Binance founder CZ unfollowed Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko after he retweeted OKX's accusation blaming Binance for October's $19B liquidation crash.

CZ Unfollows Solana's Anatoly Over Binance-OKX Feud

Binance founder Changpeng Zhao, commonly known as CZ, unfollowed Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko on X (formerly Twitter) sometime between January 29-31, 2026, in an apparent reaction to Anatoly amplifying criticism of Binance during an escalating public dispute between two of the world's largest cryptocurrency exchanges. The social media snub highlights how October 2025's catastrophic $19.16 billion liquidation event continues to fracture relationships across crypto's leadership tier, forcing industry figures to navigate increasingly polarized battle lines.

The catalyst was Anatoly's decision to retweet a post from OKX CEO Star Xu that directly blamed Binance for the October 10, 2025 market crash—one of the worst single-day liquidation events in cryptocurrency history. Star's original post accused Binance of creating "dangerous leverage loops" through its USDe stablecoin yield campaigns, which allegedly encouraged users to recursively borrow against deposited collateral to amplify yields, creating systemic fragility that unwound violently when tariff announcements triggered broader risk-off sentiment.

Anatoly's retweet added his own commentary, which crypto observers interpreted as sarcastic praise for Solana's recovery: "18 months after FTX." The reference to FTX—the collapsed exchange founded by Sam Bankman-Fried, which was deeply intertwined with Solana's early ecosystem—served dual purposes. On one level, it celebrated Solana's resilience in rebuilding credibility and market cap after being associated with one of crypto's largest frauds. On another level, by juxtaposing Solana's post-FTX recovery with Binance's alleged role in October's crash, the comment implicitly positioned Binance as Solana's antagonist in a new crisis—a comparison CZ apparently found offensive.

CZ has spent considerable energy defending Binance against Star Xu's allegations, arguing that October's crash was driven by macro factors including President Trump's tariff announcements against China and Mexico, not by any single exchange's product offerings. In CZ's view, pinning a market-wide deleveraging event on Binance's USDe campaigns misunderstands the complexity of what occurred and unfairly scapegoats one platform for systemic issues affecting the entire industry.

By retweeting Star's accusatory post without adding counterarguments or qualifications, Anatoly effectively amplified OKX's narrative and, in CZ's apparent interpretation, took sides in a dispute that had already become intensely personal between the two exchange leaders. The unfollow—a minor but symbolically significant act in crypto's heavily social-media-driven culture—signaled CZ's displeasure with Anatoly's decision to publicly align with OKX's version of events.

The incident is notable because CZ and Anatoly had previously maintained cordial public relations despite Binance's competitive positioning against Solana-based decentralized exchanges and DeFi protocols. Binance lists Solana's SOL token and supports its ecosystem, while CZ has occasionally commented positively on Solana's technical achievements. The unfollow therefore represents a deterioration in a relationship that had remained professional even amid competitive tensions.

Crypto observers noted the irony in Anatoly's retweet timing. Just hours earlier, Step Finance—a Solana-based DeFi analytics platform—had disclosed a $27 million treasury hack, sending its STEP governance token down over 80% and raising fresh concerns about Solana ecosystem security. By choosing to engage in the Binance-OKX dispute while his own ecosystem dealt with a significant security breach, Anatoly risked appearing more interested in industry politics than addressing immediate vulnerabilities affecting Solana projects.

The broader context is an industry still processing what happened on October 10, 2025, when Bitcoin crashed from $64,000 to $59,000 in hours, triggering $19.16 billion in forced liquidations—one of the largest such events in crypto history. Four months later, the event remains deeply contested, with competing narratives about causation, responsibility, and lessons learned.

OKX's Star Xu argues Binance's aggressive promotion of high-yield USDe deposit campaigns created concentrated systemic risk that amplified what should have been a manageable correction. Binance and CZ counter that macro shocks—not yield products—drove the crash, and that blaming individual platforms for market-wide volatility is both inaccurate and counterproductive. Neutral observers suggest the truth likely involves both: external macro pressure combined with excessive leverage built through yield farming strategies offered by multiple platforms, not just Binance.

By inserting himself into this debate via retweet, Anatoly forced CZ to interpret his stance. The unfollow suggests CZ viewed it as an unwelcome choice rather than neutral commentary. Whether Anatoly intended to publicly side with OKX or simply found the comparison between Solana's FTX recovery and post-October market dynamics rhetorically interesting is unclear, but the outcome—a public severing of social media connection with one of crypto's most influential figures—carries reputational costs.

The incident also reflects how crypto's leadership tier remains small and interconnected, with personal relationships and social media dynamics influencing market sentiment and competitive positioning in ways that would seem unusual in more mature industries. A single retweet can fracture years of cordial relations, particularly when it touches on unresolved disputes over who bears responsibility for billions in investor losses.

For now, the Binance-OKX feud continues without resolution, with industry figures like Anatoly being forced to navigate increasingly polarized terrain. Whether the CZ unfollow remains a temporary social media spat or hardens into lasting professional distance depends on how both parties choose to engage—or not engage—going forward.