurred that night between Binance's internal Cefu (Binance's own institutional custodian wallet) and the main wallet, causing a short-term "insufficient available balance," triggering a chain reaction in a high-leverage environment. This type of problem wouldn't occur with OKX or Bybit because their custody and settlement are handled by multiple entities and through multiple paths; Binance, on the other hand, has long opted for a highly internalized system, boasting extremely high efficiency and execution, but single-point frictions are more easily amplified systemically under extreme market conditions. This is a neutral description, because ultimately, the full competition of the free market can only prove the exceptional combat effectiveness and execution capabilities of Binance employees, given their liquidity advantages. However, this also explains why, apart from those who benefited from the losses, few institutions stood up to support this closed system. PS: I have a vested interest. My only profitable investment in gold stablecoins in the last three months was stopped out at 3000. Also, I strongly dislike Binance Junior's misleading ideas for young people.
