Binance announced on Friday that SUB is being delisted from its exchange. This decision came as a surprise, with no advance warning. We are terribly disappointed in the decision and their handling of the delisting. To be specific:
- We were not questioned regarding any issue(s) to make sure the issue(s) is factual before making this decision.
- We were not given an opportunity to clear up any real/perceived issue(s), such as a probationary status or deadline to fix.
- We were not given any conditions for relisting.
Informing projects of an imminent delisting doesn’t make sense. It would incentivize the project’s management and insiders to partake in insider trading to dump coins before the news goes public. Binance did the right thing in this situation, and Justin Tabb’s expectation for “advance warning” before a SUB delisting can only be described with one word–silly.
Binance has since indicated that our delisting is due to the trading of ICO funds. We are attempting to reach out to Binance to provide them with documentation to show that is not the case.
Substratum, and Justin Tabb in particular, loves to play the blame game. First of all, it hasn’t been confirmed that Binance delisted SUB because of Tabb’s ICO fund trading announcement. In a Twitter thread between CZ (CEO of Binance) and Abram Cookson (COO of Substratum), CZ tweeted, “maybe stop trading the funds you raised that was intended for product dev? Anyway, will observe Cunningham’s law and stop responding. wish all the best.”
Justin Tabb took CZ’s statement to mean that SUB’s delisting was a result of the alleged trading of ICO funds. However, Tabb neglected CZ’s reference to Cunningham’s Law which states that “the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it’s to post the wrong answer.” Thus, it’s presumable that there’s more to the story behind SUB’s delisting, but CZ did not want to get into the real details. CZ has done nothing wrong here. Binance is a centralized exchange, and more importantly, it’s CZ’s centralized exchange. He has exclusive right to make business decisions that he deems favorable for his business. In this case, CZ felt it was best to delist SUB. It’s his decision, and it’s pointless to argue against that.
Substratum has been a supporter of Binance, and fully support their right to run their business as they see fit. But, we believe their listing/delisting procedures are in dire need of review, as their decisions have a ripple effect, not just for Substratum, but for the industry as a whole.
As I wrote previously, the details regarding the delisting process is clearly laid out in Binance’s delisting announcement, and Substratum has not delivered on quite a few of these criteria. Quite frankly, based on Binance’s provided delisting criteria, it’s not surprising SUB was delisted.
Substratum has worked tirelessly to bring its vision into reality. We have consistently delivered releases on the path to our first product release–SubstratumNode. The Node project has already proven the ability to deliver censorship-free content throughout the world.
This has nothing to do with Binance’s delisting announcement. Regarding the node’s ability to “deliver censorship-free content throughout the world”, I spent about 15 minutes and was able to block SubstratumNode traffic with ease.
The Substratum development team remains focused on delivery and our upcoming release. We will not be deterred or distracted by influences outside of our control. We remain vigilant in pursuing freedom of information to all–true net neutrality.
Substratum is not distracted or deterred? Ha, alright Justin. In conclusion, this statement was handled in typical Substratum fashion. Many words were written, and barely anything was said.