Rivalry, Signaling, and Collapse in Crypto Markets: Reassessing the “Binance vs. FTX” Narrative Through Field Theory, World-Systems, and Institutional Isomorphism
- OUS Academy in Switzerland
- 6 minutes ago
- 10 min read
Author: L. Marek
Affiliation: Independent Researcher
Abstract
The collapse of FTX in November 2022 became a defining crisis for the global cryptocurrency industry and triggered a persistent public narrative: that Binance first invested in FTX and later “destroyed it” through strategic pressure—sometimes framed in popular discourse as a deliberate “Art of War” campaign by Changpeng Zhao (CZ) against Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF). This article evaluates that claim critically and academically. Using a qualitative case-study method based on public timelines, statements, investigative reporting, and post-collapse legal actions, the study distinguishes between (1) verified structural causes of failure inside FTX—governance breakdown, liquidity mismatch, and credibility collapse—and (2) competitive actions and public signals by market rivals that may have accelerated an already unstable situation. The analysis applies Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory to interpret crypto exchanges as actors competing for economic, social, and symbolic capital; world-systems theory to situate U.S.-centered regulatory power and global offshore finance; and institutional isomorphism to explain why exchanges adopted similar legitimacy rituals (e.g., “proof-of-reserves”) after the crisis. Findings suggest that the “Binance invested to destroy” storyline is not supported as a verified fact by the core public record. However, rival signaling—especially during stress—can amplify fragility in reflexive financial markets. The article concludes that FTX’s collapse is best explained as endogenous failure intensified by exogenous acceleration, illustrating how power, legitimacy, and information cascades operate in digitally networked markets.
Introduction
In finance, the boundary between competition and collapse can be thin—especially in markets where confidence moves faster than capital. When FTX fell into bankruptcy in November 2022, the speed of the failure shocked even experienced observers. Almost immediately, a simplified narrative spread widely: Binance had invested in FTX and later used that relationship, plus public messaging, to bring FTX down. In its more dramatic versions, the story claims Binance invested “around $400 million” specifically to “destroy” FTX, portraying CZ as deploying a calculated strategy against SBF.
This framing is compelling because it provides a clean villain–victim storyline and a familiar strategic metaphor. Yet academic inquiry must separate narrative satisfaction from evidence. The public record indicates Binance invested in FTX in 2019 and later exited via a buyback agreement in 2021 valued at about $1.76 billion, paid in a mix of tokens (including FTT and BUSD). In early November 2022, CZ publicly stated Binance would liquidate remaining FTT holdings “due to recent revelations,” and the subsequent run on FTX coincided with an attempted rescue deal that Binance ultimately abandoned. Later, FTX’s estate pursued legal claims seeking recovery tied to the 2021 buyback and also argued that Binance’s public actions contributed to destabilization. These points are materially different from the claim that Binance invested a specific sum to “destroy” FTX.
This article’s purpose is not to defend or attack any party, but to analyze how such claims arise, why they persist, and what they reveal about power in the crypto-finance field. The central research question is:
RQ: How should we interpret the Binance–FTX relationship and the events around FTX’s collapse: as deliberate predation, ordinary rivalry, or a structural failure accelerated by public signaling?
To answer, the article uses three complementary theoretical lenses:
Bourdieu’s field theory to model exchanges as competitors struggling over legitimacy and dominance;
World-systems theory to situate the crisis within global hierarchies of regulation, capital mobility, and reputational power; and
Institutional isomorphism to explain why, after FTX, many firms converged on similar compliance-and-transparency performances.
Background and Theory
1) The Crypto-Exchange Field as a Struggle for Capital (Bourdieu)
Bourdieu conceptualizes social life as a set of semi-autonomous fields—structured spaces of competition—where actors seek positions using different forms of capital: economic (money, assets), social (networks, alliances), cultural (expertise, credentials), and symbolic (recognition, legitimacy, reputation). In the crypto industry, exchanges are not only marketplaces; they are status producers and credibility engines. Their product is not merely trading infrastructure but trust under conditions of radical information asymmetry.
From this perspective, FTX and Binance can be understood as major field actors competing over:
Economic capital: liquidity, fee revenue, venture financing, token treasuries;
Social capital: relationships with regulators, institutions, market-makers, and media;
Symbolic capital: the reputation for safety, solvency, and professionalism.
A key implication is that symbolic capital can be weaponized without direct coercion. In reflexive markets, credibility loss is itself a mechanism of collapse. Public statements, rumored balance sheets, and visible withdrawals can form an information cascade—a collective movement where actors copy others under uncertainty.
2) World-Systems Theory: Offshore Crypto and the Core–Periphery Dynamic
World-systems theory emphasizes the global hierarchy between “core” states (dominant, rule-setting) and “peripheral” or “semi-peripheral” zones (more flexible, often hosting regulatory arbitrage). Crypto markets grew rapidly by exploiting cross-border mobility: exchanges, tokens, and customers moved through legal and financial geographies designed for speed and optionality. The FTX crisis illustrates how global platform finance can be organized outside traditional banking structures while still being vulnerable to core-state enforcement power.
In this lens, FTX’s rise was partly a world-systems story: building global reach, courting U.S. political legitimacy, and presenting itself as a responsible bridge between crypto and the core financial order. Binance, by contrast, often symbolized a more globally dispersed model—large scale, cross-jurisdictional operations, and a complicated relationship with U.S. enforcement. The rivalry therefore cannot be read only as personal conflict; it is also a clash of legitimacy strategies in a world economy with uneven rule-making.
3) Institutional Isomorphism After Crisis
DiMaggio and Powell argue organizations in uncertain environments tend to become more similar through coercive (regulatory pressure), mimetic (copying under uncertainty), and normative (professional norms) isomorphism. After FTX, a wave of “trust repair” actions spread quickly, including proof-of-reserves disclosures and messaging about risk controls. This convergence can be interpreted as an attempt to restore symbolic capital in a damaged field: firms adopt recognizable rituals of legitimacy to reassure stakeholders, even when those rituals vary in real effectiveness.
In short: crises compress time. Under stress, organizations copy what looks like credibility.
Method
Research Design
This article uses a qualitative case-study approach suitable for analyzing complex events where causal claims are contested and evidence is distributed across multiple public sources. The study reconstructs a timeline and interprets actions as field moves rather than assuming a single hidden intention.
Data Sources (Publicly Available)
Corporate announcements regarding Binance’s strategic investment in FTX (2019).
Public statements by CZ about liquidating FTT holdings (November 2022).
Contemporary reporting describing market reactions and the liquidity crisis.
Post-collapse legal actions by the FTX estate related to the 2021 buyback.
Academic and policy literature on contagion, governance, and regulation following FTX.
Analytic Strategy
Process tracing: identify key moments (investment, exit, November 2022 stress period).
Narrative decomposition: separate verified facts, plausible inferences, and unsupported claims.
Theoretical coding: interpret events using Bourdieu (capital/field), world-systems (core enforcement and offshore structures), and isomorphism (post-crisis convergence).
Limitations
The study does not claim access to private communications or internal decision-making.
Legal allegations are treated as allegations unless independently verified.
Because crypto markets are fast-moving, public narratives can exaggerate singular causes; this article resists monocausal explanations.
Analysis
1) What Is Verified About the Binance–FTX Relationship?
A foundational step is to clarify what is established by the public record versus what is commonly claimed.
Verified baseline elements (public record):
Binance announced a strategic equity investment in FTX in December 2019 and described a partnership orientation at that time.
Binance later exited its equity position through a 2021 buyback arrangement valued around $1.76 billion, paid in a combination of tokens (including FTT and BUSD).
On November 6, 2022, CZ publicly stated Binance would liquidate remaining FTT holdings, citing “recent revelations,” without specifying them.
As fear grew, FTX experienced a liquidity crisis; a potential rescue/acquisition was discussed publicly and then Binance withdrew.
Key implication: the widely repeated “$400 million invested to destroy FTX” does not align with the clearer public documentation of the 2019 investment and the 2021 exit value. The “destroy” framing appears most prominently as interpretation, speculation, or legal positioning rather than as a verified factual statement.
2) Field Competition: From Partnership to Position-Taking
In Bourdieu’s terms, the relationship evolved from alliance to rivalry as each firm pursued dominance in the exchange field. In early stages, investing in a promising competitor can be rational: it buys optionality, intelligence, and network position. Later, exiting a stake can also be rational: it reduces conflict, frees capital, and avoids entanglement.
A crucial point in field theory is that actors do not need a single malicious plan to create harm. They only need incentives that make harmful outcomes acceptable side effects. If an actor believes a rival is vulnerable or risky, public distancing can protect the actor’s own symbolic capital—while also accelerating the rival’s downfall.
Thus, two interpretations can coexist:
Benign strategic rationality: Binance invested early, exited later, and liquidated tokens in response to perceived risk.
Aggressive competitive rationality: Binance’s public moves during a fragile moment functioned as a credibility strike that amplified a bank-run dynamic.
Field theory does not require assuming secret conspiracy; it highlights how power operates through legitimacy, visibility, and timing.
3) The November 2022 Signal Cascade
Modern markets are shaped by networked communications: tweets, screenshots, dashboards, influencer commentary, and selective leaks. In such markets, signals become liquidity events.
The CZ statement that Binance would liquidate remaining FTT holdings had several predictable effects in a fragile ecology:
It reframed FTT from asset to risk marker.
It communicated that a dominant actor was reducing exposure.
It encouraged others to reassess counterparty risk—often by withdrawing funds first and asking questions later.
From a crisis mechanics standpoint, it resembles a classic run dynamic: when withdrawals exceed liquid reserves, the institution fails regardless of longer-term solvency arguments. If FTX’s liabilities were mismatched with liquid assets, the firm could be “killed by speed” even if some assets existed on paper.
Importantly, the existence of a run does not prove the run was the root cause. It may simply be the trigger revealing structural weakness. In many financial collapses, the trigger is easy to name; the underlying fragility is harder and more important.
4) Internal Fragility: Governance as the Core Driver
Multiple post-collapse analyses emphasize governance failure at FTX: weak internal controls, poor risk management, and blurred boundaries between affiliated entities. In such conditions, external pressure can be catalytic, but not causal in the deepest sense. A robust institution may suffer reputational attacks; it rarely collapses in days unless its balance sheet and liquidity management are already brittle.
Academic work examining the FTX episode highlights risk management failure, contagion effects, and the informational role of exchange-linked tokens. Research indicates that FTT’s price dynamics were entangled with the broader asset-liability situation and that the collapse generated measurable spillovers across markets. This supports a structural interpretation: once confidence cracked, token prices, collateral value, and liquidity all moved together in a destructive spiral.
5) World-Systems Perspective: Legitimacy, Jurisdiction, and “Core” Enforcement
The Binance–FTX saga also reflects global financial hierarchy. FTX pursued legitimacy through proximity to the U.S. core—media prominence, political signaling, and an image of compliance-minded leadership. Binance, while enormous, faced different legitimacy constraints and enforcement pressures. In world-systems terms, both were navigating a system where core jurisdictions can reshape outcomes rapidly through investigations, bank access, and reputational signaling.
This matters because the popular narrative (“Chinese strategist destroys American entrepreneur”) simplifies what is better understood as a competition between platform empires operating in a global system of uneven regulatory power. National framing may be emotionally compelling, but it often obscures the transnational financial architecture that actually governs outcomes.
6) Institutional Isomorphism After FTX: The Rush to Look Safe
After FTX, exchanges and crypto firms converged on common legitimacy tactics—especially proof-of-reserves messaging and transparency claims. This is classic mimetic isomorphism: under uncertainty, organizations copy what appears to restore trust. Yet such measures can be partial. Proof-of-reserves can demonstrate certain assets exist, but without comprehensive liabilities disclosure and governance assurance, it may be more symbolic than substantive.
From a Bourdieu lens, these rituals are attempts to rebuild symbolic capital. From an isomorphism lens, they are predictable organizational responses to field-level shock.
7) Reassessing the “Art of War” Claim
Invoking The Art of War is a rhetorical move: it casts business rivalry as elegant strategy and collapse as conquest. As a metaphor, it can illuminate how timing, perception, and opponent weakness matter. As an empirical claim (“Binance invested to destroy FTX”), it fails unless supported by evidence beyond inference.
A more defensible academic formulation is:
FTX collapsed primarily due to internal governance and liquidity fragility.
Competitor signaling and token liquidation announcements likely accelerated the crisis by amplifying a run dynamic.
Post-collapse legal narratives may frame actions in the strongest possible terms for recovery and blame allocation, but allegations are not equivalent to proven intent.
This framing respects both the reality of competitive power and the discipline of evidence.
Findings
The “$400 million invested to destroy FTX” storyline is not established as verified fact in the core public record. Public documentation more clearly supports a 2019 strategic investment and a 2021 exit/buyback valued around $1.76 billion rather than a simple “invest-to-destroy” pathway.
FTX’s collapse is best explained as endogenous failure intensified by exogenous acceleration. Governance weaknesses and liquidity mismatch created fragility; external signals accelerated the run.
Symbolic capital is a central currency in crypto markets. In a field where trust substitutes for regulated guarantees, reputational shocks can become solvency shocks.
The crisis reflects world-systems dynamics of platform finance. Offshore structures, global customer bases, and core-jurisdiction enforcement combine to produce rapid re-ordering of winners and losers.
Post-crisis convergence toward “transparency rituals” demonstrates institutional isomorphism. Proof-of-reserves and related disclosures spread quickly as legitimacy strategies, even when their protective value varies.
Conclusion
FTX’s downfall remains a cautionary tale about how modern financial institutions—especially digital platforms—can fail at internet speed. The public narrative that Binance invested in FTX “to destroy it” is powerful, but powerfully simplifying. The stronger explanation, supported by the broader public record and the logic of financial crises, is that FTX was structurally fragile, and competitor signaling during a moment of fear accelerated the collapse.
Using Bourdieu, we see that the struggle was not only about market share but about symbolic capital: who appears safest, most legitimate, and most durable. Using world-systems theory, we see that “crypto empires” operate in a global hierarchy where legitimacy is policed unevenly across jurisdictions. Using institutional isomorphism, we see why the industry rushed to adopt similar transparency performances after the shock—attempting to rebuild trust through recognizable signals.
The lesson is not that rivalry is new. The lesson is that in reflexive, networked markets, rivalry + weak governance + fast signaling can create systemic rupture. If crypto markets want stability, they must treat governance, liquidity discipline, and verifiable transparency not as marketing, but as infrastructure.
Hashtags
References
Azmi, W., 2025. Uncovering the impact of FTX, BlockFi and the Genesis events on digital asset markets. Cogent Economics & Finance, 13(1).
Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P., 1993. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. New York: Columbia University Press.
Conlon, T., 2022. The Collapse of FTX: The End of Cryptocurrency’s Age of Innocence. SSRN Working Paper.
Conlon, T., 2023. Understanding the Contagion Effects of the FTX Exchange Insolvency. SSRN Working Paper.
Conlon, T., 2024. Evidence from the collapse of FTX. International Review of Financial Analysis, 91.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), pp.147–160.
Gençyürek, A.G., 2025. The contagion effect of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange’s collapse on financial markets. Finance Research Letters, 64.
Levina, N. and Arriaga, M., 2014. Distinguishing between symbolic and economic value: A Bourdieusian view of status and social media platforms. Information Systems Research, 25(3), pp.468–488.
O’Hara, K., 2025. Blockchain Politics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Sun Tzu, 2003. The Art of War (trans. S. Griffith). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wallerstein, I., 1974. The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.
World Economic Forum, 2024. Digital Assets Regulation: Insights from Jurisdictional Case Studies. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
Comments