The spotlight was firmly on Binance during the recent Consensus Hong Kong event, as Co-CEO Richard Teng faced tough questions from traders skeptical of the exchange’s explanations surrounding the monumental $19 billion crypto liquidation event that transpired on October 10, 2025.
Characterized by many as the â10/10â crash, this event not only left marks across the crypto industry but also ignited a fierce debate over the responsibilities of major exchanges during extreme market conditions. Teng’s comments followed a period of intense scrutiny, as he denied allegations the popular exchange was directly responsible for the sell-off.
Teng attributed the sell-off to a confluence of macroeconomic and geopolitical events affecting global markets. He pointed to increasing tensions between the United States and China, with US tariff threats and China’s rare-earth export controls cited as key factors contributing to waning investor confidence.
“The sell-off is not a phenomenon isolated to crypto exchanges,” Teng asserted. “On that day alone, US equities faced a staggering loss of $1.5 trillion, with about $150 billion in liquidations noted.” He emphasized that given the relative scale of the crypto market, the $19 billion liquidated in crypto was consistent with broader market reactions.
In the wake of these claims, Teng also specified that approximately 75% of the liquidations occurred around 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time, a period coinciding with the release of major economic news. He maintained that the timing alone indicated a reaction to external factors rather than a mismanagement within Binance.
Despite these statements, discontent among traders persists, largely fueled by experiences of significant market volatility. Many users on social media questioned Binance’s recounting of events, alleging that API functionalities were restricted, forcing liquidations across the platform. A common sentiment expressed was that blaming macroeconomic shocks seems a convenient scapegoat for systemic issues.
“Blaming macro shocks is the new ‘it was a glitch,'” one trader remarked, reflecting a growing dissatisfaction regarding accountability after the mass liquidation. Others echoed similar sentiments, implying that the exchange’s explanations evade the core issues raised by affected traders.
Notably, Teng acknowledged that Binance did face minor technical setbacks during this turmoil, including a temporary fluctuation of the USDe stablecoin and some delays in asset transfers. However, he was adamant there was no correlation between these issues and the overall market crash, affirming that internal reviews revealed no mass withdrawals from the exchange.
As the credibility of Binance remains under scrutiny, the focus extends to broader market dynamics. Teng spoke about continuing institutional interest in crypto, affirming that despite the challenges, the sector is witnessing substantial involvement from significant financial players.
“Institutions are still entering the sector. This indicates that smart money is deploying,” he stated, underscoring the potential long-term confidence in cryptocurrency despite temporary setbacks in market performance.
Amid ongoing investor unrest, traders remain cautious, reflecting on the lessons learned from the October 10 event. The interaction between centralized exchanges and leveraged retail traders continues to be fraught with tension as trust is paramount in high-volatility environments.
As Binance’s defense attempts to quell discontent, the aftermath of the October 10 incident remains a pivotal discussion point in the crypto community, highlighting the need for greater transparency and operational accountability within major platforms.
