Binance Sues RedotPay's Founders for $472.8M in Hong Kong
Three entities linked to Binance Holdings have filed a civil claim in a Hong Kong court against the three co-founders of the crypto card issuer RedotPay, seeking $472.8 million in damages. Reports of the filing surfaced on 6 August 2026. The plaintiffs are Nest Trading, DistributedTechnologies and Chaintecs Consulting Singapore; the defendants are RedotPay co-founders Gao Zhangpeng, Chan Wa Choi and Yao Chao. The claim alleges a breach of a 2025 distribution agreement, an arrangement under which one firm markets or resells another firm's product to its own customer base, and it rests on two assertions: that RedotPay diverted more than 470,000 users to a competing card product of its own, and that it routed approximately $304 million in Binance Pay funds into prohibited stablecoin card top-ups from March 2026. None of that has been tested in court. RedotPay said it is contesting the case in full.
A 2025 agreement and 470,000 users
The plaintiffs' case, as the reports describe the filing, turns on the distribution agreement struck in 2025. The defendants are said to have used that relationship to move users onto RedotPay's own card offering rather than the product the agreement covered; the claim puts the diverted total at more than 470,000 accounts. It also alleges that roughly $304 million held through Binance Pay, the exchange's in-house payments service, went into stablecoin card top-ups the agreement prohibited. Card top-ups are the loading of a prepaid or debit card with spendable balance, and stablecoin-funded top-ups have become a competitive front for payment firms since Visa launched a stablecoin platform of its own. The alleged conduct is dated from March 2026 in the claim.
The $472.8 million rests on a $925 figure
The headline sum is built from an estimated lifetime value of $925 per customer, meaning the revenue a single account is projected to generate over its relationship with the business. That is an unusual construction to see set out in public. Lifetime-value estimates are internal marketing and finance metrics, and putting one at the base of a damages calculation exposes an assumption that is normally never disclosed. The reports did not set out the full derivation from the per-customer figure to the $472.8 million total, and the coverage does not even agree on the headline: several outlets rounded it to $470 million or $473 million instead of carrying the precise number. Whether a court accepts a lifetime-value multiplier as a measure of loss is a separate question from whether the underlying diversion occurred.
RedotPay says it is defending all claims
RedotPay said it is "vigorously defending all claims" and that the proceedings will not disrupt its operations, according to the reports. The plaintiffs' side of the argument is, for now, the filing itself, a statement of a case and not a finding. That distinction matters here. The two central figures in the claim, the 470,000 users and the $304 million, are allegations advanced by one party and denied by the other. No court has ruled on either. No timetable for the case had been reported at the time of writing.
The metric may matter more than the dispute
Hong Kong has become an active venue for exchange-linked business in 2026, the market where Futu became the first licensed local broker to list BNB. A contested commercial claim of this size will take months to reach any substantive stage, and the reports gave no hearing date. For the wider card-issuing sector, the damages theory is the larger question. If a lifetime-value-per-customer figure survives as a workable measure of loss in a distribution dispute, it changes what is at stake when a partner in a crypto payments arrangement walks off with a user base. Until then, everything in the claim is what it currently is: an allegation on a court file.