This will probably get worse, imho. All CEX’s have become more expensive as time has moved forward. Binance potentially removing Zcash is the most expensive option: no one has an option regardless of price.
I suddenly looked at the situation from a different angle. What if leaving exchanges that have large volumes would, on the contrary, be good for us. What if people are so used to shorting ZEC, knowing its mandatory monthly costs, that we can’t get out of this funnel any other way? I’m interested in @Dodger 's opinion.
1 Like
Maybe you should message @Dodger directly if you’re only interested by his opinion 
.
Sorry, it’s a problem with my English. Of course I brought this up for everyone and would like Jack to give a public answer because he seemed to say at ZCON4 that our problem is ZEC-shorts.
1 Like
Ahaha ok no worries, sorry for misunderstanding you.
I would be curious to know of any OSINT on ZEC shorting as I personally do not have any.
regulation is intensifying.
1 Like
Leaving the exchanges with the largest volumes and liquidity is NEVER good for the price of a token. Any experienced trader knows that.
Also I can tell you that people shorting are not the cause of a token falling in price for years. People shorting only provoke downwards pressure when they open their shorts, and then provoke upwards pressure when they close their shorts. In the long term both longers and shorters do nothing for the price. These are only short term fluctuations.
5 Likes
FYI:
I’ve left comments signaling part of ZIP-315 draft that would be affected by implementing the “exchange addresses”
Even though the ZIP is a draft I think is the best place to check the impact on wallet implementations that “solution” would have
3 Likes
Update: Last night, @nuttycom, @hanh, and I had a call with Binance to discuss Hanh’s proposed exchange address solution. The conversation primarily addressed Binance’s technical questions, and, in the end, they ultimately signed off on the proposal from a technical standpoint. Unfortunately, they have postponed the go-ahead for development until they complete a compliance review of all privacy coins on their platform. By the sounds of it, Binance plans to evaluate the discussions they’ve had with various privacy coin projects, whether they plan to adhere to Binance’s requests, and then potentially delist some coins based on this review. If we pass the compliance review, we will have the green light to start development. Binance has also indicated that they will be flexible regarding the February 29 deadline they previously quoted.
At this point, we have done everything possible to cooperate with Binance to prevent delisting. If we fail the compliance review, it will be due to Binance taking a hardline stance against privacy coins, and not a lack of a viable proposal from our side. We expect to receive a final decision by the end of next week, January 19. I will provide the community an update as soon as new information is available.
I want to thank @nuttycom, @joshs, and @reubenyap for their advice, guidance, and support over the past few months. This issue has been challenging to work on, and their assistance has been instrumental and is greatly appreciated.
I also want to express profound gratitude to @hanh. It is no coincidence that the two solutions Binance found most compelling were both proposed by Hanh. Hanh is an exceptionally capable developer with a sophisticated understanding of the Zcash protocol. We are very fortunate to have someone of his caliber in our community. Thank you, Hanh!
49 Likes
Thank you all for the great work you do!
13 Likes
Something that came up on the Arborist call today is that it might be desirable to fit the new address type into the framework of unified addresses. This would require relaxing the rule on unified addresses being required to include a shielded receiver, however, I think it might be a good idea to do it this way:
Add a new Unified address receiver type, 0x04, for transparent exchange addresses, and require that a unified address either contain a shielded receiver type, or have only a transparent exchange receiver.
@hanh @daira what do you think?
One real advantage is that wallets with unified address parsing implemented will fail gracefully when reading a tex-only UA.
13 Likes
@hanh public Z-address? I’m interested in tipping you for your profound contributions in this effort, and for so many past efforts that served as life boats for the Zcash ecosystem!
Congrats and Cheers to all for thoughts/ energies invested in this Binance saga.
2 Likes
@aquietinvestor, thank you for your leadership, thoughtfulness and proactive engagement with Binance and across the community.
20 Likes
thank you!
4 Likes
i was a silent reader on this forum for a long time and just opened an account to thank @aquietinvestor @hanh and everyone else for what you do.
after years of pain in the community, one can finally see the change that was long needed.
keep up the great work guys
19 Likes
Thanks @aquietinvestor for leading this and of course to @hanh for coming up with these clever workarounds.
12 Likes
Thank you for your hard work!
7 Likes
Great work 
7 Likes
Thank you @aquietinvestor for taking ownership of this matter. Forever grateful 
.
@hanh you’re a legend. We’re lucky to have you on our side .
8 Likes
thank you!
3 Likes