BinaryX [OLD] (BNX)

BinaryX [OLD] (BNX): A Legacy Contract from BinaryX’s Token Split

BinaryX [OLD] refers to the pre-2023 BNX token, which was replaced by a redenominated BNX contract at a 1:100 ratio. Understanding that migration is essential because the old asset no longer represents the project’s primary token utility.

What BinaryX [OLD] represents

BinaryX [OLD] is the legacy version of BNX created before BinaryX carried out a token split and contract migration in February 2023. The project kept the BNX name, but introduced a new BEP-20 contract and converted one old BNX into 100 new BNX. Binance subsequently identified the former asset as BNXOLD on its platform, while deposits and withdrawals for the legacy token were discontinued there.

This means the old contract should be treated as a historical or residual asset rather than assumed to be interchangeable with the current BNX token. A unit-price difference after the split did not, by itself, represent an equivalent loss in value because the token balance was multiplied by 100. The practical issue for holders is contract identity: wallets, exchanges, decentralised applications and liquidity pools may support one contract but not the other.

The migration mechanism

BinaryX’s conversion guide described a replacement process for self-custodied tokens. Users were directed to connect a wallet, use a conversion interface, sign the transaction and add the new token address to their wallet. The guide also warned that liquidity-provider positions on decentralised exchanges required separate handling: holders first had to remove liquidity, then convert the old BNX. This made the migration more than a display change, because balances held in contracts, pools or game systems had to be moved or updated.

The stated new BNX contract was 0x5b1f874d0b0C5ee17a495CbB70AB8bf64107A3BD. Binance reported that its own swap and redenomination process had been completed at a 1 BNXOLD to 100 BNX ratio. These records establish the relationship between the two assets, but they do not establish that every historical holder, decentralised exchange pool or third-party application completed the same process.

BinaryX’s intended platform role

BinaryX presented BNX as the economic token for a blockchain-gaming ecosystem that included games, an initial game offering platform and community or DAO functions. Its public materials described uses such as in-game consumption, rewards, participation in the ecosystem and support for projects launched through the platform. The current BinaryX site also lists a game-development function, an IGO launchpad and an asset marketplace as parts of the broader platform concept.

Those descriptions are statements of intended utility rather than proof that the legacy contract remains accepted across every product. After a contract migration, utility depends on explicit integration: a game, marketplace, exchange or governance tool must recognise the old address or provide a conversion route. A token can retain a historical balance on BNB Smart Chain while losing practical usefulness if the applications around it have switched to the replacement contract.

Governance and changing project direction

BinaryX’s token split was presented as a governance-backed decision. A community FAQ said a DAO vote supported the 1:100 split, while the conversion guide linked the change to a BinaryX DAO proposal. This indicates that token economics were not entirely fixed at launch; holders or the governing community could approve changes affecting supply denomination, contracts and user procedures.

The project later published a proposal to rebrand BinaryX as Four and rename BNX, describing the change as a possible expansion beyond its earlier GameFi identity. The material reviewed here records the proposed vote and its rationale, but does not independently establish the final governance result. For research purposes, that uncertainty matters: the old BNX label can refer to a discontinued contract, while the wider project identity and product focus may also change over time.

Dependencies and practical limitations

BinaryX [OLD] depended on more than its token contract. Its practical operation required exchange support, conversion infrastructure, game integrations, liquidity pools, wallet recognition and governance processes. The migration documents specifically identify decentralised-exchange liquidity and in-game balances as operational dependencies. This is a useful distinction for newcomers: ownership of a legacy token balance does not guarantee a functioning market, redemption route or application-level use.

The reviewed project materials also do not provide a complete, current account of legacy-token liquidity, remaining conversion support, holder concentration, contract controls or the status of every historic game integration. Those gaps prevent a conclusion that BNX [OLD] is economically equivalent to current BNX. Any assessment should begin by verifying the exact contract, checking whether a supported converter still exists and confirming that the intended venue or application recognises the legacy asset.

Key takeaways

• BinaryX [OLD] is the pre-2023 BNX contract, not simply another ticker for the current BNX asset.
• The documented redenomination ratio was 1 old BNX to 100 new BNX.
• The new BNX contract cited in the migration materials is 0x5b1f874d0b0C5ee17a495CbB70AB8bf64107A3BD.
• Legacy-token utility depended on conversion support, exchange listings, liquidity pools and application integrations.
• BinaryX described BNX as a token for GameFi, IGO and ecosystem functions, but intended utility does not prove current support for the old contract.
• BinaryX also proposed a later rebrand, so both contract identity and project direction require separate verification.

Risks and open questions

• Legacy-contract liquidity and exchange support may be limited or absent, making the asset difficult to transfer or value.
• A historical token balance may not be recognised by current BinaryX games, governance tools or marketplaces.
• Conversion procedures described in 2023 may no longer be available or may not cover every wallet, liquidity pool or third-party application.
• The reviewed sources do not establish the current status of all holders, remaining supply, contract permissions or residual conversion obligations.
• The proposed BinaryX-to-Four rebrand introduces additional uncertainty about the project’s current identity and product focus.