Hi
“How can NEIRO ‘CTO’ be considered decentralized and risk-free when 70% of its supply is held by a centralized intermediary like Binance?”
Where do you see Binance “owning” 70% of the supply?
“Some might argue that these tokens technically belong to the clients, not the exchange.”
Yes, that’s exactly right. Thousands of clients hold their share of the supply in one large public Binance wallet. This is how centralized exchanges work: they provide high liquidity, low fees, and attract buyers, unlike on-chain transactions, which often come with higher fees.
This is standard practice across major exchanges because it facilitates liquidity and user access, helping tokens grow and reach a broader audience while minimizing the costs and barriers of on-chain transactions. This centralization is not inherently negative; it’s simply an element of a healthy ecosystem that coexists with decentralization.
Let’s not forget that Neiro wasn’t added to Binance at launch. The token was first launched on a decentralized exchange. As Neiro gained traction, it was listed on Binance and many other centralized exchanges, giving it exposure to a much larger user base. Naturally, this led to increased demand, and as a result, more tokens are now held on exchanges. That’s why a significant portion of the supply is held on Binance. It reflects the growth of the community and the token’s success across multiple platforms.
“Not your keys, not your tokens.”
That’s a great saying, but it doesn’t quite apply here in the way you might think. “Not your keys, not your tokens” implies that if you don’t control the keys to your tokens, there’s a risk the custodian (like an exchange) could freeze or steal your funds. However, when tokens are held on an exchange, they’re still the property of the users, just under the exchange’s custody. It’s not like the exchange is “owning” the tokens; they’re holding them on behalf of the users.
Think of it like a bank account. Your money is in your account at the bank, but the bank is the intermediary. It’s your money, but the bank manages the storage. Would it make sense for someone to argue that your money isn’t yours just because it’s in the bank’s system? “Not your keys, not your funds” doesn’t quite fit this analogy, does it?
“So, when a memecoin has the majority of its supply controlled by a centralized intermediary, isn’t it exposing itself to the same systemic risks?”
Are you suggesting that tokens on Binance aren’t owned by its customers? Binance holds these tokens in trust for its users, not as Binance’s “own” assets.
“For example, if the exchange collapses like FTX, 70% of the token supply could vanish overnight—a risk too significant to ignore.”
That’s a concern, but it’s important to look at the bigger picture. While any exchange collapse is a risk, there are just as many, if not more, risks when holding tokens on-chain. Your wallet could be compromised, you could fall victim to phishing, honeypots, or rug pulls, or your private keys could be lost. These risks are much more common than the possibility of Binance collapsing. And remember, Binance is a leading exchange with top-notch security, proof of reserves, and a huge user base, it’s not the same risk profile as FTX.
Ultimately, the decision to hold tokens on a CEX or on-chain is a personal one. Both have their pros and cons. But why focus on something that isn’t a risk to you directly? Is your concern about Binance, or are you a Neiro CTO holder yourself?
Decentralization can happen in many ways, and it’s a process. As Neiro grows, more holders will start to move their tokens off exchanges and into personal wallets. But don’t forget, you’re on Solana. Transactions are fast and inexpensive compared to Ethereum, which helps make on-chain activity more accessible. This is also why people might prefer CEX over DEX when it comes to Ethereum tokens.
We are committed to a balanced approach where both centralized and decentralized elements can coexist.
Let me remind everyone:
Somehow, these discussions about the Neiro IP always seem to go off-topic.
You advocate for decentralization, yet you’re trying to limit voting rights within the DAO. A DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) is meant to be open and decentralized, welcoming participation from anyone with the $DOG token. If we limit that participation, it ceases to be a DAO and becomes a CDO (Centralized Dictatorship Organization). Is that the goal here?
A DAO should be built on openness and inclusivity, where all token holders, regardless of their size, have a voice. Restricting access or voting rights undermines the core principle of decentralization.
Let’s make sure we stay focused on the main discussions and avoid diverting into unrelated topics. Our aim here is to advance the project through productive, solution-oriented conversations.
Keep it clean. Anything that isn’t about expanding the offerings or contributing to the conversation should be left out of these threads.
to us it’s all fait: our bropump CA, the beautiful retracements our chart has been through, this IP…
→ more exposure for $DOG 
and the chart showed a sneak peak of that upside already if one wanted to verify.
