Binance co-founder CZ clarifies that he did not say he would sell SPCX shares, and that he might be implying Binance lacks funds, which is not the case
Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ) responded on X on October 31 that he had never said he would sell SPCX shares. He said that he mentioned holding the shares only because someone in the discussion thread compared this incident to FTX, which may have implied that Binance lacked funds, and that was not the case. CZ said his original intent was to explain that the company holds assets other than crypto assets, and that it is an area the other party is familiar with.
Previously on October 30, CZ had written in response to an interaction involving Elon Musk that the company’s SPCX shares, from its $500 million investment in Musk’s Twitter acquisition, were worth more than $1 billion. On the same day, in another post, he gave a rough calculation: losses from the hack were about more than $6 billion, about $3 billion had been frozen, the SAFU fund was about more than $1 billion, the shortfall was about $2 billion, while the SPCX holdings alone were worth more than $1 billion, and the remaining shortfall was still painful but manageable. Binance co-founder Yi He then said that the company’s annual revenue was enough to cover the losses, so they did not yet need to sell the SpaceX shares they favored. CZ later clarified that mentioning the holding did not mean he planned to sell it, but was meant to show Musk some sources of funds he might understand, in order to reduce concerns.
In his latest response, CZ further said that he does not make threats, which is one of the core principles he wrote into his book. He said that the shares he holds are only a drop in the ocean to the other party and could not pose a threat, and he believes the stock will be one of the good long-term holdings. He asked that this matter not be packaged as confrontation or as an attempt to create a rift, because there are already enough problems to deal with.
Binance said that the total impact of this hack was about $6.3 billion, making it one of the largest cryptocurrency thefts to date. It has frozen about $3 billion in assets with partners, and has reserved more than $6.34 billion in company funds to cover it, with $5 billion already held in the form of the affected tokens and the remainder being purchased. The company said it will cover all user losses, and user funds are safe. Analytical firms linked the attack to North Korean hacking groups, but the final attribution is still under investigation.
Original sources:
Title: Brother, I know you love us, and always support us, but you’re over-interpreting this, in a bad way... Publisher: CZ 🔶 BNB (@cz_binance) Publication date: 2026-10-31 URL: https://x.com/cz_binance/status/2116415386048761953 Nature of source: Involved party’s original post Verification status: The full post and context were read for this article, verification date 2026-10-31 Supporting content: CZ explicitly said he had never said he would sell SPCX shares; the reason for mentioning them was to rebut an FTX comparison implying a lack of funds; he does not make threats; the shares are a drop in the ocean for the other party; he considers them a long-term quality holding.
Title: Binance arranges $6.34 billion to cover losses from biggest crypto hack ever Publisher: CoinDesk Publication date: 2026-10-30 URL: https://www.coindesk.com/business/2026/10/30/binance-arranges-usd6-34-billion-to-cover-losses-from-record-crypto-hack Nature of source: Media report Verification status: The full relevant report passages were read for this article, verification date 2026-10-31 Supporting content: Binance said the total impact was about $6.3 billion, about $3 billion had been frozen, more than $6.34 billion in company funds had been reserved (including $5 billion in the corresponding tokens), and user losses would be covered.
Title: Binance does not need to sell SpaceX shares to cover losses, co-founder says Publisher: Reuters Publication date: 2026-10-30 URL: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/binance-does-not-need-sell-spacex-shares-cover-losses-co-founder-says-2026-10-30/ Nature of source: Media report Verification status: The report was read for this article, verification date 2026-10-31 Supporting content: Yi He said annual revenue was enough to cover the losses and that there was no need to sell SpaceX shares; CZ had previously mentioned holding more than $1 billion in SPCX.
Title: Crypto Exchange Binance Confirms $500M Investment in Musk's Twitter Takeover Publisher: Decrypt Publication date: 2022-10-28 URL: https://decrypt.co/113052/crypto-exchange-binance-confirms-500m-investment-musks-twitter-takeover Nature of source: Media report (historical) Verification status: This article was read to confirm the historical investment fact, verification date 2026-10-31 Supporting content: Binance confirmed in 2022 that it invested $500 million to take part in Musk’s acquisition of Twitter. This does not prove the current SPCX holding structure, valuation, or the handling plan for this incident.
ABAB AI Insight
Changpeng Zhao co-founded Binance in 2017 and publicly confirmed in 2022 that the company invested $500 million in Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter. That equity investment later became SPCX-related exposure as X was incorporated into xAI and then acquired by SpaceX. CZ repeatedly brought up that holding during this hack incident, and after being misunderstood, explicitly denied any intent to sell. He also emphasized that not making threats is a principle written into his book, and this statement directly addressed the confrontational interpretation that appeared in the discussion.
Binance’s public approach in this incident was: first, CZ gave a rough calculation of the shortfall and pointed to the SPCX holding as proof of a funding source; then Yi He said annual revenue was enough to cover the losses and that there was no need to sell shares; afterward, the company announced that it had reserved more than $6.34 billion in company funds for user asset recovery. This approach distinguishes between showing balance-sheet strength and actually using a specific asset. Unlike the 2022 FTX incident, FTX at the time faced a liquidity crisis after customer funds were misused, whereas Binance’s statement this time described coverage through the company’s own funds after an external hack, and it disclosed the frozen and reserved amounts.
A comparable historical case is Bybit’s roughly $1.5 billion hack in 2025. Bybit likewise promised to cover user losses and relied on industry cooperation to freeze assets, but the scale was only about one-fourth of this incident. In this case, Binance publicly placed company reserved funds, the SAFU fund, and external freezes side by side, and CZ proactively included non-crypto assets in the discussion, making the description of funding sources more specific. The key difference is that Binance this time also faced public interaction with Musk, as well as the pressure of some users directly comparing it to FTX.
This clarification changes the external interpretation that Binance might be forced to sell SPCX. CZ limited the motive for mentioning the holding to rebutting the implication of a funding shortfall, rather than expressing a sale plan; Yi He and the company announcement pointed the actual coverage path to revenue and reserved company funds. For Binance, this lowers the probability that the market will link it to a forced liquidation of strategic holdings; for SPCX, CZ explicitly described it as a long-term holding and said the size of the holding is insignificant to the other party. The observation point is whether Binance will later release a more detailed breakdown of funding coverage sources, and whether SPCX will disclose any large holding changes directly related to this incident.
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
Showing the balance sheet is not the same as announcing a liquidation plan.
Rebutting lack of funds and actively creating confrontation are two different behaviors.
The same holding can be described both as able to cover the shortfall and as a long-term quality asset, depending on whether the speaker limits its intended use.