**A Desperate Accusation on Blockchain**
In February 2025, a Chinese programmer claiming to be 'Hu Lezhi' launched an unprecedented public accusation via the Ethereum blockchain. He destroyed 603 ETH (approximately $1.65 million) and donated 1,950 ETH (approximately $5.35 million) to organizations like WikiLeaks while embedding multiple messages in on-chain transactions, accusing the executives of the Chinese quantitative investment firm: #Kuande Investment—Feng Xin and Xu Yuzhi—of using 'brain control weapons' to manipulate employees, even claiming to have been monitored by a 'brain control organization' since birth, ultimately choosing suicide due to 'loss of human dignity.'
**On-chain Evidence and Allegations**
According to the blockchain explorer Etherscan, Hu Lezhi's wallet address (0x1a19c370…e89B36813) transferred a total of 2,287 ETH from OKX and Binance exchanges in batches starting February 10, 2025, and subsequently transferred the funds to a black hole address (burning) or donated them to charity organizations. The accompanying #on-chain message reveals his core accusation:
1. Military Deployment of Brain Chips: Claims that military forces in various countries control citizens through base stations, radios, and nano-level brain chips, forming 'digital slavery.'
2. 'Mental Manipulation' at Kuande Investment: direct accusations that the company's executives use technology to deprive employees of their 'desire sensors,' reducing them to 'slaves of digital machines.'
3. Personal Account of Victimization: Realized he was being monitored since October 2022 and claimed that the persecution intensified, leading to a mental breakdown.
**Controversy and International Struggle of Brain-Computer Interfaces**
Hu Lezhi's accusations are not an isolated incident; his mention of 'brain control weapons' is closely related to the recent international controversy over the militarization of brain-computer interface (BCI) technology.
**The U.S. 'Entity List' and Double Standards**
In December 2021, the U.S. Department of Commerce placed 34 Chinese entities on the 'Entity List,' accusing them of developing 'brain control weapons,' including the Chinese Military Medical Research Institute and its affiliated research institutes. The U.S. claimed these technologies could be used to 'manipulate soldiers' thoughts' but provided no specific evidence. Ironically, the U.S. Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been funding multiple brain-computer fusion projects since 2019, aiming to develop 'mind-controlled weapons.' This exposes the double standards under technological hegemony: the development by other countries is a 'threat,' while the U.S. is 'innovation.'
**The Gray Area of Technology Ethics**
The potential risks of brain-computer interfaces have long raised concerns in academia. For example, intervening in neural signals through chips could lead to a loss of individual autonomy and even be used for 'mind control.' Although Hu Lezhi's accusations have not been verified, they reflect deep public fears about the abuse of technology.
Kuande Investment? The protagonist in the fog and the capital game
**Company Background and Executive Changes**
Public information shows that Kuande Investment is one of China's leading quantitative private equity firms, managing over 10 billion. In June 2023, its original actual controller Zhang Daqing retired 'for personal reasons,' with Xu Yuzhi and Feng Xin taking over. Notably, the 'Xu Yuzhi' accused by Hu Lezhi has a name similar to the current executive 'Xu Yuzhi,' which may be a translation or recording error, but raises questions about the actual identity of the parties involved.
**Absence of Official Response**
As of February 18, 2025, Kuande Investment has not publicly responded to the allegations. Attempts by foreign media to contact their registered contact details have all failed, further adding to the mystery of the incident. This silence may stem from legal concerns or an attempt to downplay public opinion, but also leaves the public questioning their transparency.
The Frenzy of the Crypto Community and Moral Decay
Meme Coin Speculation: A Bloodthirsty Party
The Hu Lezhi event was quickly hyped by the crypto community, with a flood of meme coins named after him, 'Kuande,' or 'ndao' (the ENS domain he donated), surging in price by dozens of times within hours. For example, the market cap of $HULEZHI briefly surpassed $50 million, then plummeted to zero due to liquidity exhaustion. This speculative behavior is essentially an exploitation of the suffering of the parties involved.
- Speculators in a Moral Vacuum: Issuers use tragic narratives to attract retail investors, quickly withdrawing funds after harvesting.
- The consequences of regulatory absence: Decentralized exchanges (DEX) do not need to scrutinize token backgrounds, providing a breeding ground for similar frauds.
The Duality of Blockchain as a 'Weapon of Speech'
Hu Lezhi chose blockchain as the platform for his accusations, highlighting its 'immutability' advantage: once information is on-chain, it cannot be deleted or censored. This provides a tool for marginalized groups to resist authoritarianism but may also become a channel for spreading rumors and inciting panic. For instance, if his accusations are purely fictitious, the related information will still be permanently retained, causing irreversible reputational damage to the accused.
Musk is also using the features of blockchain as a last resort when necessary, and these practical uses may open a new wave of alternative applications for blockchain.
What will happen to the unverified accusations?
Is he a 'whistleblower' or a 'paranoid delusional'?
Hu Lezhi's accusations lack independent evidence support, and his mental state is also in question. Some netizens believe his words and actions fit the characteristics of 'paranoid delusion,' but there are also voices advocating for serious consideration of the potential risks of 'technology ethics.' This contradiction reflects the trust crisis of the digital age: when technology becomes a black box, how can ordinary people distinguish between 'conspiracy theories' and 'truth'?
The Lag of Regulatory Framework
Current laws regarding on-chain information governance are almost nonexistent. If Hu Lezhi's accusations are true, the involved companies may face charges of crimes against humanity; if fabricated, his actions would be difficult to hold accountable for defamation (due to blockchain anonymity). Governments worldwide need to expedite legislation to balance the boundaries of 'freedom of speech' and 'fact-checking.'
Critique and Call to Action, Resist Speculation, Return to the Essence of Technology
Ethical Critique of the Meme Coin Frenzy
The issuance of meme coins that profit from the suffering of others exposes the brutal growth of the crypto market and human greed. In response, the community should practice self-discipline:
1. Exchange Scrutiny Responsibility: Centralized platforms (like Binance) should delist meme coins involved in personal attacks.
2. Investor Education: Retail investors need to be wary of 'narrative-driven' speculative traps to avoid becoming victims of a bubble.
The Ultimate Inquiry of Technology for Good
The Hu Lezhi incident forces society to reflect: when technology breaks ethical boundaries, who will protect human dignity? Technologies like brain-computer interfaces and blockchain could be used for inclusive healthcare and finance, but have devolved into tools of manipulation due to the alienation of capital and power. Only by establishing a global framework for technology ethics can we avoid the nightmare of 'digital slavery.'
Finding a beacon in the chaos
Hu Lezhi's 'on-chain accusation' serves as a mirror, reflecting both the light and darkness of the technological era. It is both a desperate cry of the individual and the ultimate question about the direction of human civilization. When the meme coin speculators' party comes to an end, the real challenge has just begun: can we find a balance between innovation and ethics, allowing technology to truly serve humanity rather than devour it? The answer may lie in the choices of each individual.
