This is the second part that I couldn't post previously.
Although the earlier emails of Binance gave me a feeling that they were very cooperative and gave Reuters clear answers (Not entirely sure though as the article quoted only the beginning of each question.), they didn't answer too much in the email later when data were in question. It looked like they were asking Reuters to provide data and they would decide how to reply basing on what Reuters already knew. They didn't even give aggregate data and dodged quite some questions. I won't say that it is unreasonable just for that, but it doesn't look really very transparent either. It wasn't too helpful if they meant to prove Reuters wrong.
Binance said that Reuters conflated direct and indirect exposure. But they also seemed to conflate their past and current policies when answering Reuters questions.
The forementioned example:
Although Binance denied the implementation of the Tai-Chi entity, Reuters had to be insane to have made up all the details and wrote more then ten paragraphs about it. Since it's so long I will not fully quote Reuters here. Please check the 17 Oct 2022 article by Reuters.
The denial by Binance:
"The Tai Chi Powerpoint
This is an old story that I thought we had clarified but it seems Reuters doesn’t want to accept the facts. This is the tale of the so-called “tai chi powerpoint,” which was submitted by an external consultant as a suggestion on how to set-up a business in the US. Let me state clearly once again for the record: it was never implemented. I personally rejected it. The entire powerpoint is only seven slides long, lacks any actionable direction, and looks like a 5th grader put it together. The proposal was rejected after a presentation and a follow-up round of inquiries. Eventually, Binance.US was set up based on advice from leading US law firms. Today, Binance.US is licensed to operate across the United States, and operates independently from Binance.com."
It is kinda weak for denying Reuters multi-paragraph details.
And here is what I can add.
Tai-Chi is actually quite often referenced in Chinese-speaking workplaces, or at least it was the case where I lived. Like Reuters metioned, it is "a martial art with defensive virtues", and indeed that's what it is refereneced for.
When we say "耍太極" (perform Tai-Chi) in workplaces, we are probably talking about preventing somebodies from getting what they want, for example, leading them astray from holding somebodies else (most likely the performers) responsible for something. Much like the circular Tai-Chi motions that lead attacks to miss or be wasted instead of blocking squarely.
The verb "耍" also has another meaning related to tricking, either way it makes much sense in this case:
'(Harry) Zhou’s presentation explained the burdens of the main exchange being regulated: “active outreach to regulators can result in lengthy inquiries and requests for excessive disclosures; settlement costs can be substantial.” But the Tai Chi structure would “insulate Binance from legacy and future liabilities” and “retard and resolve built-up enforcement tensions.” The Tai Chi entity – and not Binance itself – would become “the target” of U.S. authorities.'
Again it would be very crazy for Reuters to make up the story.
Lastly, something else, but related to crypto.
