Opinion: Crypto exchanges keep failing, so why do we still trust Changpeng Zhao?

cointelegraph.com:

Cryptocurrency has faced more than its fair share of catastrophes, nearly all of which seemed as though they might end or at least seriously impede the continued growth of the sector. Yet despite the many “teachable moments,” the social layer of crypto refuses to learn its lesson and continues to place its trust in the hands of individuals rather than fully utilize the technologies it claims to support.

Since the early days of the industry, crypto has faced major blows at the hands of centralized actors — Mt. Gox, which handled 70% of global Bitcoin transactions, lost track of 25,000 Bitcoin (BTC) in 2011. The most recent debacle with FTX is only the latest iteration of a longstanding pattern within crypto. Just last year, we saw Terra implode and be written off as a Ponzi scheme. In the past, we’ve seen major exchanges unable to account for vast sums of user deposits, as was the case in 2018 with Canada-based exchange QuadrigaCX.

These incidents all made waves in mainstream news publications, working to erode crypto’s public image and further instilling an air of mystery and heightened risk surrounding the technology. Ironically, adherence to the underlying ethos of crypto would have averted such catastrophes, and concepts such as “don’t trust, verify” along with permissionless, publicly visible blockchain scanners should have barred centralized actors from being able to conduct clandestine operations and risking customer funds.

Related:Mass adoption will be terrible for crypto

Unfortunately, these centralized players often don’t follow the rules or core beliefs of the industry they claim to be furthering and promote trustless transparency. Yet the social layer continued to show support and shower such actors with praise