Connect with us


Binance’s Billions are Backed, but You’re Probably Asking the Wrong Question



Binance’s Billions are Backed, but You’re Probably Asking the Wrong Question

The crypto industry is obsessed with figuring out if digital assets are actually backed by anything, but they should be careful what they wish for, they might actually find out.

Inthe wake of FTX’s spectacular collapse, amidst a hailstorm of fraud and mismanagement allegations, focus was naturally switched to the world’s largest surviving cryptocurrency exchange that was still standing—

Over the course of several days, a whopping US$6.4 billion worth of cryptocurrencies and stablecoins were withdrawn from, more or less seamlessly, save for hiccups with respect to the stablecoin USDC, but otherwise, with little issue.’s ability to satisfy any withdrawals out of its exchange helped to assuage concerns over its solvency and that depositor assets were fully backed, leading to net inflows to the exchange in recent days.

But are investors and traders asking the right questions?

Backed Against the Wall

Since the first Tether (a dollar-denominated stablecoin) was minted, questions have been raised ever since about the true circumstances backing a stablecoin or cryptocurrency.

For an industry founded on the decentralized ethos of Bitcoin, that obsession with backing has always been somewhat peculiar — if the value of a cryptocurrency is its consensus mechanism (a shared agreement that the token is of value), then why this fixation with whether or not a token is backed?

The main issue of course is that consensus isn’t a static construct and it manifests itself through the price mechanism.

Price equilibrium is a reflection of consensus, albeit an imperfect one, and as any trader will attest, a fleeting circumstance.

As such, stablecoins such as Tether, were born of that desire to achieve some form of equilibrium within the cryptocurrency markets, a brief respite in a vast ocean of volatility, and with it, the desire to make sure that equilibrium was more actual than perceived.

But They Seem Legit

As evidenced by the experience with FTX, cryptocurrency traders have long run the gauntlet of centralized exchanges, judging them more on marketing and the personalities who led them, instead of demanding full audits and greater transparency.

The absence of a global regulatory framework to govern cryptocurrency exchanges hasn’t helped transparency or investor protection either, with the world’s biggest exchanges regularly plying the unsavory trade of regulatory arbitrage with impunity.

And that brings us to, an exchange which in the aftermath of the FTX collapse could possibly have come out to set industry best practices, but instead has raised more questions than were even asked.

It would be naïve to associate centralized cryptocurrency exchanges with a strong desire to be regulated.

Outside of perhaps the listed U.S. cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase and its competitor Gemini, the world’s biggest exchanges have often chosen to domicile themselves in jurisdictions with “light touch” regulation, to manage their affairs away from the prying eyes of perhaps more zealous regulators in global financial centers.

But the long arm of the law reaches out to even the most far flung locales, which is why both FTX and had localized, sanitized versions in major jurisdictions, which have long been suspected of serving as red herrings to throw regulators off the scent of what was really going on behind the scenes.

As recently as October 2022, Reuters uncovered proof that incorporated its U.S. entity to serve as a decoy for regulators to chew at, a strategy that the cryptocurrency exchange is believed to have long employed to always stay one step ahead of regulators.

And while entities such as Binance.US and Binance France remain highly visible, few even know where the exchange that matters — is actually domiciled (most likely the Cayman Islands).

Transparency for Thee But Not For Me is privately held, and so it is under no obligation to disclose even the most basic financial information, not its revenue, profit, cash reserves, or balance sheet.

While, just like FTX, issues its own token, BNB, it doesn’t reveal what role BNB plays on its balance sheet. also lends customers money against their cryptocurrencies, allowing them to take ludicrous amounts of leverage (up to 125 times) and trade on margin, but without revealing how big those bets are, how exposed the exchange is to that risk nor its ability to finance withdrawals.

Because hasn’t had to raise outside funding since 2018, it also hasn’t had to share financial information by way of pitch decks to venture capitalists either.

As black boxes go,’s appears to be hermetically sealed and attempts to at least have some semblance of external validation are meeting stiff resistance.

In recent days, accounting firm Mazars indicated that they would be temporarily halting work for cryptocurrency clients globally, including for, which was a client.

Having the accountant quit on just as investigators from the U.S. Department of Justice are circling is not a good look, and the timing could not be more inconvenient.

Yet even if Mazars hadn’t quit on, it’s less clear what the value that work (if any) was.

Mazars had been tasked with examining just the Bitcoin holdings of as they existed at the end of one day in November and in a December 7 report, the accounting firm reported that just’s Bitcoin holdings alone exceeded its customer Bitcoin liabilities.

Although claimed the report to be an audit, Mazars clarified that it was an “agreed-upon procedures engagement” and was “not an assurance engagement.”

But audits in and of themselves are not silver bullets.

Even when auditors have been called in to inspect the books in other cases, that hasn’t stopped grifters from grifting.

Take Arif Naqvi’s Dubai-based private equity firm The Abraaj Group for instance, which collapsed under an avalanche of fraud and misuse of funds and which had one of its funds audited by “Big Four” accounting firm KPMG.

At the time, Naqvi moved money around various funds under control of The Abraaj Group so that when auditors at KPMG inspected the bank accounts of the fund in question, it appeared that the monies were present, only to be spirited away the very next day.

Such is the limitation of asset “snapshots” which do little other than to quell any momentary queasiness as to the solvency or integrity of a firm’s balance sheets.

Short of a full scale audit of, few outside of Changpeng Zhao or CZ as he is better known, and several other members of his inner circle, are likely to have a holistic view of what is under the hood of a cryptocurrency exchange that is said to do trillions in trading volume annually.

It also doesn’t help that recently Mazars took down the webpage containing its report on’s Bitcoin reserves “due to concerns regarding the way these reports are understood by the public.”

But whether has all of the reserves it says it has, isn’t necessarily the biggest issue for investors, but what the quality of those reserves actually is.

And that analysis requires investigation of a little-known stablecoin — TUSD.

Minor Stablecoins — What the deuce?

If you’ve never heard of TrueUSD or TUSD, that’s probably because you’ve not needed it.

Created in 2018, TUSD is a dollar-backed stablecoin issued by TrustToken, but with an interesting feature — the name on the bank account that TUSD could be redeemed to would also need to be the same name held with your TrustToken account.

And for convenience, the good people at TrustToken made sure that the Ethereum wallet addresses used at TrustToken were extremely simple to recall with plenty of 0s.

But which were the banks that were allowing the receipt of TUSD proceeds into their accounts?

Because most banks would close bank accounts linked to large cryptocurrency transactions, it was only a select clutch of banks that were willing to process TUSD redemptions.

And who redeemed that TUSD will raise no shortage of eyebrows as revealed by the excellent research from DataFinnovation.


Over 70% of all TUSD redemptions were conducted by just 4 parties, with Alameda Research making the bulk of those redemptions at US$4.4 billion.

In the early days, Genesis Block, a Hong Kong-based company, facilitated millions and possibly billions of dollars worth of cash-for-crypto transactions, with lines running around the corner and the store closing on occasion having run out of coins to sell.

Independent research by Mike Burgersburg suggests that Genesis Block was essentially a front for Alameda Research, with the “hedge fund” then funneling transfers to its wallets out to a whole range of targets — not how a hedge fund wallet would typically be expected to behave.


Further research by DataFinnovation also revealed that the TUSD minted on was eventually funneled into USDT and redeemed via FTX into USD.

Which is where the connection between Binance, FTX, Alameda Research and Genesis Block converges — the group appeared to be actively involved in these transactions and sharing the same bank accounts to boot (recall that the redemption address ownership for TUSD had to match the bank account ownership).

Given that TUSD appears to have no real use case outside of these transfers from cash to cryptocurrencies for getting dollars back into the banking system, not much imagination is needed to figure out the “true” purpose of these transactions (pun intended).

But where that TUSD ends up is perhaps even more interesting — through a clutch of banks that were willing to off ramp TUSD transactions.

The availability of these banking relationships allowed FTX and to facilitate transfers from cash-to-crypto and back into the banking system, a strategy that worked well for the two exchanges.

Unlike FTX though, went about its business quietly, and when its U.S. entity was fined US$241,000 by State of Ohio for US$138 million in illegal transfers, proceeded to apply for a money transmission license the very same day.


By September 28, 2020, went ahead to apply for a money transmitter license, with evidence that BAM Trading Services Inc., a entity, had been engaged in transactions from as early as 2019, with such transactions denominated solely in cryptocurrencies.

Be Careful What You Wish For

The collapse of FTX is only the tip of the iceberg and even though may have accelerated the destruction of its rival cryptocurrency exchange through its purported sale of FTT tokens, the investigation of FTX will no doubt uncover just how close the two rivals once were.

And that may be where things become altogether too interesting for

From as early as 2018 and as reported by Reuters, the U.S. Department of Justice had been investigating for evading and contravening U.S. anti-money laundering laws and sanctions.

It was uncovered earlier in 2022 that laundered as much as US$8 billion for Iranian firms, in contravention of sanctions.

A history of interesting transfers between’s U.S. entities and links to TUSD as well as the cash-for-crypto transactions involving Genesis Block uncovered from the implosion of FTX is now inviting even more attention on, which it would clearly rather avoid.

Ostensibly FTX and may have been bitter rivals, but recall that at one time, the latter had invested a whopping US$2.1 billion in the former, cementing just how close the two entities once were.

The two “rival” exchanges even shared bank accounts for off-ramping TUSD where convenient.

And while U.S. prosecutors may be divided over whether now is the time to commence legal action against, the implosion of FTX may provide them with unprecedented access to the records they need to make a case against the, given how intertwined the two exchanges were at one point in time.

Unlike FTX, has always insisted in utmost secrecy, using communication channels like Telegram with disappearing messages so as not to keep a record of conversations or correspondence, as reported by Reuters.

FTX insiders on the other hand communicated openly and even though they kept poor accounting records and had no risk management, communication records, emails, interviews and a treasure trove of information and documents on transactions, including banking, may help shed some light on involvement with

More significantly, as the wreckage of FTX is sifted through and if evidence is uncovered that facilitated money laundering or other forms of financial crimes, the ensuing actions by U.S. authorities may have major implications on deposits remaining with, not least of which is the freezing of any dollar-denominated accounts in the U.S. banking system.

Let’s not forget that not so long ago, Washington froze out Russia’s overseas dollar-denominated foreign reserves, in retaliation for the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine, even going so far as to target the Russian central bank.

Should be found to have committed money laundering or other heinous financial crimes, U.S. authorities are unlikely to flinch when tasked to freeze any dollar-denominated accounts that may be in the exchange’s control.

And therein lies the real question investors and traders continuing to run the gauntlet on should be asking.

It’s not that doesn’t have the dollars, it most likely does.

And it’s not that can’t facilitate withdrawals, it most likely can.

But those are the wrong questions.

If gets frozen or sanctioned by U.S. authorities, it won’t matter how many dollars or tokens it has backing the exchange, because they may be tainted and therefore, liable to be frozen.

Source link


The Dark Side of Killer Drones



The Dark Side of Killer Drones

Killer drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), have been a topic of much debate in recent years.

On one hand, these drones have the potential to be used for a variety of beneficial purposes, such as surveillance, search and rescue, and targeted killing of terrorists. On the other hand, there are serious concerns about the potential negative consequences of using killer drones, such as the loss of innocent lives, violation of international laws, and the psychological impact on both the drone operators and the communities affected. In this article, we will explore the dark side of killer drones.


Source: Crown Copyright/ BBC

1. More Innocent Casualties

One of the primary concerns about the use of killer drones is the risk of innocent casualties. Drones are often used in conflict zones, where the situation is often complex and fluid, making it difficult to accurately identify targets. As a result, there have been numerous reports of innocent civilians being killed or injured in drone strikes. For example, a report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimated that between 384 and 807 civilians have been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan between 2004 and 2019.

2. Violation of International Laws

Another major concern about the use of killer drones is the potential violation of international laws. The use of drones in conflict zones raises questions about the legality of targeted killings, the right to due process, and the protection of civilians. The United Nations has called for greater transparency and accountability in the use of drones, and several human rights organizations have criticized the use of drones as a violation of international law. For instance, in 2013, a report by Human Rights Watch found that the US drone program in Yemen was violating international law, including the right to life and the prohibition against arbitrary killing.

3. Psychological Impact on Operators

The use of killer drones also has a significant psychological impact on the operators who are responsible for carrying out the strikes. Drone operators often suffer from symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression. This is partly due to the fact that drone operators are often required to carry out long-distance killings, often for extended periods of time, and the fact that they are often isolated from the consequences of their actions. For example, a study by the University of Utah found that drone operators were more likely to experience symptoms of PTSD and depression compared to other military personnel.

4. Stronger Dammage on Communities

The use of killer drones also has a significant psychological impact on the communities affected by the strikes. The constant threat of drone attacks can cause significant stress and anxiety, leading to social and economic disruption. For instance, a report by the International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic found that drone strikes in Pakistan had a significant psychological impact on the local population, including symptoms of anxiety, stress, and depression.



Sources: Thales, General Atomics, Northdrop Grumman, EMT Penzberg, Prox Dynamics | © DW

The use of killer drones raises serious concerns about the potential for innocent casualties, violation of international laws, and the psychological impact on both the drone operators and the communities affected. The negative consequences of using killer drones far outweigh the benefits, and it is imperative that steps are taken to limit their use and ensure greater transparency and accountability. The international community must work together to establish clear guidelines for the use of drones, to ensure that they are used only in a manner that is consistent with international law and human rights.

Source link

Continue Reading


Vodafone Ireland turns to Amdocs to drive enhanced customer experience



Cloud Computing News

Duncan is an award-winning editor with more than 20 years experience in journalism. Having launched his tech journalism career as editor of Arabian Computer News in Dubai, he has since edited an array of tech and digital marketing publications, including Computer Business Review, TechWeekEurope, Figaro Digital, Digit and Marketing Gazette.

Vodafone Ireland has chosen Amdocs, a provider of software and services to communications and media companies, to transition its infrastructure and application workloads to the cloud, enabling an enhanced customer experience and rapid adoption of the latest 5G innovations.

Under the agreement, Amdocs Customer Experience Suite (CES) will migrate from Vodafone Ireland on-premise to the cloud, providing the Irish operator with greater flexibility and capacity to support its future growth.  

Mairead Cullen, CIO at Vodafone Ireland, said: “Moving to the cloud is a key part of our strategy as we look to become even more dynamic, agile and responsive to our customers’ needs. We have a long-standing relationship with Amdocs and we’re pleased to be collaborating with them on this important initiative.”

Anthony Goonetilleke, group president of technology and head of strategy at Amdocs, said: “By migrating its IT services infrastructure to the cloud, Vodafone Ireland can ensure it has the foundations in place to achieve growth and further enhance the experience of its customers.

“We are excited to be taking such a central role in the company’s cloud strategy.”

Want to learn more about cybersecurity and the cloud from industry leaders? Check out Cyber Security & Cloud Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London.

Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars powered by TechForge here.

Tags: , ,

Source link

Continue Reading


How to Align Data and Analytics Governance with Business Outcomes



How to Align Data and Analytics Governance with Business Outcomes

With access to large amounts of data made available to businesses, maintaining and governing the kind of data that is accessible to users have become significantly essential.

Proper data and analytics governance in organizations can help them in achieving on-point data and analytics processes.

The use of data and analytics is increasing across practically all industries. Due to the availability of inexpensive storage alternatives, organizations have access to more data. It’s not surprising that the usage of analytics due to access to extensive data has expanded to every part of the company when you take into account the growing number of user-friendly tools for managing, retrieving, and analyzing data. 

However, a lot of effort goes into managing data and analytics. Thus, organizations must ensure that their efforts are aligned with their business priorities, and the data is accurate in nature and thoroughly secured. Without analytics governance, even if the organization has a good hold on its data governance policies, the advantages of establishing policies and processes to govern the analytics process still stand. As data governance guarantees your business has processes and standards around the use of data, analytics governance provides the same level of oversight to the way analytics initiatives are built and delivered.

Aligning Data and Analytics Governance

Data and analytics governance initiatives must be closely related to organizational strategies. However, businesses frequently base their data and analytics governance processes on data rather than the business. Here are a few points on how businesses can align their data and analytics governance with their business outcomes.


Trusted Governance

Forming business decisions based on the notion that “all data is equal” is no longer a sound strategy because data and analytics capabilities exist across a company and differ in nature. Instead, create a paradigm of trust-based governance that allows for a dispersed data and analytics ecosystem and is able to help business executives make decisions that are more confidently appropriate to the circumstances.


With the essence of developing technology, digitization has taken over almost every business to stay relevant in the market. However, for businesses to gain the best outcomes from the digital space, digitization is essential. And for successful digitization, data and analytics governance must function based on factors like digital ethics and transparency. Therefore, ensuring that the values and concepts of digitization are reflected in the data and analytics governance is crucial to significantly align it with business outcomes.

Data Security

Today, organizations are aware of the potential risks associated with their businesses and securing data has become a necessity. This awareness implies that they address both the threats and the possibilities brought about by data and analytics. Organizations frequently manage risk and market potential independently, and they also do not really prioritize information security when assessing business results. Therefore, data and analytics governance authorities should have interdisciplinary teams capable of making decisions that are well-balanced, giving risk, opportunities, and security the appropriate weight while considering the organizations’ future interests in mind.


Today, businesses are aware of the fact that without effective data and analytics governance, their initiatives and investments in data and analytics won’t be able to satisfy important organizational goals like increased revenue, cost reduction, and improved customer experiences. Therefore, aligning it with business outcomes is critical for business success.

Source link

Continue Reading