Binance News: Binance Sues RedotPay Over Alleged User Diversion
Lakshya Divekar
Binance News: Binance Sues RedotPay Seeks $472.8 Million
Another headline making rounds in today's crypto news cycle: fresh Binance News reports point to filing a lawsuit against RedotPay, and the legal dispute has stirred up conversation across the crypto payments space.
The case landed in a Hong Kong court, and it centers on claims that users were pulled away from one platform to another.
According to a Bloomberg report citing a Hong Kong court filing, Binance-affiliated entities sued RedotPay's co-founders, alleging that they breached a commercial agreement by diverting users from Card to RedotPay's platform.
The lawsuit first gained wider attention after Wu Blockchain shared key details from Bloomberg's reporting, including Binance's allegations of user diversion and the claimed $472.8 million in damages.
Binance-affiliated entities have gone after RedotPay's founders directly. The lawsuit alleges a serious breach of contract. It also raises a bigger question: how far can crypto card companies go when competing for the same user base?
Who's Involved and Where It Was Filed
Three Binance-linked companies brought the case forward. Nest Trading, Distributed Technologies, and Chaintecs Consulting Singapore are all named as plaintiffs. The filing names three RedotPay co-founders as defendants.
The Hong Kong court petition, first reported by Bloomberg and republished by Moneyweb, alleges that the dispute stems from an agreement governing the use of Binance Pay and RedotPay's payment card services.
Party | Role |
Nest Trading, DistributedTechnologies, Chaintecs | Plaintiffs (affiliates) |
Gao Zhangpeng, Chan Wa Choi, Yao Chao | Defendants (RedotPay co-founders) |
Hong Kong Court | Jurisdiction |
The plaintiffs claim users were steered away from Card toward RedotPay's own product. That's essentially why the question "Why did Binance sue RedotPay?" started trending this week.
What's Actually Being Alleged
According to the filing, RedotPay allowed users to fund their cards through Binance Pay in a way that fell outside the original partnership terms. At its core, this is a dispute over how shared payment infrastructure was used and by whom.
A few key numbers stand out in the filing:
Over 470,000 users allegedly moved from Binance Card to RedotPay
Roughly $304 million reportedly flowed through Pay into RedotPay's system
Binance is pursuing the RedotPay founders for breach of a commercial agreement
Damages were calculated using an estimated $925 lifetime value per user
This isn't even the first time friction has come up between the two. An earlier 2023 partnership fell apart within months over similar concerns. A new deal was struck in March 2025 with fresh assurance, assurances Binance now says weren't honored.
How RedotPay Is Responding
Unsurprisingly, isn't backing down. A company spokesperson said the firm will vigorously contest every claim. They've also stressed that day-to-day operations aren't affected by any of this.
Why the Timing Matters
The lawsuit has become one of the biggest crypto news stories of the week, as it comes at a time when RedotPay is reportedly weighing a major IPO with a valuation of around $4 billion.
A high-profile lawsuit surfacing right now could easily catch the attention of investors and regulators watching that IPO closely.
A related filing adds another layer:
Chaintecs Consulting Singapore has filed a separate case against affiliates in Singapore
That case has a hearing scheduled for Friday
Both filings trace back to the same alleged pattern of user diversion
Where Things Stand
Binance frames this as a fairly clear-cut case of contract violation tied to user diversion, on the other hand, insists the claims don't hold up and plans to fight them through proper legal channels.
Neither side has proven anything in court yet. What's on record so far is just the filing stage, not a ruling, and it's worth keeping that distinction in mind as the story develops.
This Binance News story will likely remain in focus as the legal proceedings continue in both Hong Kong and Singapore.
Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only and should not be considered financial or investment advice. Always conduct your own research before making investment decisions.
