[Introduction]
Yesterday, TechFlow Deep Tide published a long article about Binance/CZ.
The data is not bad: 178,000 views.
But the comments section exploded: 128 comments, almost uniformly questioning.
"How much did you take?"
The first sentence is washing.
"Crypto media is all licking the exchanges."
This is not media vs users.
This is collective anxiety in a bear market with no outlet.
[1. After 28 billion evaporated, what are people really angry about?]
The 1·11 incident goes like this:
◆ System malfunction led to large-scale liquidations
◆ Approximately 28 billion dollars in market value evaporated in 24 hours
◆ After the fact, it was found that the rules were quietly modified beforehand
◆ K-line data shows abnormal fluctuations
The problem is not 'the market is bad'.
Instead: money is gone, but no one is responsible.
[II. The most dangerous blame-shifting phrases]
"The market needs a bad guy to vent emotions."
It sounds rational, but it actually shifts responsibility from 'mechanism' to 'emotion'.
Retail investors have never wanted bad people.
Retail investors want an explanation:
Why can rules be changed temporarily?
Who will cover the system failure?
Is there a mechanism for huge losses?
These questions have almost never been answered directly.
[III. Can CZ really cut ties?]
If it truly doesn't matter, then why:
◆ Is platform marketing still borrowing CZ's influence?
◆ The community's first reaction is 'don't criticize CZ'?
◆ After the incident, why are the most influential people silent?
In one sentence: if you want the benefits of endorsement, you must also bear the costs of endorsement.
[IV. The media's awkwardness: not taking sides, but losing their voice]
The most heart-wrenching comment in the discussion area:
"A historic event, yet a true in-depth investigation could not be written."
The industry reality is: most media income comes from project parties and exchanges.
When you rely on the reported parties for your livelihood, neutrality becomes very expensive.
[V. Why do bear markets always involve mutual tearing?]
The real enemies are: market crashes and account shrinkage.
But it is too abstract and cannot hit the target.
So people can only attack specific targets: CZ, media, KOLs, and even each other.
This is not stupidity, but the instinct to seek order amid chaos.
[VI. The three questions that should really be asked]
Inherent systemic risks of centralized exchanges, who will cover it?
Why is the retail investor protection mechanism always remedial?
When exchanges, media, and KOLs have their interests intertwined, who pays for the truth?
[VII. Four ways for retail investors to save themselves]
◆ Don't go All in on a single platform
◆ Don't let CEX funds exceed 30% of total assets
◆ Long-term assets should use cold wallets
◆ Listen less to narratives and pay more attention to mechanisms
[Conclusion]
After each crisis, we will:
Scold a bad guy, the emotions are released, and then the system changes nothing.
Next time, change the batch of victims.
The real lie is not 'who is the bad guy'.
Instead, "after scolding the bad guys, everything is over."
[Interactive Voting]
Who do you think bears the main responsibility for the 1·11 incident?
A. CZ (even if he is no longer the CEO)
B. Current management team of Binance
C. The entire centralized exchange system
D. Everyone (including ourselves)
State your reasons in the comments. The most liked opinion, I will analyze separately.
Statement: This article does not constitute investment advice, only personal opinions and public discussion.
