Three Stories, One Pattern: Why Binance Is Having Its Worst Week Since the Pardon

Binance is facing its most difficult week since Changpeng Zhao walked out of U.S. federal prison and later received a presidential pardon.

In a matter of days, three separate stories have hit the world’s largest crypto exchange: a major UK investor lawsuit naming CZ personally, the loss of normal access to European Union users under MiCA, and renewed claims from a former Binance CFO and a rival exchange founder that Binance’s own systems helped worsen the October 10, 2025 liquidation crisis.

Taken separately, each story is damaging. Taken together, they form a broader pattern.

For years, Binance has often framed its biggest setbacks as the result of external pressure: aggressive regulators, political forces, market volatility, or unfair criticism from competitors. The latest wave of scrutiny does not fit that narrative as cleanly. It is coming from a London court claim, European licensing rules, public comments by a former executive now at a rival firm, and Binance’s own record of past compliance failures.

That makes this week more than another Binance controversy. It is a test of whether the post-pardon era has actually changed the exchange’s relationship with law, regulation, and transparency.

CZ’s pardon changed one legal reality, not the global picture

To understand why the timing matters, it helps to return to the U.S. case that made CZ one of the most famous convicted executives in crypto.

In November 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said Binance pleaded guilty to violations including conspiracy to violate the Bank Secrecy Act, failure to register as a money transmitting business, and violating U.S. sanctions law. The DOJ said Binance had prioritized growth and market share over compliance with U.S. law. The company agreed to pay $4.3 billion in penalties and accept compliance monitoring. CZ separately pleaded guilty to causing Binance to fail to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program.

CZ stepped down as CEO and was later sentenced to four months in prison. On October 23, 2025, President Donald Trump granted him a full pardon, removing the domestic criminal consequences of that conviction.

But a presidential pardon is not a global reset button.

It does not erase civil claims in the UK. It does not force European regulators to trust Binance’s compliance structure. It does not answer market-structure questions about liquidation engines, collateral pricing, or internal risk controls.

That is why the last few days matter. The pardon may have closed one chapter in the United States, but Binance is now being judged on three different fronts outside that narrow legal outcome.

Story one: UK investors sue Binance and CZ for £150 million

The first pressure point is London.

About 1,692 UK investors have filed a claim in London’s High Court against Binance and CZ personally, seeking at least £150 million (roughly $200 million). The claim, filed by KP Law on behalf of claimants led by Tomas Sutas, names Binance Holdings, Nest Exchange, CZ, and “persons unknown” alleged to have operated the Binance trading platform for UK users.

The claimants’ allegation is direct: they say Binance sold risky and complex derivative products to British retail customers without proper regulatory authorization. The claimants allege Binance entities knowingly sold products such as leveraged instruments from late 2019 and promoted them in breach of the UK’s Financial Services and Markets Act. Britain’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) later banned crypto companies from offering derivatives to retail consumers in 2021.

That timeline is important. The lawsuit does not simply argue that users lost money trading risky crypto products. It argues that Binance should not have been offering those products to them in the first place.

If the claim succeeds, the legal consequences could go beyond ordinary damages. Under UK financial law, agreements entered into without required authorization can potentially be treated as unenforceable or void. In plain English, claimants may argue that they should never have been legally bound by those contracts at all.

That is why the case has the potential to become more than another investor-loss lawsuit. It could become a test of how UK courts treat past offshore crypto derivatives sales into regulated retail markets.

Binance has said it will defend the claims and remains committed to operating in line with applicable law. The exchange has publicly pointed to compliance investment in recent years, including expanded compliance headcount and formal governance changes since its 2023 U.S. plea agreement. The claims described in this section are allegations that have not been proven in court, and Binance denies wrongdoing.

But that defense runs into an uncomfortable question. The claimants argue that Binance became dominant during a period when it operated ahead of regulatory clarity in several jurisdictions. If Binance’s public position is that it is now a compliance-first exchange, its response to the UK claim will need to explain the years the claim actually covers — not just its current posture.

The lawsuit also matters because CZ is personally named. For critics, that cuts through the idea that Binance’s legal problems can be separated from its founder’s leadership era. For Binance, it creates a direct reputational risk around the figure who still defines the company, even after stepping down as CEO.

Story two: MiCA leaves Binance outside the EU’s new rulebook

The second pressure point is Europe.

On July 1, 2026, the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) entered its decisive phase for crypto-asset service providers. ESMA had warned that after the end of the MiCA transition, firms serving EU clients without authorization would be in breach of EU law and must stop offering regulated services.

Binance did not have that authorization in place.

The exchange had applied for a MiCA license through Greece, treating it as a potential entry point into the EU’s new single-market crypto regime. But the application did not survive the deadline. In June, reports emerged that Binance was set to lose its EU license bid, with people familiar with the matter pointing to concerns around anti-money laundering controls and the company’s compliance history. Binance later withdrew the Greek application and said it would pursue authorization through another member state.

The practical result was immediate. Without a MiCA license in place by the June 30 deadline, Binance had to restrict regulated services for affected EU users from July 1. The exchange has reassured users that assets remain safe and withdrawals remain available, but the service contraction is still one of Binance’s biggest European setbacks.

This is not a full collapse of Binance’s EU presence. It is a regulatory lockout from normal operations until the company secures a license. But in a region where rivals such as Coinbase, Kraken, OKX, and Bitpanda have moved through the licensing process, Binance’s absence from the approved side of MiCA is symbolically significant.

CZ’s public explanation

CZ’s public account of the MiCA setback has added another layer to the story.

In a recent interview covered by The Crypto Times, CZ said Binance’s MiCA application was “fully compliant” and close to approval before “other forces” and politics interfered. He also said two EU countries had wanted Binance’s application. When asked about specific claims of political interference involving named individuals, CZ did not confirm any specific allegation and acknowledged he had no verified documents to support the claim.

That distinction is important for readers.

On one side, EU regulators and public reporting point to formal licensing concerns around anti-money laundering controls and compliance history. On the other hand, CZ has suggested political interference without presenting public evidence. For a company trying to rebuild trust, that gap matters.

Binance can argue that Europe is harming users by cutting them off from deep liquidity. CZ has made versions of that argument publicly, saying liquidity itself is a form of consumer protection. But MiCA’s entire logic is the opposite: consumer protection comes from authorization, governance, custody standards, and accountable management before a platform is allowed to serve the market.

That is the deeper clash. Binance is arguing from market access. Europe is arguing from regulatory trust. Right now, Europe has the stronger hand.

Story three: October 10 returns as a Binance trust problem

The third pressure point is the most technical, but it may be the most damaging for sophisticated market participants.

On October 10, 2025, crypto markets suffered one of the largest liquidation events in their history. Roughly $19 billion in leveraged positions were wiped out across global venues after a sharp macro shock triggered panic selling and cascading liquidations.

Binance’s official position

Binance’s official position has been that the crash was primarily market-wide. In a statement after the event, the exchange said global macroeconomic developments triggered extreme volatility between 20:50 and 22:00 UTC. Binance said its core spot and futures matching engines and API trading remained operational, while acknowledging that some platform modules briefly experienced technical glitches after 21:18 UTC and that certain assets had depegging issues.

Binance also said it compensated users affected by depegging issues, with two batches totaling approximately $283 million.

The competitor and ex-executive critique

The debate has continued because two prominent figures with direct or indirect competitive relationships to Binance have kept it alive.

Wei Zhou, Binance’s former CFO who is now CEO of Coins.ph, has argued publicly that October 10 exposed structural problems in centralized exchange risk systems. Star Xu,CEO and Founder of OKX and Binance’s largest global competitor, has echoed similar criticism.

Both attributions matter. Zhou has firsthand knowledge of Binance’s internal architecture from his time at the company. Xu heads the exchange most directly positioned to benefit from Binance user attrition. Readers should weigh both perspectives — including their potential biases — against Binance’s official account.

Their argument, as reported by The Crypto Times, is that the October 10 crisis cannot be understood only as a macro event. The key allegation is that Binance’s Unified Account system valued certain collateral assets using the exchange’s own internal market data rather than external, multi-venue pricing oracles. During extreme stress, assets such as USDe, BNSOL, and WBETH briefly showed major dislocations on Binance. According to the critics, USDe fell as low as $0.65 on Binance while maintaining its dollar peg elsewhere.

For traders using those assets as collateral, that distinction is critical. If collateral is marked down sharply on one venue, liquidations can be triggered even if the same asset is trading normally elsewhere.

The criticism goes further. According to the public claims amplified by Zhou and Xu, a performance regression in a database read path caused a 33-minute internal processing delay during peak market stress. Binance has pushed back against the framing that its internal architecture caused the broader crash, characterizing the incident as a market-wide deleveraging event rather than a Binance-specific failure.

What can be said and what remains contested

Both positions can be partly true. The October 10 selloff was clearly triggered by macro shock and extreme market-wide leverage — that is not seriously disputed. But the unresolved question is whether Binance’s internal pricing, collateral, and processing systems made losses worse for some users than they should have been.

That question is especially serious because centralized exchanges are black boxes at the exact moment users most need transparency. Traders can see price charts. They cannot fully inspect liquidation engines, internal collateral haircuts, risk queues, database delays, or emergency pricing logic in real time.

For institutions, this is not a technical footnote. It is a core trust issue.

If any centralized venue’s internal mark prices can diverge sharply from the rest of the market, and if users cannot exit or top up collateral during system stress, then the risk is no longer just price volatility. It becomes platform risk. That question applies to Binance and to every centralized exchange operating unified-account systems at scale.

The pattern: internal decisions versus external explanations

What connects these stories is not that they are legally identical. They are not.

The UK lawsuit is a civil claim about allegedly unauthorized product sales. The MiCA setback is a regulatory licensing problem. The October 10 debate is a market-structure and transparency fight.

But the pattern is hard to miss.

In the UK, Binance faces claims that it sold products it was not authorized to sell. In Europe, Binance failed to secure authorization under the most important crypto licensing regime in the world. In the October 10 debate, a former CFO and a rival exchange founder are challenging Binance’s account of how much responsibility its own systems carried during a historic liquidation event.

In each case, Binance’s public posture leans toward external explanations: aggressive legal claims, political interference, macro shocks, market-wide volatility, or competitor motivations. The counter-narrative — coming from courts, regulators, and named critics — focuses on internal decisions: what products were sold, how compliance was handled, how licensing was pursued, how collateral was priced, and how transparent the company’s systems really were.

That is why this week feels different.

Binance is not being criticized by one regulator or one rival. It is being tested simultaneously by courts, regulators, a former executive, a competitor, and users still trying to understand what happened during the market’s worst liquidation cascade.

The company remains the largest crypto exchange in the world. It still has deep liquidity, a powerful brand, and enormous user reach. But size no longer settles the argument.

In 2026, the question is not whether Binance is big. Everyone knows it is. The question is whether Binance can operate at that size under modern rules; and whether users, regulators, and courts believe the systems around it are robust enough to trust.

Why the post-pardon era is now under pressure

CZ’s pardon created a powerful political and symbolic moment for crypto. Supporters saw it as the end of an era of aggressive U.S. enforcement. They argued that Binance had paid its penalty, CZ had served time, and the industry should move forward.

But the latest developments show why global markets do not move on so easily.

A pardon can remove U.S. punishment. It cannot erase the factual record that regulators and courts continue to examine. It cannot make European authorities comfortable with Binance’s governance. It cannot stop UK investors from bringing claims over past products. It cannot resolve technical questions about liquidation systems.

That is the central point of this week.

The pardon changed CZ’s legal exposure in one country. It did not change the pattern that regulators, plaintiffs, and critics are now pointing to across several others.

For Binance, the next phase will not be defined by slogans about compliance investment or liquidity. It will be defined by verifiable answers.

• Can it defend or resolve the UK lawsuit without further uncomfortable details about how products were sold to retail users?
• Can it secure a MiCA license in another EU member state without regulators again focusing on its founder’s criminal history and the company’s past controls?
• Can it provide enough technical transparency around collateral pricing, liquidation systems, and system performance to convince institutions that October 10 will not happen again?

Those are not public-relations questions. They are the questions that determine whether Binance remains merely the biggest exchange, or becomes a trusted financial institution under modern rules.

What this means for crypto users

For UK users

The lawsuit could become a precedent-setting consumer protection case. If claimants succeed, users in other jurisdictions may look again at older crypto derivative products and ask whether they were lawfully sold in their markets.

For EU users

The impact is already practical. Binance has restricted regulated services in affected markets while keeping withdrawals and transfers available. Users now have to decide whether to wait for Binance to secure authorization elsewhere, move to a MiCA-licensed platform, or shift more assets into self-custody.

For traders

The October 10 debate is a warning about platform design that applies to every centralized exchange, not just Binance. A centralized exchange is not just an order book. It is also a pricing engine, a collateral engine, a liquidation engine, a custody system, and a risk manager. If any of those systems behave unexpectedly during stress, the user pays the price first.

For the broader industry

Binance’s week is a reminder that crypto’s next growth cycle may depend less on token prices and more on trust infrastructure: proper licensing, transparent reserves, audited liabilities, external pricing oracles, circuit breakers, and risk systems that users and regulators can understand.

The bottom line

Binance has survived enforcement actions, leadership changes, market crashes, and years of regulatory pressure. It may survive this week too.

But survival is not the same as regulatory trust.

The UK lawsuit asks whether Binance sold products it should not have sold. The MiCA setback asks whether European regulators believe Binance is fit to operate under the new rulebook. The October 10 debate asks whether users can trust the exchange’s internal systems during the moments that matter most.

Those are three different stories. But they point toward one question.

After CZ’s prison sentence, after the pardon, after years of promises about compliance, has Binance truly changed, or is the same pattern simply being exposed in new jurisdictions?

For now, the world’s largest crypto exchange is still standing. But this week has shown that its post-pardon era will not be judged by political forgiveness in Washington. It will be judged in courtrooms, licensing files, trading systems, and by users who want proof that the next crisis will not be explained only after the damage is done.

Follow The Crypto Times on Google News to Stay Updated!