> Your comment is a lot better (and more information dense) than the submission article. Can we change the URL to just point to your comment instead?

No it’s not. It’s unclear why some of the points are relevant to Binance’s health.

Edit: @rippercushions they are factually correct, but there is no context. With context, the points make even less sense.

Edit 2: @rippercushions Sorry then it’s not on your comment, just the parent’s proposal that it stands alone better than the speculation offered in the article.

I don't suppose you'd like to expand a little on what, exactly, is factually wrong with my comment?

GP was claiming there are "no indicators" that Binance is fucked, so I provided a list of recent things about Binance that sound pretty fucked to me.

It says something negative about crypto and to many people that makes it factually wrong.