BitcoinWorld OKX Founder Blames Binance for Devastating October 10 Crypto Crash, Exposing Systemic Flaws In a stunning public accusation that has sent shockwaves through the digital asset industry, OKX founder Xu Mingxing has directly blamed rival exchange Binance for the severe cryptocurrency market crash on October 10, 2024. The allegation, made from Singapore on March 15, 2025, centers on what Xu describes as irresponsible financial engineering that amplified systemic risk, leading to tens of billions in forced liquidations. This claim opens a critical debate about leverage, stablecoin innovation, and the fundamental microstructure of crypto markets. OKX Founder Accuses Binance of Triggering Market Collapse Xu Mingxing’s critique focuses on a specific product integration by Binance that he argues acted as a dangerous accelerant during a period of market stress. According to his detailed post on the social media platform X, Binance offered an unusually high annual percentage yield (APY) of 12% for deposits of USDe, a synthetic dollar protocol. Furthermore, and more critically, the exchange accepted USDe as collateral for loans at a loan-to-value (LTV) ratio equivalent to established stablecoins like USDT and USDC. Financial analysts note this created a powerful, and potentially perilous, incentive loop. Users could deposit stablecoins, convert them to USDe to earn high yield, and then use that same USDe as collateral to borrow more stablecoins. This process, known as recursive leveraging, can exponentially increase both potential returns and systemic risk. When the underlying collateral’s value becomes unstable, the entire leveraged structure can unravel catastrophically. The Mechanics of the October 10 Liquidation Cascade The October 10 event was not a simple price correction but a complex liquidation cascade exacerbated by derivative market mechanics. Market data from that day shows a sharp increase in volatility, particularly affecting assets used as collateral in decentralized finance (DeFi) and centralized lending protocols. Xu contends that USDe, which he characterizes as being more akin to a “tokenized hedge fund” product than a pure stablecoin, experienced a de-peg from its intended $1.00 value during this volatility. This de-peg triggered automatic margin calls and liquidations for positions where USDe was used as collateral. Because many users had employed the recursive strategy, a single de-peg event forced the sale of multiple asset layers. Consequently, these forced sales created downward price pressure on other crypto assets, leading to further liquidations in a self-reinforcing spiral. The table below outlines the key sequence of events as described by industry observers: Phase Event Market Impact 1. Incentive High yield on USDe deposits & par collateral treatment Drives massive adoption of recursive leverage strategies 2. Shock Market volatility causes USDe to de-peg from $1.00 Collateral value for leveraged positions falls below maintenance margin 3. Cascade Automatic liquidations of under-collateralized positions begin Forced selling creates broad market sell pressure 4. Contagion Liquidations spread to other assets and lending platforms Results in tens of billions in lost value across the ecosystem This episode highlights the fragile interdependence within crypto financial systems. A problem in one niche product can rapidly transmit risk to the broader market. Expert Analysis on Stablecoin Design and Systemic Risk Xu Mingxing’s central argument hinges on the fundamental nature of USDe. Unlike centralized stablecoins (USDT, USDC) backed by cash and cash equivalents, or decentralized algorithmic stablecoins, USDe employs a delta-neutral hedging strategy. It uses staked Ethereum (stETH) as backing and shorts Ethereum futures to maintain its peg. While innovative, this model carries inherent risks: Funding Rate Risk: The strategy can become unprofitable if futures funding rates turn negative for extended periods. Liquidity Risk: During market stress, executing the necessary hedges may become difficult or costly. Complexity Risk: The product’s mechanics are less transparent to the average user than a simple fiat-backed stablecoin. Several independent researchers, including those from the Basel-based Bank for International Settlements (BIS), have previously warned about the systemic risks posed by complex crypto-assets being used as money-like instruments. Treating such an asset as risk-free collateral for loans, they argue, is a fundamental mispricing of risk that can lead to instability. Xu’s accusation aligns with this established financial principle, applying it to a specific real-world event. Broader Context and the Aftermath of the Crash The October 10 crash occurred during a period of regulatory scrutiny and shifting monetary policy. It served as a stark reminder of the cryptocurrency market’s vulnerability to leverage-induced shocks, echoing previous events like the Luna/Terra collapse in 2022. In the months following the crash, aggregate market leverage did decrease, and some exchanges revised their collateral policies for certain synthetic assets. Xu Mingxing also made a pointed prediction in his statement, anticipating a wave of “false information and organized FUD” targeting OKX in retaliation for his criticism. This comment reflects the intensely competitive and often contentious nature of the crypto exchange landscape. However, he maintained that calling out observable systemic risks is a necessary duty for industry leaders, regardless of commercial rivalry. The incident has spurred renewed discussions among policymakers about: Appropriate risk disclosures for complex crypto products. Standardized collateral frameworks across exchanges. The need for more robust stress-testing mechanisms in DeFi and CeFi. Conclusion The allegation by OKX founder Xu Mingxing that Binance bears responsibility for the October 10 crypto crash underscores a pivotal moment for the digital asset industry. It moves the conversation beyond simple price movements to a technical examination of how product design, incentive structures, and risk management can combine to create systemic fragility. Whether one agrees with the specific assignment of blame, the event has undeniably highlighted critical vulnerabilities in the market’s microstructure. As the industry matures, integrating lessons from this October 10 crypto crash will be essential for building a more resilient financial ecosystem that can support sustainable growth and innovation. FAQs Q1: What exactly is USDe and how is it different from USDT or USDC? USDe is a synthetic dollar protocol that uses a delta-neutral hedging strategy with staked Ethereum and futures contracts to maintain its peg. Unlike USDT or USDC, which are backed by traditional financial assets, USDe’s stability relies on the continuous execution of a complex financial strategy, introducing different risk profiles. Q2: Why would accepting USDe as collateral cause a market crash? Accepting it as high-quality collateral encouraged users to engage in “recursive leveraging.” They could repeatedly use it as loan collateral to borrow more, building a highly leveraged tower of debt. When USDe de-pegged, it triggered mass liquidations of these over-leveraged positions all at once, causing a fire sale of assets. Q3: Has Binance publicly responded to these allegations from the OKX founder? As of the latest updates in March 2025, Binance has not issued a formal, detailed public response specifically addressing Xu Mingxing’s claims regarding the October 10 event. The exchange typically focuses on its current risk management frameworks. Q4: What is “recursive leveraging” in cryptocurrency? Recursive leveraging is a process where a user uses an asset as collateral to borrow more of that same asset (or a similar one), then re-uses the borrowed amount as collateral again to borrow even more. This can exponentially increase exposure and potential gains, but also multiplies the risk of liquidation if the asset’s value falls. Q5: What broader lesson should the crypto industry learn from the October 10 crash? The primary lesson is that innovative financial products require proportional risk management. Treating complex, strategy-dependent assets with the same risk weight as simple, asset-backed instruments can create hidden systemic risks that amplify during market stress, leading to cascading failures. This post OKX Founder Blames Binance for Devastating October 10 Crypto Crash, Exposing Systemic Flaws first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

Ripple-powered payments are moving real U.S. dollars today, as a crypto brokerage activates live infrastructure that cuts bank transfer friction and puts XRP utility into daily financial operations, signaling tangible momentum beyond speculation. Ripple Payments Go Live, Bringing Faster Fiat Movement The cryptocurrency brokerage Caleb & Brown has rolled out Ripple payments on its platform

Bitcoin options flashed extreme fear signals as the spot BTC ETF outflows rose, and the odds for a drop below $80,000 increased. Will dip buyers step in to save the day?

The U.S. government is likely to shut down Saturday morning until the House votes on a funding package, raising the importance of specificity in prediction market bets.

BitcoinWorld UNI Whale’s Calculated Exit: Long-Term Holder Sells $10.6M Position for Steady 19% Gain In a significant on-chain event that underscores the patience of early cryptocurrency adopters, a long-term UNI whale has completely exited a position held since the token’s launch, securing a multimillion-dollar profit. According to data from on-chain analyst EmberCN, this anonymous investor sold their entire Uniswap (UNI) holdings for $10.62 million earlier today. Consequently, this transaction concludes a five-year holding period with a gain of approximately $1.72 million, representing a 19% return. This move follows the whale’s recent sale of a separate, massively profitable Ethereum position, prompting deep analysis of veteran investor behavior in the evolving digital asset landscape. Analyzing the UNI Whale’s Five-Year Journey The investor reportedly acquired the UNI tokens in 2020, coinciding with the decentralized exchange’s governance token launch. Holding an asset through multiple market cycles, including the 2021 bull run and the subsequent 2022 crypto winter, demonstrates a commitment to long-term strategy. Furthermore, the 19% gain, while substantial in absolute dollar terms, reflects a more conservative return compared to other crypto assets. For context, the S&P 500 index delivered a total return of roughly 85% over the same five-year period. This comparison highlights the varied performance within crypto portfolios, where some assets like Ethereum can generate exponential returns while others appreciate more modestly. On-chain analytics provide transparency for such transactions. Analysts track wallet addresses to understand flow patterns. The sale was executed in a single, identifiable transaction, allowing market observers to confirm the details. This level of visibility is a hallmark of blockchain technology, enabling a data-driven approach to market analysis. Importantly, the whale’s activity does not occur in a vacuum. It provides a real-world case study on the exit strategies of early project supporters. The Broader Context of a Dual Asset Exit This UNI sale is particularly notable because it is part of a larger portfolio rebalancing act. The same entity recently sold 101,000 ETH, which was also acquired around 2020. That transaction yielded a staggering profit of about $269 million, equating to a return of over 400%. The contrast between the two exits is stark and informative. Comparative Analysis of Whale’s Dual Exits Asset Holding Period Sale Value Profit Return Percentage Ethereum (ETH) ~5 years ~$337M* ~$269M >400% Uniswap (UNI) ~5 years $10.62M $1.72M 19% *Estimated based on profit and return data. This dual exit strategy suggests several possible motivations for the investor: Portfolio Reallocation: Shifting capital from established holdings into new opportunities or different asset classes. Risk Management: Taking profits after a long holding period to secure gains and reduce exposure. Market Sentiment: Acting on a specific outlook for the future of DeFi governance tokens versus base-layer assets like Ethereum. Expert Perspective on Long-Term Holder Behavior Market analysts often scrutinize whale movements for signals. However, experts like those at blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis frequently caution against over-interpreting single transactions. A sale by one entity, even a large one, does not inherently predict a market top or signal a lack of faith in the asset. Instead, it may reflect personal financial strategy, tax considerations, or portfolio diversification. The key insight from EmberCN’s report is not the sale itself, but the data point it adds to the history of crypto investment. It showcases a real example of an early adopter executing a planned exit, providing a neutral benchmark for comparing asset performance within a diversified crypto portfolio over a half-decade. Potential Impact on the Uniswap Ecosystem and Market The immediate market impact of a $10.6 million UNI sale is typically minimal given the token’s multi-billion dollar market capitalization. The trade likely caused negligible price slippage. Nevertheless, the psychological impact can be more nuanced. Observers may question why a long-term holder chose to exit entirely rather than sell a portion. This can lead to discussions about the value proposition of governance tokens like UNI, which provide voting rights in the Uniswap decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). Simultaneously, the transaction underscores the liquidity and maturity of the DeFi market. A whale can exit a position of this size efficiently. This liquidity is a critical component for institutional adoption. The event also serves as a reminder of the foundational principle of “skin in the game.” Early supporters who receive tokens often become long-term stakeholders. Their eventual exit is a normal part of an asset’s lifecycle, not necessarily a negative indicator. Conclusion The sale of a $10.6 million UNI position by a long-term whale, resulting in a 19% gain, offers a compelling narrative about patience, strategy, and diversification in cryptocurrency investing. When viewed alongside the same investor’s monumental profit from Ethereum, it paints a picture of a calculated portfolio rebalancing rather than a flight from crypto. This event provides valuable, neutral data for understanding the real-world returns and behaviors of early blockchain participants. Ultimately, the UNI whale’s exit is a single transaction in a vast market, but it enriches our collective understanding of long-term holding patterns and profit-taking strategies in the digital asset era. FAQs Q1: What is a “crypto whale”? A crypto whale is an individual or entity that holds a sufficiently large amount of a cryptocurrency that their trading activity can potentially influence the market price. Q2: How do analysts know this was a long-term holder? On-chain analysts like EmberCN can trace the origin of tokens in a wallet. They identified that this wallet received the UNI tokens at their initial distribution in 2020 and had not moved them until the recent sale. Q3: Is a 19% return over five years considered good for crypto? It depends on the benchmark. While some crypto investments have yielded far higher returns, a 19% gain represents a successful, risk-managed exit that secured a profit. It notably underperformed the return on the same investor’s Ethereum holdings. Q4: Does this large sale mean the price of UNI will drop? Not necessarily. A single $10.6 million sale is small relative to UNI’s daily trading volume, which often exceeds $100 million. The market typically absorbs such trades without a major price impact. Q5: Why would someone sell all of their tokens instead of just a part? An investor might sell an entire position for definitive portfolio rebalancing, to realize a specific gain for tax purposes, or because their investment thesis for that specific asset has fully played out, prompting a complete exit. This post UNI Whale’s Calculated Exit: Long-Term Holder Sells $10.6M Position for Steady 19% Gain first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

According to reports, Vitalik Buterin has pulled 16,384 ETH from his reserves and plans to spend it on privacy and truly open technology. That move is paired with a call for five years of thrift at the Ethereum Foundation so the foundation can keep building core software while staying healthy for the long run. Related Reading: Gold, Silver Steal The Spotlight As Crypto Hype Fades On Social Media: Santiment A New Focus On Privacy And Openness Reports say the funds, worth about $45 million, will back a broad list of projects: open silicon, secure hardware, private messaging, local-first operating systems, and tools that mix zero-knowledge proofs with other privacy tools like FHE and differential privacy. He has already put money toward encrypted messaging and air quality work, and some new efforts aim to make secure hardware more affordable and verifiable. The plan covers both pieces of tech and the systems people run on them. Simple apps for daily life are included, not just fancy research. In these five years, the Ethereum Foundation is entering a period of mild austerity, in order to be able to simultaneously meet two goals: 1. Deliver on an aggressive roadmap that ensures Ethereum’s status as a performant and scalable world computer that does not compromise on… — vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) January 30, 2026 Personal Money For Public Good Buterin is taking on what might once have been “special projects” of the foundation. He withdrew the ETH personally, and reports note he is looking at secure, decentralized staking to route future staking rewards into these efforts. That shifts some financial risk from institutions to an individual who wants those projects to survive even when they are slow or controversial. Some of the initiatives are unlikely to attract fast capital. That is why personal backing matters. A Stronger Core, Not Bigger Hype The Foundation is said to be entering a phase of mild austerity so it can meet two clear goals at once: finish an aggressive technical roadmap and remain alive and independent into the far future. The technical aim is to keep Ethereum fast and scalable without losing decentralization or security. At the same time, the team wants to protect users’ ability to control their keys, their data, and their privacy. Reports note that “Ethereum for people who need it” is the guiding line, rather than chasing large corporate deals that transform how people use the chain. Related Reading: Bitcoin’s Slide To $82K Sets Off A $1.7 Billion Chain Reaction Featured image from Unsplash, chart from TradingView