Corrections

The entries below are errors we found and fixed ourselves, newest first: what was wrong, what it could have misled you about, and what it says now. The English edition was published on 2026-08-29 with the 2026-08-29 entries already applied; the three dated 2026-08-25 were fixes made on the Chinese edition, which was written first.

2026-09-03 · The glossary was vague on when interest starts, and missed two words that are on the Binance screen

The “accrual start” entry in the Earn glossary read “some count from the day you subscribe, some from the next settlement cycle”. Checked against Binance’s current documentation, that misleads: the three tiers start at three different points and none of them works the way “counts from the day you subscribe” implies — the Real-Time APR on Flexible accrues by the minute straight away; the Tiered APR on Flexible runs off the previous day’s snapshot, starting 08:00 (UTC+8) the day after you subscribe and landing the day after that; a Locked product does not accrue on the day you subscribe, starting 00:00 UTC the next day. Read the old sentence and someone locking thirty days would expect thirty days of interest, when it is usually twenty-nine. Rewritten to the official wording in all three languages. Two entries were also added, because this page exists to decode the words on the subscription screen and it was missing two that are literally printed there: Real-Time APR (the Flexible tier that accrues by the minute onto your Earn balance and generates no distribution record) and utilisation rate (the share of an asset’s pool currently lent out). Utilisation explains both “why is this coin’s rate higher” and “why might I not get it out in a rush” — officially, the more of an asset is lent out the higher its APR, and Binance caps utilisation per asset while stating the available balance can still fall temporarily short. The same passage was added to what the platform does with the coins you park.

2026-09-03 · The matrix had the lock-up tier’s liquidity backwards

In the product rules matrix, the “staking / launch rewards” row answered “No” under “can you get it back any time”, and the homepage table said “locked per the campaign rules”. Checking Binance’s Launchpool documentation shows that is wrong: locked assets can be unlocked at any time, rewards accrue hourly and can be claimed whenever, and even if you forget, principal and unclaimed rewards return to Spot within 90 minutes of the pool closing. Answering “No” would lead a reader to think this tier is less liquid than Locked, when the opposite is true. The matrix row now reads “Yes, unlock any time” with its filter attribute corrected to match, so it appears when you filter for “only what I can withdraw any time”. The homepage cell now reads “Depends: Launchpool unlocks any time, staking runs to term”, because ETH and SOL staking genuinely does run to a term and the two should not be lumped together. Fixed in all three languages, and both now link to the new lock-up article.

2026-09-03 · The depeg timeline had stopped in 2023, three and a half years behind

What has actually happened when stablecoins depegged and its companion timeline both ended at USDC in March 2023. For a page whose whole selling point is "laid out by date, so you can see which ones recovered", being three and a half years behind reads as "nothing has happened since". Two events from 2025 have been added: One, USDe on 11 October 2025. During that market-wide liquidation cascade, USDe printed well below a dollar on Binance alone while trading near peg on other venues at the same moment. Ethena’s founder pointed at how Binance was pricing it, and Binance’s own analysis column filed it as a pricing-mechanism failure under extreme conditions rather than a collateral problem. We have given this its own fourth cause category, "trading venue and liquidation" — the coin was fine, but the exchange priced your liquidation off that local number. Two, the xUSD cluster in November 2025. An external fund manager for Stream Finance disclosed large asset losses, the platform suspended deposits and withdrawals, and its yield-bearing stablecoin xUSD came off peg. Elixir had a large share of the reserves behind its own stablecoin, deUSD, exposed to Stream; deUSD’s backing collapsed and it was later wound down, with the panic spreading to USDX. The article’s spine therefore changes from "three events, three ways to fail" to five and five, with the section page and descriptions updated to match. Neither 2025 event involved USDT or USDC, the mainstream coins backed by cash and short-dated treasuries; the article states that boundary explicitly so the two categories don’t get blurred.

2026-09-03 · The Chinese caption put the referral field on the wrong screen

On the Binance sign-up guide, the Chinese caption under the sign-up screenshot said the form contained "a collapsed optional item, and that is where the code goes". Re-opening the sign-up page on 2026-09-03 shows the first screen holds only an email/phone field, the Register button and three social sign-in options — the referral field is not on that screen, it comes a step later in the flow. The English and Portuguese captions already had this right; only the Chinese one was wrong, and a reader following it would hunt for the code on the wrong screen. The caption has been rewritten and the screenshot replaced with one taken that day. In the same pass all three real screenshots (sign-up, fee schedule, Simple Earn) were re-captured in all three languages — nine images — and the fee caption was rewritten to describe only the fee tiers the page showed when the image was taken, dated 2026-09, with a reminder to go by Binance’s fee page at the time you trade.

2026-09-03 · "The Locked rate is fixed at subscription" was wrong

The homepage comparison table, the product matrix, How Much More Does Locked Pay and the stablecoin Earn guide all said a Locked product fixes its rate at subscription. Checking Binance’s help centre page for Locked products shows that is not the case: the official wording is that "unless otherwise specified, the APR of the Simple Earn Locked product you subscribe to is not fixed and may change daily", and that "the APR may be adjusted during the lock-up period". The only products that genuinely hold still for the full term are the ones marked "fixed rate" on the Product Rules tab of the subscription dialog. The error would lead a reader to believe that locking the money also locks the percentage, which overstates how certain Locked really is — the most consequential factual error on this site so far. The affected passages and both tables have been rewritten in all three languages, with the concrete action added: open Product Rules and check floating-or-fixed before you subscribe. We re-checked the numbers around this rule at the same time and they still hold: a Locked subscription does not accrue on the day you subscribe, accrual starts at 00:00 UTC the next day, rewards are distributed to Spot between 00:00 and 08:00 UTC daily, and early redemption returns the assets to Spot within 72 hours with all accrued rewards clawed back and anything already paid deducted from the principal. Checked 2026-09-03 against the Binance help centre guide to Simple Earn Locked products.

2026-09-02 · “Principal returned as-is” on early redemption contradicted itself

In Exiting Flexible, and What Early Redemption Costs, the comparison table said early redemption of a Locked product returns the “principal as-is” and the body said none of the three rules deducts from your principal — while later in the same article we wrote that rewards already distributed are deducted from the returned principal. Both cannot be true, and a reader would reasonably conclude that the transfer arriving on redemption day equals the original principal. Per Binance’s help centre page on Locked products, the accurate statement is: the redemption transfer = principal − rewards already paid out. Only when you add back the rewards you had already received does the total come near the original principal, and the assets can take up to 72 hours to reach Spot. The table and the body have been rewritten in all three languages, with a worked example added. This one directly affects what a reader expects to receive, so it gets its own entry.

2026-09-02 · The disclosure page contradicted itself on fees and the invite code

One paragraph said your fee rate has nothing to do with whether you entered an invite code, and then said the code brings a fee discount of up to 20%. A reader had no way to tell whether the code affects what they pay. The two things are now stated separately: the published fee tier is set by your account level and whether you pay fees in BNB, and is identical with or without a code; the discount or rebate that comes with a referral relationship is a separate layer, at whatever rate Binance shows at the time, officially capped at 20% and subject to their policy. The conclusion is that entering a code can only leave what you pay lower or unchanged. Updated in all three languages.

2026-09-02 · The English and Portuguese author pages showed no summary in Google search results

On the English and Portuguese author pages, the quotation marks around the pen name were written in a way that wiped out the whole page summary. In Google results and in social share cards, those two pages showed either nothing underneath or a random chunk of body text, so you couldn’t tell what the page was about. The quotes are fixed, and the summaries, which had been too long anyway, are now short enough to show in full. Our pre-publication checklist now has one more line: a page summary can’t be empty.

2026-08-29 · The English edition called one article by two names

After the headline of "Locked Pays More: How Long Should You Lock For" was settled, four places still carried the pre-final wording (how long is worth locking): the homepage entry, the section page body, the article list that section page gives to search engines, and the cover image’s descriptive text. The phrase was not idiomatic English to begin with, and a reader arriving through different doors saw two different names for the same piece. All four now match the headline. The Chinese and Portuguese editions were not affected.

2026-08-29 · English and Portuguese articles showed two different publication dates

The English and Portuguese editions were published on 2026-08-29 and the article pages said so, but the sitemap (the page list we hand to search engines) and the RSS feeds for both still carried 2026-08-25, the date the Chinese edition first appeared. The same article was giving out two different publication dates. Each edition now states its own: the 14 Chinese articles keep 2026-08-25 as first publication with this edit recorded as an update, and the 28 English and Portuguese articles are dated 2026-08-29 everywhere. No real date was moved to make anything look fresher.

2026-08-29 · We had the wrong jurisdiction for the FDUSD issuer

"USDT, USDC or FDUSD" said the issuer of FDUSD was FD121 Limited, registered in Hong Kong. That was stale: in 2025 the issuing entity moved to FD121 (BVI) Limited in the British Virgin Islands, and the Hong Kong company, First Digital Trust Limited, is now the custodian of the reserves. The two sit in different jurisdictions under different regimes, so treating them as one entity changes what a reader concludes about who regulates what. The passage has been rewritten in all three languages.

2026-08-29 · The language switcher in the header was fake — now it's real

Every page header displayed three language labels, "简中 / EN / UK", but they were plain text you couldn't click, and the third one, UK (Ukrainian), was a stray label left over from an early layout; this site has never had a Ukrainian edition. In effect we were advertising three language versions that didn't exist. It's now a real switcher: the site genuinely offers 简体中文, English and português (BR), the labels are clickable and point at the matching page, and where a page hasn't been translated yet that label falls back to that language's homepage rather than serving a 404.

2026-08-25 · The homepage table now compares rules only, with no APY figures

The homepage was originally going to carry a table of current Flexible APYs per coin. Checking it, we found that public sources contradicted each other, and that these numbers move daily; any version we hard-coded would quickly become wrong information sitting on the page. It now compares product rules only (can you redeem anytime, how the yield is paid, whether the principal changes), and leaves the numbers to whatever Binance shows the reader at the time.

2026-08-25 · The Binance sign-up link in our registration guide had the wrong format, now corrected

The first draft of the sign-up guide wrote the registration link in the form www.binance.com/join. Checking it against the referral link this site actually uses confirmed the correct format is accounts.binance.com/register, and it has all been corrected. With the wrong format, the referral code never attaches to your account, an error that directly affects the reader.

2026-08-25 · On small phone screens, the “not the official Binance website” notice was hidden

On phones 360px wide, the top of the homepage hid the line "KVYTO is not the official Binance website" so everything would fit. Our own rule is that wherever the Binance logo appears, that notice sits right next to it. It now stays on screen on small phones too, just in smaller type.

How to report an error

If you find a factual error, a stale number or a broken link, email the address on the contact page with the page link. Once we've verified it we'll fix the article and add an entry here.