Binance founder Zhao Changpeng discusses BNB, BNBChain, and its ecosystem

https://x.com/rpcnftclub/status/1968700830015754246

Guest Introduction:

David Namdar (X@namdar): CEO of BNC, and also a co-founder of Galaxy Digital, with over a decade of experience in cryptocurrency and capital markets. He is currently the CEO of BNB Network Company (BNC), a Nasdaq-listed company, leading a digital asset treasury project centered around BNB, often referred to as the "MicroStrategy of BNB."

CZ: Founder and former CEO of Binance, and one of the most influential entrepreneurs in the global cryptocurrency industry.

David: Alright, good morning, CZ. Great to see you. CZ: Good morning, David. Great to see you too.

David: I'm very excited to kick off this conversation with you. We've known each other for a long time, and it's been quite a journey. The recent market has also been exciting, especially today as BNB is hitting new historical highs. How are things on your end? Where are you connecting from?

CZ: Things are quite good. I'm currently in Tokyo. As you said, BNB is hitting historical highs. I'm not quite sure what caused what, but I think your efforts have definitely contributed, so thank you. Overall, everything is pretty good.

David: I'm glad to hear that. I want to take a moment to look back. The journey we've taken together in the crypto space has been fascinating. Back in 2017, when BNB was first launched, it really stood out and was the first project to break the mold, being quite innovative at the time. How do you view the evolution over these years? Did you ever think it would grow into such a thriving ecosystem?

CZ: That's a great question. Initially (in 2017), BNB was an ERC-20 token on Ethereum, just for fundraising. We knew we would develop a blockchain that was public, decentralized, etc. But I didn't actually expect it to grow into a complete ecosystem. So seeing all this now is really fulfilling. To be honest, for most of the past seven or eight years, I was busy operating a centralized exchange, and I didn't spend much time on the BNB chain during that period. Over the past couple of years, I also had to deal with the U.S. government, handling cases with them, flying to the U.S., and spending four months in jail, among other things. So we actually didn't invest much time and energy into the BNB chain over these 7-8 years. However, despite that, the community has still grown. Especially this year, we've started to pay more attention to the BNB chain. I'm also investing more focus on the BNB chain now--- I don't have much else to do.

CZ: And you are also in this ecosystem, which is really empowering. This year, we've seen the BNB chain really thriving. That's a good thing. I think even today, the BNB chain is still "underdeveloped," and the entire ecosystem is still "underdeveloped." This means there are many opportunities for different projects to grow. Overall, I think it's great.

David: Yes, I completely agree. Recently, I've indeed been carrying the BNB flag outside and doing my best to explain to investors the difference between BNB (as an asset) and BNB Chain (the entire ecosystem), and how it has developed to no longer be tied to any single company. How do you usually explain this difference to everyone?

CZ: Yes, many people get confused because many media outlets like to refer to BNB as "Binance Coin." This has to do with history: it was indeed called that at first. We later tried several times to rebrand and distinguish the two. Initially, BNB had more utility on the Binance centralized exchange, but now, as you said, it has become a thriving ecosystem in its own right. BNB is a native asset on multiple blockchains, currently including BNB Smart Chain, Greenfield, opBNB, and previously the BNB Beacon Chain based on Tendermint. In the future, BNB will also be the native token for multiple blockchains adopting newer technologies.

CZ: BNB is the token that powers the decentralized ecosystem of the BNB blockchain, and it is very different from "the token of Binance." While Binance's centralized exchange still offers fee discounts for using BNB, that's just one of many use cases. The centralized exchange will also provide some yield-generating airdrop participation opportunities for BNB holders, such as Launchpad, Launchpool, Binance Alpha, etc. But again, this is just part of BNB's utility. BNB itself is a very vibrant and large ecosystem: there are multiple DEXs, perpetual contract DEXs, lending protocols, stablecoins, and so on on the BNB blockchain. There are many, many things on the BNB chain. I actually find it quite difficult to explain this clearly to many people; they easily get confused--- so I think you do a better job in this regard. Thank you for your help.

David: No, not at all, but thank you for the compliment. Let me tell you, one thing I'm really doing out there is providing explanations as much as possible. You know, we've talked about this many times: I've been in this space for a long time and have witnessed various evolutions. I've seen many people come and go, and I've seen iterations and innovations, especially driven by regulatory factors. Right? So for me, being able to explain "how this evolution happened," including what you've built over the years, and you being one of the best builders in the industry, is a wonderful thing.

David: In my view, BNB is a collection of many things, and it has shown that it might be the most sustainably iterative chain over these years. Every chain--- for example, Ethereum--- has its own roadmap, many different ideas, and upgrade visions. We also know that Bitcoin has many "political factors" in terms of BIPs (Bitcoin Improvement Proposals), and there are many iterations as well. So, in a sense, BNB can be considered one of the chains that has successfully completed upgrades and evolution over these years.

CZ: Yes. I think every chain has been evolving. The BNB chain has indeed evolved more because it has developed from a Tendermint-based blockchain. It started as an ERC-20 token, then migrated to the Tendermint blockchain, became an EVM-compatible chain, and has grown into a layer (opBNB). Then we also have Greenfield (focused on storage). Now there are some new variants being considered and developed by developers. From this perspective, we have evolved more structurally. Most other blockchains start from one architecture and then maintain it; whereas from the perspective of the BNB chain, the BNB token is the native asset of multiple blockchains. The underlying technology can evolve over time.

CZ: I've discussed this several times with some core developers. They are looking at what the "next generation" will be: the next generation architecture needs to provide 100x, 1000x throughput, greater capacity and stability, lower costs, and be "fully aware" of AI and ready for AI; it also needs to natively support stablecoins, RWAs, etc. There are many related discussions. I hope our mindset, and the community's mindset towards BNB, is that this token will be the native token of multiple blockchains, and the technology will continue to evolve rapidly. I hope we can achieve this together.

David: Yes, I completely agree. And a large part of this is about the community, just as you said. The community has been inspired by you over the years, as well as by the BNB Chain team and all participants. I've been observing myself and seeing a lot of enthusiasm from the outside. You mentioned stablecoins several times; let's dive a bit deeper. The "stablecoin story" is very timely: recently Circle went public, coupled with Ethereum's performance over the past few months, Wall Street and many investors are starting to realize the potential of stablecoins, and the passing of the "Genius Act" has also had an impact. I would tell everyone that in many ways, we've seen very strong growth of stablecoins on the BNB chain, even surpassing Ethereum at certain stages. So how do you view the landscape of stablecoins on the BNB chain? From a global perspective, would you consider stablecoins as a kind of "ETF for the dollar"?

CZ: There is so much to discuss about stablecoins. People are now realizing that stablecoins might be one of the biggest businesses in crypto. Binance, as a centralized exchange, has a strong influence on "which projects can go live," but if we look at profitability, I think Tether might be the most profitable company per capita in human history. For example, they earn about $13-15 billion a year with around 200 employees, which is just outrageous. So now everyone wants to create stablecoins. Circle has also achieved some success. In fact, about two years ago, BUSD was halted by NYDFS, but it grew from 0 to $23 billion in two to three years; and that was during a relatively "anti-crypto" government period (the Biden administration's "war on crypto"). But USDC wasn't halted, so it continued to grow and is now publicly listed.

CZ: There are now thousands of projects trying to create stablecoins, which is great. I think it will bring more diversity; some will offer higher yields, and some will have new features, etc. But if you really look at the landscape of stablecoins, my impression is that domestically in the U.S., there isn't as much need for stablecoins. Although today in crypto, the largest stablecoins are dollar-denominated and pegged to the dollar, in the U.S. there is ACH, and domestic transfers are relatively easy. Stablecoins are predominantly used in international scenarios outside the U.S. They help make the dollar more dominant globally; to be honest, every country wants their currency to be used more globally. For example, China's yuan also wants to become a global dominant currency, and other countries feel the same. Stablecoins are one way to achieve this. They help crypto and the blockchain industry better integrate into the traditional financial system, and they also provide crypto practitioners with a stable, at least fiat-denominated value anchor in the ecosystem; this is also very helpful for various countries. So from a purely economic perspective, countries should encourage the development of their own stablecoins.

CZ: Back to the BNB chain ecosystem. Historically, USDT and USDC have not provided strong native support; they only recently started issuing natively. I believe Tether still hasn't issued natively on the BNB chain, while Circle has, but it only started recently. So there is a gap here, a niche that can be filled. I think USD1 has filled that gap well; we've seen very strong growth over the past few months. So I believe stablecoins will continue to exist and will become a major player--- to be precise, a very large track. Looking back a few years, I didn't quite understand it myself. When we first started Binance, I was thinking: who would use stablecoins? Why not just use fiat? But stablecoins do solve many problems: using blockchain for international transfers is much easier; blockchain has no borders, which helps keep prices synchronized between different exchanges; and it is also a more user-friendly "form of fiat." Because of this, it has grown very quickly and will continue to grow. The stablecoin track on the BNB chain still has many opportunities because it is not yet fully developed. We see significant growth in USD1, and I actually expect more development there.

David: Yes, I agree. This also brings us back to NYDFS. They are indeed creating problems. Even from the moment I first entered this field, New York's Bit License has been slowing down innovation--- not just in New York, but across the U.S. and even globally, because many regulators look at New York's Bit License and use it as an opportunity to slow down crypto development, so the "war on crypto" started much earlier. Now with many stablecoins, I would also go back to the original Tether. Tether was born out of industry demand: people were moving value between different exchanges, while existing financial infrastructure was trying to block that. Tether played its role and grew into what you said--- one of the most profitable companies in the industry and globally. As activities on the BNB chain increase, the demand for stablecoins will naturally be captured and will help support this activity.

David: Next is the next area, RWAs. I think we've finally reached a turning point for RWA growth. In the past few cycles, we've seen "starts and stops": from the earliest real estate tokenization projects to some fund tokenizations. But now we are indeed seeing a lot of RWA activity on the rise. How do you see our current position in the RWA adoption curve? And what are some observations you've made around the BNB chain?

CZ: We've been in this field for a decade, and we are "hardcore believers" that everything will be tokenized. Not just buildings, traditional money market funds, but even "people" can be tokenized; virtual things can also be tokenized. So everything can be tokenized, but tokenization is not easy. I personally believe that more traditional financial tools will be tokenized first because they are more suitable for trading. For example, real estate has less price volatility and lower trading volume, so liquidity is poor. If you tokenize a building, because the price is relatively stable, the trading volume won't be large; without sufficient trading volume, people won't place large orders on the order book, and liquidity will be worse. If you want to enter or exit a few million dollars or even larger scales, it will be difficult, and abnormal price behavior can easily occur.

CZ: Not every asset is easy to tokenize. Crypto assets have large price fluctuations, which instead creates a "characteristic" that people are more willing to trade, leading to higher trading volumes. Additionally, when you tokenize a building, if you want to buy the entire building, you must buy all the tokens available on the market; the last few token holders may not be willing to sell, and the price will be driven very high. Furthermore, holding a "fraction" of a building doesn't necessarily mean you can live in it; in other words, how to enjoy what kind of economic usage rights and economic benefits. There are also regulatory concerns: when you tokenize a building, does it count as a security? Or something else? Who will regulate it? In the U.S., this issue is particularly pronounced because the financial market may have multiple regulators; in other countries, this may not be a problem, but the regulatory framework is still very important--- what these tokens can and cannot do. Many questions remain unclear today.

CZ: I believe RWA will be significant and will grow. If we consider stablecoins as RWA (many people do), it is already quite large. Other newer assets will also be interesting. But I personally believe that traditional financial assets will be tokenized first, followed by larger commodities that are easier to conceptualize and redeem (such as oil, gold), and finally other things.

David: That makes a lot of sense. It's also one of the points I'm excited about in the current cycle: many crypto players are "getting into the game" in traditional finance like never before; at the same time, we are also seeing some TradFi players trying to enter the crypto market. For example, Galaxy--- I think they are one of the first, if not the first, to tokenize their equity recently; you should have seen the news. We will see more attempts like this. As for whether there will really be significant demand, whether people in the crypto circle will be genuinely interested in participating in "tokenized stocks" in the traditional financial market--- that remains to be seen. Now, back to the topic of "the migration of value from centralized exchanges to decentralized exchanges" and other future areas. At the recent BNB Day, you mentioned: if you could start over, at 20 years old, you would focus on AI Agents and a privacy-focused DEX. That really resonated with me. When you think about that inflection point--- I've heard you talk a lot about the "future landscape" regarding how the crypto market will transition from centralized exchanges to DEXs. How do you think this will evolve over time?

CZ: Of course. First, to respond to another point you mentioned: the tokenization of stocks. I think this is the "most obvious" thing to do because which country wouldn't want their stocks to be accessible to global users? The problem is that most stocks will be classified as "securities." There are very strict laws around securities in various countries (most have regulatory bodies like the SEC), and there is also some sort of international SEC alliance. So now some people issuing stock tokens are trying to jump through many "hoops" to separate "tokens" from "securities."

CZ: This will bring problems: the prices of tokens and stocks are not synchronized, which is not right. In my view, if there is a price difference, you should buy the cheaper one and then redeem it for the more expensive one; if many people do this, the price difference will disappear. But the fact is that the price difference has always existed, indicating that the entire process has not been streamlined. By my definition, this means that this product "still doesn't work." But I do believe that stock tokenization is a large market, and we need clear regulatory guidance--- what can be done, what cannot be done, etc. I know many countries are piloting this, whether in the U.S., UAE, or other countries.

CZ: Back to AI. I believe AI will increase people's interaction volume by 3-6 orders of magnitude, for example, from a thousand to a million times. In the future, each of us will have thousands of agents working for us in the background. There will be agents to transcribe this content--- perhaps there is already AI transcribing this podcast. I hope in the future there will be agents to edit videos, pick out highlights, help me remove wrinkles, and then post it online and monetize it in some way. For example, people might watch a third of it, and to see the remaining two-thirds, they would need to pay a bit, or even just a "few cents' worth." All these transactions will be "super high-frequency, super low-cost." I believe blockchain is the only solution that can handle this type of transaction. AI will greatly increase the transaction volume on the blockchain.

CZ: At the same time, blockchain can also do a lot for AI: for example, "secure AI," such as privacy protection, secure training, secure data collection and usage, etc., can all be implemented using blockchain in a way that is truly user-controlled. I've also talked to some AI companies: they will use blockchain to achieve "transparency in the algorithm development process," allowing people to peek inside because right now it is just a black box. We don't know what data was used for training, but it seems AI can provide answers. For example, if I ask AI to summarize any book--- if AI has that book, I'm not sure if it paid for every book; I'm not sure if AI paid $10 for every existing book; if I ask it to summarize a paid webpage, AI can somehow have it. So, AI has many potential issues that can be solved by blockchain. I again believe this is a massive industry. A better way to put it is: at least in my lifetime, there are three foundational technologies--- the Internet, blockchain, and AI. The Internet still has many opportunities, but the latter two have just begun; both have significant growth potential, especially the latter two.

David: I completely agree. I've also spent a lot of time studying the AI market and its evolution. Last year, I was thinking about many ideas, such as establishing a bank dedicated to serving AI agents--- each of us will have thousands of agents making "trillions" of transactions daily, beyond what our brains can comprehend. We need a blockchain-based, scalable ecosystem to support those activities. You also mentioned that AI cannot KYC, cannot complete account openings with exchanges and banks. So without blockchain intervention, this is impossible. Going back to 2017-2018, I was involved in one of the earliest AI agent projects, called "Botchain," but it didn't materialize. When you have unlimited, unimaginable "machine-to-machine" communication, we need to leave a trace, and these records must be verifiable and on-chain. This way, during audits, we can see: where my LLM/agent pulled data from, where yours pulled from, and what agreements they reached over a period of time.

David: Now I want to step back a bit from the topic of CEX and DEX because this is another fascinating question in the market. Looking back over the past few cycles, centralized exchanges have long been key drivers of many activities and have been many people's "first stop" in crypto. Now we see the rapid growth of DEXs, and I believe this is a trend we both expect to continue. How do you think this will evolve over time?

CZ: This trend is very clear. In the further future, DEXs will be larger than CEXs, and this is very clear. As you said, CEXs are, in my view, the "stepping stone" for people entering the crypto world. Users coming from Web2 will find it easier to get started with an email and password, with customer service and someone to guide them. The concept of a custodial platform is also easier to understand because it is conceptually more like a bank. But as they become more experienced, they will say: I now have my own wallet, I can manage it myself, which gives me more freedom and control, and also means more responsibility (like protecting the device). Once people master these, they will turn to DEXs.

CZ: Therefore, I am 100% confident that in the future, DEXs will be larger than CEXs. Thus, the chain itself--- the ecosystem of the chain--- becomes very important. This is also why, in my view, in the long term, "the ecosystem of the chain" is far more important than any single centralized exchange. In this sense, I am forced to not spend time on centralized exchanges anymore, which is a good thing. Now I can have more time to contribute to the decentralized ecosystem. And this is actually quite fascinating because once you get used to it… I would say, for the average person, the decentralized ecosystem is still relatively difficult to use. Trading volume is increasing, and it is quite considerable, but for the average user, using decentralized products will show many random strings, many random numbers on the screen--- what to do? Even in centralized exchanges, there are many numbers, but at least they are understandable. We need to improve the products to make them better and easier to use as a community. But "on-chain, decentralized" is definitely the future; otherwise, we wouldn't be in this industry, right?

David: This also ties into one of the points that excites me about the current market. Looking back at my career: I come from the traditional finance world, but now I am a "crypto geek," a "lifelong cryptographer," and will always be so. I've been trying to connect the crypto market with the capital markets: trying to create Bitcoin ETFs, getting Galaxy listed, and also helping other companies go public. In every cycle, I try to help more people see opportunities and become a small bridge between the two markets. As for where we are today: we see a lot of activity migrating from centralized exchanges to decentralized exchanges, but at the same time, the vast majority of wealth and capital in the world is still flowing through traditional finance, through centralized exchanges and markets in the traditional world.

David: I believe the truly massive opportunity now is "Digital Asset Treasuries." This is the achievement that Michael Saylor has made over the past five years. In fact, I just talked to someone about this: Michael Saylor wasn't always a Bitcoin believer. In contrast, you and I have been waving the Bitcoin flag since we entered this field, and we have also done our best to wave the BNB flag and have always been long-term believers. I often tell people: you might be one of the few I've seen in the industry who can keep everyone focused during every fluctuation--- "focus on holding the bid, don't get shaken out by volatility." Volatility is a "characteristic," especially when you are in a rapidly growing asset class. With the improvement of the regulatory environment and the enhancement of investors' awareness of the potential and value of digital assets, I feel that Saylor has led the way; and there are others like Simon from Japan's Metaplanet, and now David Bailey and Anthony Pompliano, many people are waving the Bitcoin flag, helping people understand how these assets can enter the balance sheets of governments and enterprises as unique assets.

David: I am also very excited to tell everyone the story of BNB, explaining how special and unique it is as an asset. On this basis, whether as an investor or as a CEO operating an industry-leading digital asset treasury company, I see a demand: we must focus on a few truly special and unique crypto assets because not all crypto assets are the same. You and I both know BNB--- there is something special about it. Over the past few months, it has indeed outperformed Bitcoin; from the outset, it has been one of the few assets that can outperform Bitcoin. When you think about digital asset treasuries and the new wave, how do you view this market and the opportunities within it?

CZ: There is a lot to unpack here. First, back to the starting point: humans like to understand things through "classification," finding it easier; for example, "traditional finance vs. Web3," "Web2 vs. Web3." But there are actually no boundaries: at the end of the day, it's all finance, just using different technologies. Traditional finance can fully utilize blockchain technology; banks can use blockchain technology; crypto companies should also deeply integrate with traditional financial markets and market structures. We shouldn't draw lines to separate them; we should fully integrate--- terminology is just to help people understand better. In this sense, crypto companies should tap into the existing market (raising funds, finding developers, obtaining resources), and the existing financial market should also use new technologies.

CZ: Regarding Michael Saylor, my intuition is that he probably became active in the public eye around 2017-2018, possibly even earlier. Once he understands, he has a very strong conviction. We have also experienced this: first learning, then "transforming" or "fully transforming," becoming steadfast believers, and being able to ride through volatility because we can see a longer-term future--- not the price tomorrow or the day after (which cannot be predicted), but the trends five or ten years down the line. This is interesting. Saylor invented a new structure, and he has indeed tried to explain this point at different times, but I didn't quite understand it, yet I pay my respects to him. This new structure allows crypto companies to raise money from traditional markets. The traditional market is larger, and many investors can buy company stocks but cannot directly buy crypto; being able to buy stocks that are "indirectly related to crypto" provides a convenient entry point into Web3. Once they have this indirect exposure, they will continue to pay attention to crypto and will help the ecosystem grow.

CZ: In this sense, Saylor has built one of the most successful companies in the world using a very simple strategy. Although he is a hardcore fan (a Bitcoin Maxi, only looking at Bitcoin), there are many other very successful cryptocurrencies, including BNB and many other public chains. From the success of Binance (the centralized exchange): if it only listed Bitcoin, it would not have been as successful; it was precisely because it listed multiple assets that it attracted a large number of users into crypto. You and I both agree that BNB performs strongly and has many use cases. We are at the intersection you mentioned: connecting traditional finance with Web3 finance. Tools like DAT allow crypto companies to access traditional market capital while also allowing traditional markets to participate in crypto, which is mutually beneficial. The more people are exposed to BNB or other crypto assets (whether directly or indirectly), the greater their contribution to the crypto ecosystem.

CZ: This is "extremely beneficial for both sides": once companies or investors gain indirect exposure to BNB, they may recommend it to friends; if they know developers, they might say, "Why not develop your protocol on BNB?" "Why not use BNB for this?" "Why not use another crypto asset for that?" This will help the ecosystem grow. An important point is that in the decentralized world, it is not driven by any one company or person. I am not "driving" everything about BNB; I do what I need to do, but I do not manage everyone in the ecosystem, and they do not report to me. The more people tie their incentives to the ecosystem, the more they will contribute, which in turn helps everyone in the ecosystem. Even in the decentralized world, if we can help more people form "mutual symbiosis," it will also drive ecosystem growth. So I think this is a wonderful thing: Michael Saylor has paved the way, and now we are adopting it, and you are leading the charge, which is fantastic.

David: Thank you for your recognition. As we've discussed over multiple crypto cycles, this can be said to be an unexpected path. You've spent a lot of time communicating with governments and company leaders around the world. We envisioned early on that one day governments would buy Bitcoin, Ethereum, BNB, and other digital assets. But we didn't realize that a "corporate form" could emerge, aiming to maximize "the amount of Bitcoin or BNB corresponding to each share," accumulating these assets and becoming very large holders; this provides investors with an incredible way to gain exposure to these assets and the ecosystem. More importantly, as you mentioned: by gaining this exposure, people will gradually dive deeper into the ecosystem, forming a special "flywheel."

David: I often cite the example of Salvador (from our trip together a few years ago). Salvador did something special: using Bitcoin to make themselves "go viral." From the perspective of "actually holding Bitcoin," they also received good returns on the dollars they invested; but the greater return was "putting themselves on the map," making themselves famous. They attracted entrepreneurs, developers, and investors from all over the world. When 10,000, 20,000, or 100,000 people enter a small country, the compounding effect of scale can fundamentally change that country's trajectory in a generation. We see similar phenomena around the world: as long as a country opens up its regulations, attracts innovators, entrepreneurs, and capital, and opens its doors to crypto, it will ultimately reap more and more dividends over time.

CZ: Absolutely. I completely agree. Before Michael Saylor, if someone had told me "you can create a public company to buy crypto assets," I would have thought it was too crazy: how could that work? This also reflects my insufficient understanding of the public market and traditional market--- although I've been in fintech for many years, I haven't operated a public company, so I didn't understand. Saylor clearly has more experience; he figured it out. Then Salvador is also interesting: this is a case with very clear leadership--- President Bukele. Without his push, we wouldn't have gone there (why would I go there?); without his push, Binance wouldn't have set up a customer service office there, etc. I think this is a classic case: a country that quickly or sufficiently early adopts new technology can gain greater dividends.

CZ: Looking at the UAE. The UAE has always been "crypto-friendly, AI-friendly," attracting many new entrepreneurs. The UAE doesn't have many natural resources--- it has oil, but not much else; it is a desert. But now there is a world-class, prosperous city (or two). Everyone loves it there, the economy is performing well, and the country is growing rapidly. I believe that those countries that adopt technology in the early stages and in the right way will grow very quickly. This brings us back to the innovations we see: RWAs, AI, etc. If a country can adopt these new things, the economy will continue to grow.

David: I also like such examples. The achievements of the UAE in 10-20 years are quite remarkable; growth is compounding. As a closing thought, if we talk about your vision for BNB and the entire crypto ecosystem in the next 10-20 years: how do you see the "possibilities and potential"? How would you measure "success"?

CZ: My perspective is: how many people can we help with BNB? Many companies won't focus on poor countries or underdeveloped countries, such as Africa and Southeast Asia, because the ROI is not obvious at the moment. But if you look at Binance (the company, not the BNB chain), today there are many users in Africa, and these users currently bring in very little revenue; I believe that in ten years, they will bring in a lot of revenue, and there will be no one else there. We help them first by connecting them to finance; subsequently, they will reap rewards, and the platform will also be compensated appropriately, which is a win-win.

CZ: For BNB, the opportunities are even greater because it is a decentralized, open network and protocol. What I want to do is: bring the next few hundred million people into the next wave, providing them with the next stage of fintech--- "next-generation fintech." As the world's population is likely to continue growing, we should empower 10 billion or more people, providing them with financial services. This is the goal in my mind. It is not a price target; it is not about competing with other public chains or surpassing Bitcoin. As you said, BNB has indeed outperformed Bitcoin historically, which is remarkable and challenging; but I don't think that is the correct "benchmark." The correct "benchmark" is: as a community, how many people can we help? The more people we help, the more people join the community, which is a self-reinforcing phenomenon. We should continue to do this.

David: I think that's a beautiful answer; thank you. Every time I try to keep everyone in the right mindset: focus on the long term, focus on building, focus on helping others. This is a beautiful vision.

CZ: Exactly. I think you have that mindset. You are one of the best personalities I've met in the industry; you've been in this industry for a long time and have a strong sense of mission. So when you say you are willing to take the lead, we are all very happy. Whether you need my personal help, YZi Labs, or support from any of our affiliated companies or teams, we are more than happy to provide support. At the same time, we are also very willing to seek help from other participants in the ecosystem or those outside the BNB chain ecosystem.

CZ: I believe that collaborating to grow the entire ecosystem is very important, and it will benefit everyone.

David: Absolutely. This has always been my way of doing things: collaboration. I also like to tell everyone that I have defined "why I love crypto": it is the "most non-zero-sum game" in the world. Good participants are all working hard to grow market share. In fact, there is one more point I want to summarize: think about the "next billion, the next two billion" people; they will only live in a world where crypto becomes increasingly important. This is a beautiful future vision.

CZ: Absolutely, absolutely.

David: CZ, it’s my honor. This conversation has been very enjoyable; thank you, it has been a great discussion. CZ: Great, thank you very much.

David: See you soon.

Text organized by: RPC Cat Friends Club (Nine Lives Society)

https://www.readyplayerclub.com/

https://x.com/rpcnftclub

Original interview video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZz1IRkLcbw

David J. Namdar: https://x.com/namdare

```