The obvious logic error in his argument lies here:
- It's not clear that all of our users want to give up their ability to vote.
- Interesting, if we implemented this vote feature, Binance users collectively will have, by far, the deciding vote. People who care may need to deposit to Binance to vote.
He's conflating two opposing ideas here: In one, he's suggesting users may still want to vote their stake while on an exchange. I can a case for that, but no simple mechanism for doing so unless the chain allows for partial voting and only if the chain "trusts" exchanges to only vote as their user's direct. That's too much trust, in my opinon.
Then in two, he's talking about Binance users collectively having the deciding vote. But this is deception at it's finest: he's implying that whatever Binance decides to vote is the actual voting wish of the users on Binance. This makes no sense. For example, it should be obvious on the face of it that many Binance users will want to vote in different ways. His proposal doesn't allow for this, so it directly contradicts his point 1: users would in fact be giving up their "right to vote", they can't make their own decisions in this case, they've handed over that "right to vote" to Binance instead.
I agree, this is why I wanted to raise the issue because these statements are, first off, illogical and second, they are contradictory.
While I cannot speak for Cz intentions in these statements, I feel they certainly imply that Binance has a desire to retain rights to influence/participate in voting/governance - as you correctly point out - as they see fit.
This statement refers to elevating the interests of the exchange over the interests of the Steem token holders and the community as a whole.