Every now and then, we witness new coins arising. They usually run either on their own blockchain, or use other well-established ones to gain exposure, efficiency and use the already-in-use robust technology. Recently, a disgusting dilemma has come to light. A rise of a racist coin has surfaced on Twitter. It uses Binance Smart Chain (BSC), which is developed by Binance company. With Binance rising to fame due to its decentralized activities, this fast-growing company faces two very hard situations.
What’s going on with Binance?
Binance as a company is a cryptocurrency exchange that launched in 2017. They later introduced their own cryptocurrency Binance Coin, which is mainly to be used on the platform to pay fees, and trade on the Binance Exchange. Their coin used at the beginning Ethereum’s ERC-20 blockchain, but later switched to their own native blockchain, Binance Smart Chain.
Recently, word surfaced about a project that is built on racism, called slave.finance. This racist coin has black people as their mascot. Twitter was filled with angry people demanding the immediate removal of the project, and report their social media channels. They currently claim to have a market of USD 14,690 with a total locked value for APY earning of USD 45,161.
Should Binance Interfere?
In order to correctly assess if Binance should interfere, we need to throw that same old concept again, decentralization. If Binance would interfere and stop this project, Binance would be seen as a centralized company, interfering in its decentralized blockchain. Most cryptocurrency enthusiasts support blockchain’s real-life applications. Let’s take two potential solutions ahead:
- Binance interferes, blocks the project, but becomes tainted with centralization.
- Binance doesn’t interfere, and in turn becomes known as the holder of “dark cryptos”, pretty much like the dark web, which is illegal and in turn, brings more problems with countries across the world.
Reported and blocked. You wanna know how crypto dies? Shit like this.
Binance and Ripple similarities?
Ripple was always a controversial company in the crypto sphere. They have a centralized company with a board of directors, and a decentralized blockchain. Many investors flee centralization. For them, it goes directly against the core value of cryptocurrencies. On the other hand, believers in Ripple think that a balance between both is a better alternative.
Binance’s critiques might want the company to step in and block a racist project, but this would go against cryptocurrencies as a whole. This is not the first controversy for Binance, as they are currently in the midst of a heated critique regarding manipulation in transaction volumes.
What’s the solution?
It’s quite simple: stop making stupid people famous. Cryptocurrency projects kickoff and get media attention when it’s given to them. Supply and demand is the main driver for cryptos. Stopping the demand for such a racist coin will end them. The people behind this project will probably stop the madness, when there’s no attention given to them anymore. Heck, it might be the only reason why they started this project in the first place.
Asking Binance to intervene in bad projects is like asking Bitcoin miners not to transact money laundering activities…It’s impossible. Intervention in decentralized projects shouldn’t be an option. Maybe we’ll witness decentralized projects, that offer such centralized intervention in the future.
Stay Ahead, Stay Updated
Rudy Fares
