Important: Potential Binance Delisting

I understand your point but it is frustrating to a user to come to a coin and get a completely different paradigm even for something as common as an address.
Imo, users should be eased into zcash rather than be immediately faced with a several things to learn.

Their first reaction to UA is usually to ask how to make one with a single receiver.
I tell them it defeats the purpose but they just roll their eyes.


By implementing it as specified, but not relying on it to avoid scanning with keys after their expiry, until we have more confidence that all wallets have upgraded.

With Binance, we don’t have the luxury of that much time. It has to work as soon as Binance implement it, and it has to fail closed (i.e. wallets that don’t implement it must fail by not understanding the address, and still must not send shielded funds to it).


Yesterday @daira had another idea, which is that instead of introducing a new receiver type to unified addresses, another way to achieve the same goal would be to change the HRP for Revision 1 unified addresses (which define MUST-understand metadata.) I think that this is a good change to make in any case, because it fixes the “legacy wallet” hole in MUST-understand metadata, where a currently-existing wallet could ignore such metadata items.

With that change in place, it then becomes possible to include a source-restriction MUST-understand metadata item, which could be used for the “transparent source only” use case but could also define restrictions like “the transaction must be fully shielded” and/or “the transaction must be fully shielded with no pool crossing”. This generalizes the proposal in a really nice way; it both serves Binance’s use case and it also allows users to request stronger privacy for the transactions that they receive.


From a technical perspective, that is my preference. However, because of the need to onboard many wallets (Coinomi, TrustWallet, etc.), I still lean towards the Tex. IMO, even with tex, it is a very tight timeframe.


Request For Input:

Hello! I’d like community members that make use of transparent-only wallet to reach out to me via direct message. if you are trying to reach out and you can’t send direct messages because of forum rules please react to this message with the :disappointed_relieved: emoji



Great to see some positive news about this and bravo to the team for how they handled this matter.


i say we should delist ourselves from Binance,
wtf they are doing us a favor???
and then build BlackBinance(.Onion on Arti!


I think your idea of building a ~not~Binance Onion on Arti is interesting. You should pursue it. Build the Zcash you would like to see in the future.


Once again, Thanks to all who put in the work to reach a solution with Binance!

The delistings were announced today and they’re having significant impacts on many project valuations.



We might not love KYC-AML, and playing ball with the world’s biggest CEX, but as a practical matter - it is in Zcash’s best interest to remain as acessible to as many people as possible. Delistings cause significant damage to accessibility.


This is the only positive aspect of the t-addresses. CEX liquidity.


Update: I want to provide an update on where things stand with Binance and the implementation of the new address type:

  • We have communicated our preference for the Unified Address option (as opposed to the TEX Address option) to Binance and have not received a response. We are prepared to address any questions or concerns they might raise and expect to resolve them without difficulty.

  • Kris and Daira have published a draft specification of the Unified Address option and will finalize it based on community agreement. They are preparing parsing and encoding libraries for JavaScript and Rust, with anticipated library releases and Wallet SDK integration by mid-February.

  • Hanh has documented the necessary standard encodings for wallets, exchanges, and other partners to generate TEX addresses, in case Binance or a considerable number of our partners express a preference for this option.

  • Pacu is proactively reaching out to a few exchange and wallet partners to inform them of the upcoming change and gauge their preference between the two address options. We expect to gather their feedback by the end of this week.

  • Additionally, Pacu and I are compiling a contact list for all wallets, exchanges, and payment networks that will need to implement this update.

We will continue to keep the community informed with periodic updates as things progress.


For full disclosure, I prefer the Tex address option because it is easier to implement (imo). :slight_smile:


I prefer the version that will not add vulnerabilities in the protocol.


There are no changes made to the protocol in both options.


Thanks, it’s only at wallet level then?

id prefer the universal address if possible since that seems to be more future proof.


Again, proud of the way the Zcash Community handled this issue.

One thing we always need to remember in crypto is things can always be worse. We may be down today, we may be headed towards $10, but I believe our long-term plan and prospects are sound.


I feel very proud of all your efforts, I feel that I was lucky to find you, Zcash has a future and will soon be more widely adopted. time only shows that we are on the right path.

1 Like

That’s correct.