Key Notes
- Star Xu criticized CZ’s bank-security comparison and emphasis on limited Binance outflows.
- CZ described the outflow figure as an early snapshot that was smaller than he had expected.
- Both executives called for industry cooperation to strengthen security.
OKX founder and CEO Star Xu criticized Changpeng Zhao’s public response to the $6.3 billion Binance hack, arguing that comparisons with banks and limited customer outflows do not answer questions about the exchange’s security failures.
In a November 4 post on X, Xu accused the Binance founder, known as CZ, of downplaying responsibility in a recent interview. He called for greater accountability and security investment, while saying he remained willing to cooperate with competitors to protect the industry.
Why Xu Rejected the Bank Comparison
Xu’s post shared a clip of CZ arguing that banks could be in a worse position than crypto exchanges when confronting hackers. Xu described that comparison as misleading, saying the institutions face different threats, technical vulnerabilities and consequences when an attack succeeds.
In the full CoinDesk interview, CZ presented his assessment as an opinion. He argued that exchanges had faced strong incentives to harden their defenses because their assets offered hackers unusually large rewards. He said banks and other financial institutions would also need to address increasingly capable attackers.
Xu disputed the value of that argument during Binance’s crisis. His criticism focused on what he saw as an attempt to redirect attention toward other institutions instead of demonstrating how Binance would prevent another breach.
The Dispute Over Customer Outflows
Xu also challenged CZ’s emphasis on roughly 2% of funds leaving Binance, arguing that a modest withdrawal figure could not resolve concerns about asset protection. He criticized continued marketing during the crisis and CZ’s public dispute with Elon Musk over SpaceX shares.
CZ’s interview put the outflow figure in the context of his expectations immediately after the attack. He said he had anticipated withdrawals of 10%, 20% or even 30%, and viewed the smaller reported movement as evidence of customer confidence. That discussion concerned an early snapshot; it was not a measurement of cumulative outflows through November 4.
The distinction matters for customers evaluating the response. Withdrawal behavior can indicate how people are reacting, while the security investigation addresses how attackers gained the ability to move assets and what controls failed.
Both Point to Industry Cooperation
Binance’s technical account describes a campaign involving malicious software, a fake job interview and compromised employee devices before attackers reached wallet infrastructure. Those findings are the exchange’s account of its investigation.
CZ has said he no longer manages Binance. In his interviews, he credited stablecoin issuers and investigators for helping freeze assets and discussed a possible security alliance among crypto companies. The idea remains a discussion rather than an announced organization.
Xu likewise called for cooperation, stronger standards and more effective protection of user assets. His willingness to work with a rival accompanied a sharp disagreement over leadership: he argued that rebuilding trust required practical security work and clear responsibility for the failure.
Disclaimer: CoinScreamer is an independent media brand owned and operated by NuvexMedia LLC, publishing news, research, and market insights on digital assets and related technologies. NuvexMedia LLC invests in and collaborates with companies across the digital asset, blockchain, and technology sectors. These relationships do not influence CoinScreamer’s editorial coverage, and the publication maintains full editorial independence to provide accurate, timely, and objective information. © 2025 NuvexMedia LLC. All rights reserved. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal, tax, investment, financial, or other professional advice.
