Binance Offloads $2 Billion Stake to Abu Dhabi Investment Firm MGX

Abu Dhabi-based investment firm MGX has poured $2 billion into Binance, making it one of the largest funding deals in the crypto sector.

Binance announced today that this is the exchange’s first institutional investment, with the entire transaction funded through stablecoins. The company did not disclose which stablecoin was used.

For MGX, this marks its entry into the crypto space. The firm has focused on data centers, clean energy, and AI and sees Binance as a key player in connecting blockchain, finance, and artificial intelligence.

Binance remains the world’s largest crypto exchange, boasting over 260 million users and offering 466 cryptocurrencies, according to CoinMarketCap. The company is also reviewing its listing process after a surge in new altcoins.

The Binance deal comes as venture capital interest in crypto surges. In February alone, 137 crypto firms raised $1.11 billion, according to data from The TIE. Crypto companies secured $13.6 billion in funding in 2024, with expectations for that figure to surpass $18 billion in 2025, according to PitchBook.

CZ denies Binance sale

The new deal comes shortly after Binance co-founder and former CEO Changpeng “CZ” Zhao dismissed speculation that the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange is up for sale.

Zhao called the rumors misinformation spread by a competitor in Asia and insisted that Binance remains privately held. “Some lowly self-perceived competitor in Asia fudding about Binance (CEX) for sale. As a shareholder, Binance is not for sale,” he wrote on X.

Co-founder Yi He backed Zhao’s earlier statements, suggesting that the rumors were part of a competitor’s PR strategy. She added that Binance would rather buy than sell, inviting exchanges considering a sale to reach out.

The speculation gained traction after X user AB Kuai.Dong flagged a sharp reduction in Binance’s Bitcoin and other asset holdings on Feb. 11, prompting questions about the company’s financial health. Binance dismissed the concerns, stating that the movements were part of a routine adjustment in its treasury accounting process, not an asset sell-off.