Binance Denies Pardon Talks Amid Coinbase Market Share Fears

On July 11, an article was published alleging that Binance had developed a technology framework for the stablecoin USD1, issued by World Liberty Financial (WLFI). According to anonymous sources, this move was part of an effort by Binance founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ) to seek a pardon from the U.S. President. The sources claimed that such a pardon could allow Zhao to return to a leadership role at the exchange.

Crypto expert Matt Wallace asserted that Coinbase was the anonymous source for the report. Wallace’s claim was later amplified when his tweet was reposted by the founder of Binance. Wallace wrote, “Binance is the world’s #1 crypto exchange. A return to the U.S. would immediately cut into Coinbase’s market share and do severe damage to their bottom line.”

Coinbase’s general counsel, Paul Grewal, responded to these allegations and called Wallace’s claims “misinformation.” Grewal stated, “We had nothing to do with that article. We do not attack competitors and welcome any companies that share our goal of developing the crypto market.”

In March, articles were published claiming that Zhao was seeking a pardon amid discussions of business deals with the Trump family. Zhao refuted these reports. On July 11, he published a post calling the article “commissioned” and announced that he would be taking the matter to court.

Following the publication of the article, Binance’s legal team released a statement denying any involvement with World Liberty Financial beyond standard business relations, and emphasized that no discussions regarding a presidential pardon had taken place. Meanwhile, Coinbase’s stock price experienced minor fluctuations amid the controversy, reflecting heightened market sensitivity to inter-exchange disputes.

This incident highlights the intense competition and strategic maneuvers within the cryptocurrency exchange market. The allegations and counter-allegations between Coinbase and Binance underscore the high stakes involved in maintaining market dominance and regulatory compliance. The situation also raises questions about the role of anonymous sources in shaping public perception and the potential impact on the broader cryptocurrency ecosystem.