Changpeng Zhao (CZ), founder and former CEO of Binance, has publicly criticised the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) for publishing what he claims is a factually flawed and deliberately misleading article targeting both him and the broader crypto industry. On 23 May, Zhao took to social media platform X to dissect the piece, accusing the legacy media outlet of pushing an agenda designed to discredit Binance and stall the global rise of cryptocurrencies.
Quoting Cunningham’s Law—”The best way to get the right answer on the Internet is not to ask a question; it’s to post the wrong answer”—Zhao suggested the WSJ had intentionally used incorrect framing to provoke controversy. He argued that while factual errors can usually be corrected, the WSJ article was inherently biased: “When you make up a story with negative intentions to begin with, there is no way to fix the ‘inaccuracies.’ It’s the entire story.”
False Allegations and Questionable Assumptions
At the core of Zhao’s rebuttal were allegations made by the WSJ suggesting that he acted as a “fixer” for a company called World Liberty Financial (WLF). The article also claimed that Zhao introduced foreign officials to the firm’s leadership and facilitated international connections on their behalf.
Zhao categorically denied these assertions, clarifying that he was not involved with WLF in any such capacity. “I am not a fixer for anyone,” he wrote. “I did NOT ‘connect Mr. Saqib with the WLF team.’ They had known each other way back, whereas I only met with Mr. Saqib for the first time in Pakistan.” He further dismissed the notion that he arranged travel or meetings for WLF, stating such claims were pure fabrication.
The former Binance chief explained that even the preliminary questions sent to his public relations team were riddled with false premises, leaving little room for a constructive or fair engagement with the media.
Allegations of Lobbying and Media Manipulation
In a more provocative follow-up post, Zhao suggested that the motivations behind the WSJ article might be more than just journalistic misjudgment. While denying that any financial demands were made by the publication in exchange for favourable coverage, he floated the idea that the WSJ may have been financially incentivised to publish negative stories about Binance.
“I heard they were paid to smear,” Zhao stated, adding that a major venture capital firm—reportedly invested in a competing U.S.-based crypto exchange—was lobbying hard to limit Binance’s influence in America. “Millions paid in lobbying efforts,” he claimed, linking these actions to a fear of competition and attempts to prevent the U.S. from becoming a true global hub for crypto innovation.
Legacy Media vs. Global Crypto Movement
The dispute between Zhao and the Wall Street Journal highlights a broader tension between traditional media institutions and the rapidly evolving digital finance sector. CZ’s comments tap into a growing sentiment within the crypto community that some Western media outlets are aligned—intentionally or otherwise—with entrenched financial interests threatened by decentralised technology.
“WSJ is just the mouthpiece,” Zhao remarked. “There are forces in the U.S. that want to hinder efforts in making the U.S. the capital of crypto. They want to attack crypto, global crypto leaders, and the pro-crypto administration.”
Supporters of Zhao and Binance argue that his meetings with international policymakers and leaders are standard practice in an increasingly interconnected financial ecosystem. They view the WSJ article as part of a coordinated effort to discredit a key figure in global crypto leadership and dampen public support for decentralisation.
