Binance Founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ), sparked headlines following a burn of more than $3.5 million in TUT and Broccoli tokens out of circulation. The token burn, performed on March 31, 2025, sparked a lot of controversy in the cryptocurrency community regarding exposure strategies, decentralization, and the impact of high-net-worth wallet holders.
CZ’s April Fools’ Joke Highlights Crypto Scarcity
On April 1, CZ tweeted a humorous, also educational, post. CZ poked fun at the infinitesimally low chance of inadvertently creating the Ethereum burning address “0x000000000000000000000000000000000000dead” using a wallet app like Trust Wallet.
Although said in jest, CZ was correct. Every Ethereum address has an equal chance of being generated, but the odds of rolling “0x000…dead” are 1 in 2¹⁶⁰—a figure so staggering that winning the lottery a couple of times in a row appears modest in comparison.
The cryptocurrency community replied with humour and common sense. Some developers referred to the joke as a pleasant reminder of the math behind blockchain security. Others appreciated that it generated publicity for token burn mechanic, where tokens sent to “0x000…dead” become permanently inaccessible and removed from circulation.
CZ Burns $3.5M Worth of Tokens
According to Arkham Intelligence data, CZ moved a massive amount of tokens to a dead wallet address, thus removing them from circulation forever. The contents are:
- 45.59 million TUT tokens valued at $1.95 million
- 10.14 million Broccoli-6714 tokens valued at $547,000
- 798 million Broccoli-caab tokens valued at $1.1 million
The burn value exceeds $3.5 million. The tokens were moved prior to CZ’s wallet on his orders.
Market Movement and CZ’s Explanation
The market responded short term after the burn. The TUT price was 5% more at $0.051 before it dropped back. Such a price bounce was expected, as token burns often create sudden but temporary spikes due to reduced supply.
Zhao clarified the burn on X (Twitter) stating he removed tokens based on if they were in or out of his wallet and not for market value. He ensured to clarify it was not in any motive of wanting to harm projects or communities, but warned others against sending tokens expecting interaction or engagement.
He also noted the presence of token burn fixes with AI but noted that to date, there have been none that have properly gone through full security audits, so such manual edits like this have to suffice temporarily.
Reason Behind the TUT Transfer
Later, Yerasyl Amanbek, who holds TUT’s tokens, said that he explained to Zhao why he had given CZ $90,000 of tokens. According to Amanbek, three choices faced him: sell tokens for CZ to raise funds for a mainstream exchange listing, hold them while enduring constant community pressure, or give them to CZ in hopes of gaining some limelight.
Amanbek chose the last option, which led to a more diffuse token distribution and ultimately triggered a publicity-stunt token burn. His move shows how far community members and developers are willing to go to gain attention and build credibility in the decentralized finance space.
Wider Implication on Crypto Strategy
CZ’s token burn also showed how leading crypto players can influence the token economies even when acting in a reactive role. Token burns are a strategic way to cut circulating supply with a propensity to create short-term price action and market attention. Their final impact, however, depends on actual utility and market demand.
Shrinking supply can certainly stoke interest, but ultimately investor demand and broader usage will determine the worth of a token, said Alva, a crypto analysis company. Zhao’s action also echoes ongoing calls for more explanation and regulation of unsolicited token transfers, particularly by those in the public eye.
