A leading exchange just officially announced the appointment of a new CEO, but to be honest, the real decision-making power is probably still with the founder. After all, when a core figure just assumes a different public role, the fundamental operational logic doesn’t really change.
It reminds me of Xu’s previous approach—completely stepping into the background, making key decisions when needed but staying out of the public eye. In the current regulatory climate, that’s actually pretty smart. If regulators come knocking one day, at least the official person responsible can be more flexible.
With things as they are now, if the new CEO continues to be the public face, the next time there’s a compliance investigation, this position is sure to be the first one held accountable. Sometimes taking a step back is actually taking two steps forward.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
12 Likes
Reward
12
9
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
AirdropSweaterFan
· 2h ago
To put it bluntly, it’s just old wine in a new bottle—the founder is still the same person.
This stealth tactic is really impressive; when regulators come, there’s someone to take the fall.
View OriginalReply0
SingleForYears
· 12-06 10:52
It's just old wine in a new bottle; the founder still has to handle operations.
View OriginalReply0
governance_lurker
· 12-05 02:03
To put it bluntly, it's still the same old trick—just a different packaging, but nothing has really changed.
View OriginalReply0
DegenDreamer
· 12-04 19:01
To put it simply, it's just a puppet CEO; the real power is still held by the founder.
View OriginalReply0
TaxEvader
· 12-04 19:00
Oh boy, it's the same old thing again—just a different package but nothing's really changed.
View OriginalReply0
FadCatcher
· 12-04 19:00
To put it bluntly, it's just old wine in a new bottle—the founder is still the same founder.
The new CEO position is pretty hot right now, seriously.
Lao Xu’s move is really something—he hides in the background but still makes all the decisions, acting one way in public and another in private.
If the new CEO really does take full control this time, just wait to be made the scapegoat.
When regulation comes, the person at the front desk is always the first to take the fall. I wouldn’t take this job.
That said, changing executives at major exchanges is almost the same as not changing them, since the decision-making power hasn’t shifted anyway.
View OriginalReply0
WhaleMistaker
· 12-04 18:48
Everyone watching knows that the new CEO is just a scapegoat.
View OriginalReply0
MEVSandwichVictim
· 12-04 18:47
The gameplay is still the same; it's just a different person taking the blame.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-afe07a92
· 12-04 18:41
The new CEO is just a puppet; the real power is still tightly held by the founder. This trick has been played to death.
A leading exchange just officially announced the appointment of a new CEO, but to be honest, the real decision-making power is probably still with the founder. After all, when a core figure just assumes a different public role, the fundamental operational logic doesn’t really change.
It reminds me of Xu’s previous approach—completely stepping into the background, making key decisions when needed but staying out of the public eye. In the current regulatory climate, that’s actually pretty smart. If regulators come knocking one day, at least the official person responsible can be more flexible.
With things as they are now, if the new CEO continues to be the public face, the next time there’s a compliance investigation, this position is sure to be the first one held accountable. Sometimes taking a step back is actually taking two steps forward.