TL;DR
- CZ defended Binance on X after claims it lists random and rug-pull projects, saying a listing is access, not endorsement.
- He said buy and hold may work but not for every token, and that exchanges filter listings yet still miss, so investors must DYOR.
- A critic asked for Nasdaq-like standards and transparency; CZ replied no one can predict winners, citing 1990s startups and saying users should not buy everything listed.
Changpeng “CZ” Zhao’s latest clash with critics is less about one token and more about governance expectations for a top venue. CZ is effectively telling traders that a listing is access, not an endorsement. In an X thread, he responded after a user suggested Binance lists random projects and rug pulls. The exchange debate spun out of Zhao’s earlier comments on strategy, where he said buy and hold is the most dependable approach he has seen over the years. He added it was not financial advice, but the post traveled fast online and drew fresh FUD.
4. Have seen some twisted FUD on this "buy and hold" tweet. It obviously does not apply to every coin.
If you "buy and hold" all crypto ever created, you know how your portfolio will perform. Same as if you bought every internet or AI projects/companies… 🤷♂️
In any industry,… https://t.co/ipXIOCLH6m
— CZ 🔶 BNB (@cz_binance) January 27, 2026
DYOR becomes the operating model for listings
Days later, Zhao clarified the nuance behind his own mantra. He acknowledged that buy and hold cannot apply to every token, because any project can fail and most do. He said the handful that survive can grow exponentially, which is why the method works for some participants over time. He then narrowed the responsibility model: exchanges try to filter what they list, yet their logic is not infallible and they will miss sometimes. That gap, he argued, is exactly why investors still need to do their own research before allocating capital, even on major exchanges.
The pushback that triggered the listing angle came from an X user named UnicornBitcoin. The critique was that Binance should prioritize coins users can confidently hold, not assets that feel like roulette after launch. The user pointed to Nasdaq’s listing standards and urged Binance to publish clearer criteria rather than operating as a black box. The argument was reputational as well as operational: when a platform is the market leader, its screening process becomes part of the risk signal. In that framing, higher standards would strengthen trust and materially reduce surprise blowups for retail participants.
Zhao countered with a markets analogy aimed at expectation management. His point was that no one can forecast a project’s future development, so perfect listing outcomes are impossible by design. He asked how many companies would have made the cut if Nasdaq had applied logic starting in 1990, noting that thousands of internet startups failed while a few became giants. Exchanges, he said, should still give opportunities to hardworking teams, but users should not buy every project listed. For those who dislike his views, he suggested unfollowing him, out of sight and out of mind.
