CZ memoir fuels forgery dispute with OKX’s Star Xu

Changpeng ‘CZ’ Zhao’s recently published memoir recounts a business agreement and a sequence of events tied to an enforcement action involving individuals linked to Huobi. OKX founder Star Xu has publicly rejected the account, calling the contract described in the book forged and the timeline inaccurate.

The disagreement centers on a written agreement that Zhao presents as part of Binance’s corporate history and on events around the Huobi-related enforcement action. Xu has posted denials on social media and in statements to industry contacts, asserting the contract ‘was not genuine’ and that Zhao misstates interactions between the two companies’ executives.

Neither Binance nor OKX has released contemporaneous documents that publicly confirm either version of events. The memoir frames the disputed contract as context for Binance’s strategic decisions during a period of regulatory pressure and enforcement involving multiple exchanges, further fueling the Binance vs OKX narrative.

Xu has asked regulators to investigate the contract’s authenticity and indicated he will seek legal clarification. Zhao’s account links the contract and the events to a broader description of how exchanges responded to law enforcement and regulatory actions.

Legal and compliance specialists say allegations of forgery can carry civil and criminal consequences. Experts note proving forgery typically requires forensic document analysis, testimony from signatories and review of contemporaneous communications.

Market participants reacted with caution. Cryptocurrency prices showed limited movement connected to the dispute while trading firms and institutional clients monitored whether the disagreement could affect commercial relationships among major exchanges.

Binance is the world’s largest crypto exchange by trading volume. OKX is a major competitor and Huobi is another prominent exchange that has faced regulatory actions in several countries. References in the memoir to enforcement involving Huobi-linked personnel drew attention because those cases involved regional authorities and cross-border inquiries.

Legal advisers and industry observers expect requests for documentary evidence, potential legal filings and closer regulatory scrutiny as next steps. Public accounts from the two firms remain at odds and no publicly available documentation has resolved the dispute.