A look at the Binance wallets. Details on how a wallet has 22mn BNB without a record of deposits. BSC Beacon chain looks shady as f**k.

Who is the biggest owner of #Binance's BNB?

TD:LR - Binance.

• BNB Circ Supply 159.9M BNB
  
• Binance linked wallets (Not in Proof of Reserves)
• 109-131M BNB on Beacon in Binance linked wallets. (67 - 81%)
• Customer Funds (PoR) : 1. 16.5M BNB on ETH 2. 6.5M BNB on BSC

​

Quick explainer on BNB token.

• Launched in 2017, on the ETH chain with 200M BNB supply.
• 100M was given to ICO
• 80M to Founding Team of Binance (4 year vesting period)
• 20M was given to angel investors.

In 2019, Binance launched the Beacon Chain. The plan was all BNB tokens on ETH to eventually be migrated to the Beacon Chain.

• Beacon has 137M BNB circ supply
• 16.5M BNB remain on ETH
  

Very little activity on ETH, other than burst of movement in the lead up to FTX crash.

​

BNB Smart Chain (BSC) was launched in 2020.

• Beacon is used for governance, voting, & staking.
• BSC is EVM compatible and is for smart contracts.
• There are 24M BNB on BSC.

​

So quick summary before moving on:

• 137M BNB on Beacon
• 16.5M BNB on ETH
• 24M BNB on BSC
  

This adds up to 177M circ supply. CMC states 159.9M. BNB are burned on both Beacon & BSC. This could account for the discrepancy. Lets stay focused & use the 159.9M circulating supply.

Now we have to determine who owns all the BNB Binance published their Proof of Reserves (PoR). They specifically state these are customer funds, with a little extra. Binance's PoR document

The PoR lists Binance's major wallets on Ethereum and BSC, but none on the Beacon chain.

• 16.1M BNB on ETH are customer funds held in Binance wallets (likely held on the exchange). This is 97% of BNB on ETH. We can conclude BNB on ETH is mostly owned by Binance customers.
• 6.5M BNB are declared on the BSC as part of the PoR. That is 27% of the 24M BNB on the BSC chain. Proof of BNB on BSC chain from Nansen website

Right, now on to the big player, the Beacon chain! 9 of the top wallets on Beacon are linked to Binance, and are not included in the PoR. Therefore, they are not customer funds. (otherwise, this then calls into dispute the entire PoR to begin with) These hold 108.8M BNB!

One wallet is a very strange wallet. People have suggested that it's a delegator wallet. The issue with this wallet is it only has 10 transactions, none of which show 22M BNB being deposited.

We will dwell deep into this wallet.

​

​

​

​

Part-1: "Something very suspicous is going on with the Binance Beacon Chain."

TD:LR - The 4th largest wallet holds 22M BNB , but has no transaction history of these funds being deposited. 9 transactions, only 2 deposits for less than 0.0001 BNB.

So, basically they deposited 0.0001 BNB, but has 22mn BNB in the wallet.

At first I thought this was a bug with the BNB explorer, so I checked another. I haven't found another dedicated BNB Beacon chain explorer, but Bitquery has access to this chain. It also shows no 22M BNB transaction.

Also, the top 10 wallets hold 152M BNB, all of which are connected to Binance's declared wallets by large deposit & withdrawals (excluding the glitch wallet above). Binance has only declared 38M BNB as their hot & cold wallets on their reserve page.

Overall, more eyes need to be on the Beacon chain to find out what's going on here.

​

Part-2:

Here, we are going to dig deep into the Binance chains. This is a mess, and there is a lot of very hard public evidence things do not work as they should.

I am sorrty, but its a bit technical. It's not ok to say "the binance chains dont look like real blockchains and fail basic token history audits" without proper evidence.

You all should feel free to correct me. I will link and quote code and some transactions as required.

There are 2 chains:

1. A geth fork with smart contracts.
2. A cosmos fork with built-in DEX & other bits.
   

Both of them are very heavily modified. the geth fork for example includes hard coded "genesis contracts" which interact w/ cosmos chain in the dark. Also, they have some oddness, as discussed below. They are not blockchains arguably.

When people told that they see balances without transfers they are correct. Here is a transfer of 200k bnb into the token hub on the geth side: BSC scan which shows the transaction of BNB going out.

There is a "cross chain package" linked which takes us to: this specifies a destination address...but searching the explorer does not find the transfer

Here is a transfer from cosmos to geth which works fine you can trace it all the way through: Successful Transaction from Cosmos to geth

Here is one that was confirmed on the cosmos side but never reached the geth side note its 816 days old and in status "success" but no txhash for the other side is there. This mechanism doesn't seem to work. Proof: See the second line: TxHash on BSCscan which still shows pending after 816 days

It gets worse. There is not even a way to check for incoming cross-chain on the cosmos side. This is why ppl see balances without transfers: even if they work, they aren't shown clearly.

I am able to find old transfers into the bridge (hub) because i have a full node running. here it gets super suspicious.

Remember I said the BSC geth thing is heavily modified? they also suspiciously recommend you run nodes from large snapshots.

​

Using the snapshots requires a prune-ancient flag that definitely does not exist in normal geth. It is antithetical to the the whole idea of blockchains to do this.

Running this way, you can only pull 90k blocks behind head via API. Older blocks are gone via a "pruned-freezer" that was added to geth and you can't unset the flag once running or to quote the error message "prune-ancient flag is set, may start fail, can add prune-ancient parameter resolve"

For the nodes synced from 0, they have the data. You can google that exact string, with the typo, to Github and start to see the weirdness. Also, the pruned-freezer is weirdly fucking strange.

The geth "fork" also includes bytecode for the system contracts. see for example: geth fork with a bytecode for contracts

Now, the contracts which are causing troubles in some of the bridging are kept in the other repo: contracts causing troubles in bridging are in this repo, for some weird reason.

There are two things to note.

first, you can see clearly that sending and receiving across the chains are implemented differently. this explains why the explorers are not symmetric. Github contract showing different implementations for sending and receiving

Second and worse, the code versions referenced in the hard-coded pre-compiled byte code often look wrong. the latest "gibbs" upgrade uses different code for the main and test nets. committing byte code is weird enough. but using different version for test and prod? How is that acceptable?

We can now see for sure there are magical transfers between systems and these are not auditable or IMO, they are auditable and they fail.

The supply of BNB does not appear to be consistently mananged across both halves of the "binance chain complex".

The quantity of tokens in the geth-side's hub does not match the circulating supply on the cosmos side. Also, how the fuck does the geth side shows an additional 24mn tokens somehow?

Lots of stuff here does not look to have a verifiable history. its probably not fair to call this a "blockchain" anymore.

Please beware people. Verify, don't trust.

​

TL;DR People are worried about Binance exchange being shady, but in reality, it is the BSC chains that are working shady as hell.

Binance is not able to show their PoR as they have a lot of opaqueness and shadyness in their BSC beacon chains.