Does Binance really respect the Creators who participate in its campaigns?
To Binance Ceo and Coceo :
@cz_binance @heyibinance @_RichardTeng
Why do campaigns and events organized in
@binance_vietnam repeatedly run into operational and communication issues?
When will Binance seriously review how these campaigns are designed, communicated and managed by the Vietnam-based team?
This is not about attacking individuals. It is about accountability. If Creators are expected to follow Binanceโs rules, the team running the campaign should also be held to the same standard.
During the Group Chat creation campaign, I reached 1,000 members on Day 1 and became the 2nd Creator to reach 2,000 members in around 2 days.
Image 1 โ 1,000 members reached on Day 1 during the Group Chat campaign
Image 2 โ 2,000 members reached in around 2 days during the Group Chat campaign
My community was built organically on Binance Square. A significant part came from a previous community I had spent around one year building.
No bought members, bots or fake accounts. Binance can verify this through my profile and community history.
Yet my $500 Legend reward was split among 9 groups, leaving only around $55 per group.
So I need clear answers:
Which 9 groups were included?
How many members did each group have?
How many members actually overlapped?
Why were they placed in the same reward pool?
How exactly was my final reward calculated?
There is also a major contradiction in the campaign rules.
The campaign allowed one Binance account to participate in multiple Group Chats and have that member counted independently in each group.
But the โMember Overlap Abuseโ rule allows groups with โฅ70% overlapping members to be combined.
So which is it?
If participating in multiple groups is allowed, why should Creators be penalized when members do exactly what the campaign permits?
If this can later be considered abuse, why was the boundary not clearly defined from the beginning?
The FAQ also stated that different reward milestones had separate pools, with groups at the same milestone combined only when overlap exceeded 70%.
But the final reward distribution appears to have applied the pooling mechanism differently.
Which rule was actually used โ the published rule or the final calculation?
The โฅ70% methodology also needs transparency.
350 overlapping members represent 70% of a 500-member group, but only 17.5% of a 2,000-member group.
So how was the threshold calculated across groups of very different sizes?
If Binance placed my community in a 9-group cluster, show the data:
1.The exact 9 groups, member counts and milestones.
2.The exact overlap percentage and methodology.
3.The snapshot time and member data used.
4.Why these groups were placed together.
5.How the final reward was calculated.
The campaign provided growth mechanisms, including red envelopes, allowing Creators to grow Group Chats quickly.
Creators used the mechanisms Binance provided and reached the announced milestones.
If Binance underestimated how many groups would qualify, that is a campaign-design issue โ not something Creators should pay for after completing the work.
The rules should not become stricter after Creators have already done the work.
If rewards were heavily diluted by the overlap mechanism, Binance should consider additional compensation for affected Creators.
I am not asking for special treatment.
I am asking for transparency and consistency.
Show the groups.
Show the overlap.
Show the methodology.
Show the calculation.
Creators followed the campaign and reached the milestones.
Now Binance should clearly explain how the rewards were calculated.
@FullTiltFrancis @binance @BINANCE @binance_vietnam