Recently, the unauthorized draft of Zhao Changpeng's (CZ) memoir prompted a lengthy article by the New York Times, which published interpretations and evaluations of the book when it had not yet been finalized or authorized for media preview. Subsequently, CZ made a statement on the X platform, and his legal team issued an official statement emphasizing that the quoted content “is neither in the final manuscript nor CZ's original words,” thus escalating the controversy to the level of authenticity and expression rights. Current information indicates that the memoir, tentatively titled “Freedom of Money” in English and “Binance Life” in Chinese, is still in the editing stage, with uncertain space before formal publication. The dispute revolves around an "unfinished text," as mainstream media's premature interpretations clash with the parties' contention over the authenticity and discourse authority of the version, forming the real core of this incident.
Unauthorized Draft Exposed: Memoir “Co-written” by Media Narrative
● The trigger for the report lies in the New York Times choosing to base its content disclosure and value judgment on an “unauthorized manuscript draft” of CZ's memoir. This indicates that the report is not based on the final version or sample book provided by the publisher, but rather a middle version circulating within the publishing chain. For a memoir that has not yet been officially released, this premature “unpacking” itself alters the normal rhythm of publishing narratives, transforming the media from passive interpreters to active participants in shaping the first impression.
● Current verifiable information shows that both “Freedom of Money” and “Binance Life” have been basically confirmed, and the state of the manuscript being “in the editing stage” has received moderate credibility corroboration. This means that the words and structure may still undergo adjustments, and some paragraphs might even be completely replaced or removed. However, the New York Times magnifies, interprets, and characterizes the content at this stage, introducing significant uncertainty and controversy in the publishing realm.
● This is the first occurrence of a top industry leader's memoir being prominently reported by mainstream media before formal publication in the history of the cryptocurrency industry. Unlike previous reports focused on regulatory fines, company scandals, or anonymous revelations, this controversy revolves around a personal narrative experiment still in the polishing stage. This unprecedented situation quickly extends beyond the book itself, evolving into an industry-level case about the boundaries of discourse power between the cryptocurrency industry and traditional media, authors and reporters, attracting dual attention from regulatory observers and the crypto community.
CZ Self-Mocks Free Promotion: An Attempt at Narrative Reversal on X
● In response to the New York Times's premature reporting, CZ remarked on X, stating, "The New York Times has begun free promotion for my memoir,” reframing potential negative public opinion into “early hype” for his work. The tone of this statement is deliberately lighthearted, containing both irony towards mainstream media “helping to promote” and a subtle implication of “I still control the rhythm,” transforming passive response into active leverage through humor and self-mockery, thereby softening external sharp inquiries regarding details.
● This strategy of translating conflict into “free traffic” is essentially a classic cryptocurrency circle rhetoric: avoiding direct entanglement in details while emphasizing the benefits of increased exposure, binding traffic to personal IP. By redirecting attention to “this is my memoir” and “the topic is gaining traction,” CZ aims to shift the focus of discussion from “true or false details” to “whether his story as an industry symbol is worth watching,” thus diminishing potential negative labels from the reporting and reinforcing his protagonist status in the crypto narrative.
● From the perspective of the cryptocurrency community audience, this response easily generates secondary creations and diffusion effects within supporting circles: it aligns with the community's ingrained impression of traditional media “hating cryptocurrency” and caters to fans' psychological expectation of CZ being “still able to joke.” In terms of communication, it resembles an emotional signal flare, steering community sentiment towards “let's watch traditional media's joke together,” rather than “we need to carefully dissect every word of the report,” assisting CZ in stabilizing his foundational public opinion within the core community in a short period.
Lawyer's Statement Raises the Sword: Beyond Emotion, Clarifying Facts and Version Boundaries
● In contrast to the casualness on X, lawyer Teresa Goody Guillén's subsequent statement is calm yet sharp, with its core syntax being: “The content quoted in the report is neither in the final manuscript nor CZ's original words.” This effectively delivers two key counterattacks against the New York Times: first, emphasizing that the text quoted by the media does not represent the version that will ultimately be made public; second, questioning whether certain statements in the report amount to “excessive paraphrasing” or “semantic reprocessing.”
● From the legal and publishing process perspective, there is a substantial difference between “unauthorized draft” and “final manuscript.” Drafts may contain unverified statements, versions written for internal discussion, or even sensitive content pending deletion or modification, while the final manuscript is the text jointly confirmed by the author and the publisher, bearing legal and reputational consequences. The lawyer's statement did not specify which sentences were misquoted or altered but highlighted this structural difference, indicating that the reporting was constructed on an unauthorized text version, leaving room for potential rights claims and corrections without proceeding recklessly in details lacking public evidence.
● The result is a dual parallel public relations strategy: social media responses are responsible for internally “stabilizing emotions” and externally “claiming topics,” striving for sympathy and traffic with a light tone; the lawyer's statement aims to precisely delineate facts and version boundaries, informing the market and media with professional language: which can be cited as facts and which remains unfinished text. The intertwining of emotional and legal lines allows CZ, in facing mainstream media, to neither appear entirely confrontational nor remain completely silent on factual matters, maximizing negotiation and maneuvering space.
From Binance Life to Freedom of Money: Who is Writing CZ’s Image?
● From a naming perspective, the English title “Freedom of Money” focuses on the tension between currency and freedom, resembling a narrative of the intellectual history of financial systems and the cryptocurrency revolution; whereas the Chinese tentative title “Binance Life” pulls the focus back to individual experiences, stressing the intertwining fates of CZ and the platform he founded. This difference in titles provides the public with two imaginative pathways: one viewing CZ as a preacher in the “money freedom” narrative, the other as the protagonist in the “rise and fall of Binance” story.
● The name and content framework jointly shape CZ's character image among different audiences: in the cryptocurrency world, he can be interpreted as a pioneer promoting financial disintermediation; in broader public discourse, he cannot escape complex labels such as regulatory investigations, compliance controversies, and personal wealth myths. If the memoir is anchored by “Freedom of Money,” it is more likely to be read as a defense and self-justification of crypto ideals; while framed by “Binance Life,” it will be expected to more honestly present details of personal choices, risk-taking, and business games, which naturally imbues the discussion around the book title with elements of image management.
● Returning this media premature report incident to the tug-of-war over narrative authority, a key question arises: is it the media that is “writing” CZ, or is CZ attempting to “rewrite” himself through this memoir? When the New York Times proposes a framework of explanation based on the draft version first, it effectively occupies the high ground of “first edition historical interpretation.” Conversely, CZ and his team hope to shift the story from “being written by the media” to “self-writing” through a memoir endorsed by himself, using a formal publication to challenge or reshape the initial impressions constructed by reports in the public mind. This contest goes beyond mere book sales; it concerns who gets to define the "standard narrative" of this crypto-symbol figure.
Media and Crypto Giants Spar: A Microcosm of Long-term Power Struggle over Discourse Authority
● Expanded to the industry level, this conflict carries a certain symbolic significance: the first direct collision between a cryptocurrency industry leader and mainstream media in the traditional elite narrative practice of “memoir.” In the past, conflicts between the crypto world and traditional media often occurred within news cycles of sudden events, regulatory storms, or market crashes; now, the battleground extends to a slower, more symbolic publishing scene. On one side is a major newspaper regarded as the “East Coast discourse center,” and on the other, an industry giant representing a new financial force, revealing the condensed confrontation of old and new order discourse in a book that is not yet finalized.
● For a long time, cryptocurrency companies and traditional media have maintained a tense relationship regarding compliance, regulation, and risk narratives. Media often emphasizes investor protection, systemic risk, and regulatory absence, while the industry stresses innovation, disintermediation, and decentralized values. This incident extends that tension to the personal level: when industry representatives attempt to systematically present their understanding of regulatory games and business decisions in memoir form, the media's preemptive interpretation effectively constitutes a "preliminary review" and "public annotations" of this self-narrative framework, framing the book within a specific public opinion context before its release.
● This controversy is likely to produce a chain reaction affecting subsequent publication, revelation, and media cooperation models for figures in the cryptocurrency industry. On one hand, more practitioners may become more cautious in managing draft circulation and authorization windows when considering publishing or in-depth interviews, wary of the risk of “drafts being reported as final versions”; on the other hand, mainstream media will recognize that their preemptive interpretation of publications related to cryptocurrency figures will be regarded as part of the discourse power struggle rather than merely cultural news. This mutual exploration may reshape the interaction rules between future biographies, insider books, and in-depth media reports.
An Unfinalized Book Revealing Structural Conflicts Ahead of Time
An unfinished memoir still in the editing stage being prematurely exposed and interpreted by mainstream media based on an unauthorized draft lays bare the structural conflict between the cryptocurrency industry and traditional media regarding “who defines the facts, who tells the story”. One side emphasizes the differences between drafts and final manuscripts, original words and paraphrases, while the other claims the right to be the first to present understanding and judgment of this industry leader in the name of public interest and news value.
With the publication date yet to be disclosed and the final version still being refined, preparations around “which version is closer to the truth” have already commenced: social media, lawyer statements, lengthy media articles, and industry discourse are interwoven into a multi-layered narrative battleground. It can be anticipated that when “Freedom of Money” / “Binance Life” is finally published, the discourse battle will not cease but rather usher in a new round of contrasting and reevaluating "self-narratives" versus "existing reports.” For CZ, this represents a high-risk attempt at reshaping his personal brand and a chance to redefine boundaries amidst regulatory shadows and market legends; for the entire cryptocurrency industry, this book and its resultant controversies will serve as a mirror for external reassessment of the industry's image and understanding its internal narrative logic.
Join our community for discussions and to grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
