The content in article doesn't even satisfy the headline/title. The quotes in the article specifically state what the accounts are for but the author hand-waves on what "could" be if many hypotheticals are reality. Do better Reuters.
> content in article doesn't even satisfy the headline/title
How does “the news agency reviewed a bank record showing that on Feb. 10, 2021, Binance mixed $20 million from a corporate account with $15 million from an account that received customer money” not satisfy the headline?
> According to the sources and the February 2021 bank record seen by Reuters, Binance mixed customer money and company revenues in a third Silvergate account, belonging to a Zhao-controlled Cayman firm. Binance converted money from this third account into the dollar-linked token BUSD, according to the person with knowledge of Binance’s group finances and company messages
> These accounts were not used to accept user deposits; they were used to facilitate user purchases” of crypto, said spokesperson Brad Jaffe. “There was no commingling at any time because these are 100% corporate funds.” When users sent money to the account, he said, they were not depositing funds but buying the exchange’s bespoke dollar-linked crypto-token, BUSD. This process was “exactly the same thing as buying a product from Amazon,”
The article has a lot of details and infographics - but ends with no conclusion, just guesswork. I appreciate the work and time that went into an article like this - it would be nice if it was more factual and less "blind-sourced" extrapolated hypothesis.
