In the cryptocurrency world filled with high leverage, flash crashes, and meme coins, occasional real-life 'wuxia dramas' can always ignite the gossip spirit. In December 2025, this old play was brought up again: Binance founder Zhao Changpeng (CZ) directly criticized Sequoia Capital on X (formerly Twitter), announcing, 'From now on, all coin listing projects must disclose whether they have any association with Sequoia!' This was not a casual remark, but stemmed from a financing feud that spanned 7 years. After the court rejected Sequoia's injunction, CZ's 'revenge declaration' instantly sparked heated discussions, with project parties trembling and netizens' imaginations running wild: for the next coin listing application, should they first fill out the 'Sequoia association confession form'? This operation was hardcore, reminiscent of a Jin Yong novel—one side is the cryptocurrency tycoon, the other is the VC empire, with entangled grievances, laughter, and warnings coexisting. Let's unpack the cause and effect, and see the 'aftershocks' this incident has on the cryptocurrency world.

Origin of the feud: In 2017, a 'sky-high' financing deal fell apart.

The story begins in 2017. That year, the Bitcoin bull market was in full swing, and Binance, as an emerging exchange, was gaining momentum, right in the critical phase of its Series A financing. Sequoia Capital China (SCC) saw the potential and proposed an investment of $8 million for an 11% stake in Binance. Sounds tempting? But against the backdrop of skyrocketing BTC prices, the valuation of this deal became increasingly 'unfavorable' for CZ—Binance's valuation was rising, and the cost of 11% equity was too heavy.

After the negotiation broke down, Sequoia acted swiftly: on December 27, 2017, they applied for a 'one-sided injunction' (ex parte injunction) through the Hong Kong High Court, freezing all financing negotiations between CZ and any other investors without notifying him, until March 1, 2018. This harsh tactic directly choked Binance's cash flow. Sequoia's accusation? CZ violated the 'exclusive negotiation agreement' by secretly contacting IDG Capital (another VC) while negotiating Series A with them.

The crypto world was in an uproar: CZ was labeled 'untrustworthy', the financing window was blocked, and his reputation was damaged. Imagine this: in a bull market, you are ready to go big, but an invisible wall blocks you—it's not just about money; it's a battle for reputation in the community. Sequoia's logic was 'protect the investment', but CZ's team called it 'abuse of legal procedures'; this injunction came too suddenly and was too malicious.

#### Court Tug-of-War: Sequoia Loses, CZ Strikes Back

In April 2018, the Hong Kong High Court held a hearing. Result? The court ruled that Sequoia's injunction was 'obtained improperly, constituting an abuse of process', and must be revoked, with CZ's legal fees to be compensated. Sequoia's accusations were unfounded: it turned out that CZ's contact with IDG was actually related to Series B financing, which did not conflict with Series A. The final ruling from the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre in December 2018 also completely dismissed Sequoia's claims.

But the story isn't over. In May 2019, CZ, unwilling to back down, countersued Sequoia for 'reputation damage and loss of financing opportunities'. He stated in court documents: 'This injunction cost me multiple opportunities for high-valuation financing and damaged my reputation. I have the right to seek reasonable compensation from Sequoia.' The Hong Kong court accepted the case, with the first hearing scheduled for June 25. What about Sequoia? They responded quietly, without public commentary, but rumors in the crypto world suggested their internal situation was chaotic—this is not just about money; it also involves the 'reputation card' in the VC circle.

Fast forward to 2025, this old case seems to have 'revived'. Perhaps it was the recent resolution of Binance's SEC case (in May 2025, the SEC voluntarily withdrew the lawsuit), or perhaps Sequoia had another project where they 'crossed paths' with Binance, CZ suddenly brought up 'old matters' on X. After the court dismissed Sequoia's latest attempt to ban CZ from discussing other investments, CZ's post hit like a breath of fresh air: 'From now on, all coin projects must disclose any connection to Sequoia!' (The original tweet ID was suspected to be '27fd91', but may have been an internal reference). This is no empty talk—Binance, as the largest exchange globally, already has strict coin review processes, and this 'Sequoia clause' essentially imposes constraints on VC projects.

CZ's 'Revenge Declaration': From X to industry regulations?

CZ's X account has always been a barometer in the crypto world. This post received over ten thousand likes and was widely shared. CZ's original message was roughly: 'In light of past grievances, to ensure transparency, all future coin projects must proactively 'self-report' any connections to Sequoia. No hiding, everyone competes fairly.' Interpretation in the crypto world? This is not just a personal feud; CZ is setting the rules for the entire ecosystem: the VC background is too complex, making insider trading or interest transfer easy. Sequoia, as an established Silicon Valley VC, has invested in numerous projects in Web3 (like the predecessor of FTX), but has also been involved in controversies.

Netizens' imaginations ran wild:

- 'Project party nervously: Check the ancestry before launching a coin? Sequoia connection = blacklist?'

- 'CZ: Revenge begins with the blacklist. Sequoia: ? We just wanted to invest in a good project.'

- 'The next coin submission form: 1. Project overview; 2. White paper; 3. Sequoia self-report form. 😂'

Sequoia's response? Silence to this day. Perhaps they are quietly strategizing, or maybe this issue will be settled privately. But for the crypto world, this operation is like a mirror: exchanges wield enough power to 'name names', and VCs must tread carefully. Data shows that by 2025, more than 60% of the coin projects on Binance were VC-backed; if the 'Sequoia clause' is implemented, will other VCs (like a16z, Paradigm) follow suit?

Aftershocks and revelations: In the crypto world, who holds the power?

The impact of this matter goes far beyond gossip. In the short term, project parties will be more cautious about financing—who wants to be exposed as having 'Sequoia ties' before launching a coin? In the long term, it reveals the 'power imbalance' in the crypto world: exchanges like Binance hold the lifeblood of traffic; VCs like Sequoia control upstream funding. CZ's hard stance has won him reputation (fans call him 'hardcore leader'), but it has also drawn criticism (some accuse him of 'holding grudges').

Looking back at 2017, BTC soared from a few thousand to 20,000, and Binance's valuation jumped from tens of millions to billions. This feud reflects the crypto world: opportunities are fleeting, and grudges are endless. In the end, Sequoia lost money and face; what about CZ? From defendant to plaintiff. The world is ruthless, and the crypto world even more so—when the next coin is launched, remember to bring your 'self-report form.'