Yesterday, Jared Tate called out Binance in a series of tweets. According to him, Binance refuses to list DGB because the Digibyte team has refused to part with money. Jared went ahead to state that Binance has in the past by-passed DGB, and went ahead to list pump and dump schemes. He also wrote that Binance was asking him to apologize, as a condition for them to list Digibyte (DGB) in a few months.
This public outburst against Digibyte (DGB) got the community talking, with some community members asking the DGB team to comply and pay. However, the majority of the community believe that Digibyte should not pay, and that Digibyte does not need Binance. But emotions aside, what are the possible implications of this whole DGB v Binance fiasco?
Well, first, it has served to reinforce the image of Digibyte (DGB) as a transparent and truly decentralized blockchain. That’s because if it wasn’t truly decentralized, then Jared would already have made the payments and have the coin listed. After all, it could lead to a huge pump that would add significantly to the wealth of the founding team. However, since Digibyte (DGB) has no central team behind it, it then follows that there no one tasked with making such payments unless the community would crowdfund for it. This element of decentralization and transparency is a reason to draw in more investors in the long-term, as well as drive up the adoption of Digibyte going into the long-run.
There is a reason why institutional money is heavily leaning towards bitcoin (BTC) at this point. It’s decentralized and trustless nature is value in itself. Investors don’t have to deal with trusting some unknown central entity to keep things running well. It’s the whole essence of decentralization in the first place. Through this whole debacle, Digibyte (DGB) is now gaining a similar standing in the market as bitcoin (BTC). Once people realize that Digibyte is like a more efficient version of bitcoin (BTC), its value in the market will skyrocket, making this whole Binance listing issue an advantage to the long-term growth of Digibyte (DGB).
Secondly, this whole issue will re-ignite the debate about centralized v decentralized exchanges. While centralized exchanges dominate the market, their flaws are increasingly becoming evident in the market. One of their greatest drawbacks is security. Several of them have been hacked in the past, and millions of investor funds stolen. With the increased sophistication of hackers, it is clear that there is a need for a bigger publicity for decentralized exchanges.
The Digibyte v Binance story also brings forth another issue, and that’s the fact that centralized exchanges could be stifling innovation in crypto. That’s because if all it takes to get listed is the payment of a couple of millions, then only lousy projects that have wealthy backers will dominate the markets. Good projects that could change society will be stifled and disappear, and this could kill crypto. Such issues will over time get people talking, and ultimately lead to an increase in the rise of powerful decentralized exchanges.
In essence, this whole Binance v DigiByte (DGB) issue is a good thing for Digibyte (DGB) and crypto in general. Long-term, fundamentals will rule, and Digibyte (DGB) will be among the winners.