CZ Discusses Meme Coin Controversy: Why Charitable Projects Must Maintain Integrity

【Crypto World】Regarding the donation controversy surrounding HAPPY-SCI Meme coin, CZ recently provided a detailed response. Here’s a review of the event: YZi Labs member Siyuan initiated the purely charitable project Happy-Sci at the end of the year. Subsequently, the community unofficially issued the MEME token HAPPY-SCI, setting a 3% transaction tax claiming all proceeds would be donated. The coin gained popularity, with a market cap approaching $4 million, and the donation address received approximately $420,000 worth of BNB. However, Siyuan later clarified that Happy-Sci did not conduct public fundraising or issue tokens at all, and he subsequently burned the $420,000 worth of BNB, causing the MEME coin’s market cap to drop to $160,000.

CZ’s views on this matter can be summarized as follows:

First, don’t forcefully ride on others’ coattails. He said it’s okay to piggyback on others, but if they ignore you or handle it in a way you don’t like, you must accept it. After all, it’s you who actively tried to piggyback. In a decentralized world, respecting others’ choices is essential. This sounds straightforward, but the principle is clear—you can’t shift all the responsibility onto others.

Second, charitable projects must maintain integrity. This is the core point. Not everyone wants their charitable project to be associated with a Meme coin whose origin is unknown. Doing so can easily distort the nature of charity. Is it genuine charity, or just helping retail investors get rich overnight? Do the participants hold positions? Is it truly charity or just a facade? Once these questions are raised, it becomes hard to clarify. Instead of falling into controversy, maintaining integrity is more important.

Third, the red line of insider trading must not be crossed. CZ mentioned that in his managed companies or projects, there is a clear stance against insider trading. If employees have ties with external projects and conflicts of interest are unclear, most of the time they will be dismissed. He believes everyone fully supports this standard. Conversely, for the community, supporting their projects while eliminating the possibility of insider trading is practically impossible—these two goals are inherently contradictory. It’s a logical paradox.

CZ concluded by emphasizing that his understanding of the overall situation is not yet deep enough, but from Siyuan’s perspective, the second point (the integrity of charity) might be the most critical reason. Respecting others’ decisions is important. Instead of mutual accusations, self-reflection is more valuable.

This incident exposes the contradiction between community enthusiasm and project teams’ cautious attitude. Retail investors want to ride the hype, while project teams need to protect their reputation and compliance bottom line. Both sides have valid points, but once funds and charity are involved, project teams tend to be more conservative and cautious. This is actually beneficial for the entire ecosystem.