Bitcoin SV's Delisting Isn't 'Censorship.' But It's Still a Problem

Is cryptocurrency exchange Binance's delisting of bitcoin SV a form of censorship?

You see, Paul said, the standard of censorship resistance does not extend to private entities that provide services on top of open systems, much as Binance does with the bitcoin protocol and those of other blockchains.

We could argue that a price-quoting and trade-executing crypto exchange whose business decisions occur off-chain isn't subject to the rigid, quasi-constitutional on-chain rules for equitable treatment that govern the decentralized network running a blockchain's publishing protocol.

An exchange can refuse the prices and transactions of whomever it pleases.

Exchanges represent pretty much the only proven business use-case in this space.

Imagine the outcry, some said, if leaders of the New York Stock Exchange or the Nasdaq - both integral to a functioning capital market ecosystem - suspended trading in a company because they didn't like the comments of its CEO. The point: Binance should be held to similar standards of impartiality.

In other words, whatever "Censorship" decisions that sophisticated, traditional exchanges make tend to occur on the basis of rules set by an external governance system.

In the U.S., it's an interconnected hierarchy that includes exchange members; self-regulatory organizations such as the Financial Industry Regulatory Industry; the exchange's own internal compliance teams and oversight boards; various bodies of legislation; and external enforcement agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The fact is that regulation, by externalizing the listing rules criteria, would, at least in these kinds of matters, help crypto exchanges manage their public image.

Execution isn't the main reason we depend on exchanges; it's that, as centralized hubs, they bring many buyers and sellers together in one place, enabling effective price discovery.