As per the title. What Binance performed with Mazars, the firm that performed the procedure, was an “Agreed-upon Procedure Engagement”, which is regulated by the International Standard on Related Services (ISRS) 4400. This regulation literally states that an AuPE is not an audit:

​

ISRS 4400, p. 5

In addition, the procedure can’t be fully independent as the tasks performed were agreed in advance, i.e. Binance could chose at will what was seen and what was not.

Another aspect to point out is that the very document of Mazars states that it does not express an assurance conclusion:

​

Mazars’ report, p. 2

On top of that:

The report only mentions Bitcoin, there’s no assurance of other tokens If they have a 1000% liability on their ETH’s (or other token’s) holdings, as was the case of the last big fiasco we’ve seen, we’re in the dark Mazars was hired by Binance. As far as it goes, I believe an independent audit, in this case, should be requested by another institution, e.g. the SEC (yeah, I know), so that we could have a Binance-unbiased document Binance has its own token as well

tl;dr

Binance audit was not an audit, but an agreement of procedures. It does not assure liabilities are covered. It does not have the strength of an audit and should be taken with a grain of salt.

I can’t help but to add the obvious: get a hardware wallet and take your funds under your control. Cheers to user regret92 for pointing out these excerpts from the documents.