Author | Wu says blockchain
In this episode of the podcast, Will, a large creditor in the FTX China region, detailed his personal experiences in the FTX incident, the process of asset loss, and the potential impact of FTX's 'restricted jurisdiction' motion on Chinese creditors. Will pointed out that this motion could lead to creditors from 49 countries, including China, being unable to receive compensation, with the core issue being the potential bias of legal opinions issued by lawyers hired by FTX, which could deprive the rights of Chinese creditors. Will has contacted lawyers and initiated actions against the motion while calling on more creditors to write to the judge to express their objections. The interview also covered Will's review of asset allocation decisions before and after FTX's collapse, legal strategies for rights protection, and the systemic injustice behind the motion. The audio can be listened to on Wu Says, Xiaoyuzhou, Apple, and other mainstream audio platforms at home and abroad.
FTX's motion has drawn the attention of Chinese creditors, and Will shares his personal experiences and motivations for rights protection.
Colin: Hello everyone, welcome to Wu's Podcast. Today we are chatting with Will. He is recently involved in a very significant event, which is that FTX announced it might not compensate Chinese creditors, which has caused quite a stir in the Chinese community. Will is a significant creditor of FTX and a leader representing some creditors in this wave. So we invited Will to talk about his experience. Will, please introduce your background.
Will: Hello everyone, my name is Will. I have a background in science and engineering, studied geophysics, and pursued a doctorate in a technical field. I entered the crypto space in 2017.
I have tried many things in the crypto space; I have managed funds, worked at exchanges, and also mined. I once held a certain number of Bitcoin mining machines and Ethereum mining machines and led a quantitative trading team. You could say I have experienced many things in the crypto world. But after reviewing this matter, I found that my greatest gains still came from holding Bitcoin. So I define myself as a loyal believer in Bitcoin and have always used Bitcoin as my investment principle.
In the FTX incident, I am a relatively large creditor. Initially, I even participated in the election of their creditors' committee, which is the unsecured creditors' committee. At that time, I sought a lawyer because encountering this matter made me very frustrated, and the lawyer suggested I participate in the election. One reason is that I am also considered an insider, and the other is that my claim amount is relatively large. We believe that we need a Chinese person in there to voice our rights and ensure our interests, so I ran for election.
My first election actually made it to the second round. At that time, the person in charge or the judge, or someone from the FTX Trust called me for an interview. But ultimately, I was not selected. After a while, I can't remember exactly how long, but after the case had progressed for some time, someone withdrew from the creditors' committee. At that time, they even emailed me asking if I would like to be on the alternate list; I replied that I would, but it was already quite late, and I didn't have much decision-making power then. However, I still said I was willing to join. As a result, they never replied to my email, so I ultimately was not selected. This is the general background of my participation in this matter.
The reason I stood up this time is that the FTX Recovery Trust presented a new motion to the court. After reading the original text of the motion and interpreting it word by word, I found that this motion deviated very greatly and could truly endanger our rights to seek compensation. Therefore, I began to speak out on Twitter and formed a Telegram group to gather friends who still hold FTX claims, brainstorming to see if we could do something and raise our voices to protect our rights.
Colin: So what you had on FTX was mainly Bitcoin.
Will: The reason I had a relatively large amount of funds in FTX at that time was because, Colin, do you remember that there was a period when there were rumors that both Binance and OKEx would provide the information of large holders to domestic regulatory authorities or the police? Under that background, users like me who were still in the country were very concerned about asset security. At that time, I was still in the country, to avoid potential risks, I transferred a large amount of assets to FTX. I had almost put my entire fortune after '312' into it.
At that time, I was bottom-fishing BTC; after bottom-fishing, I sold everything in the previous round of Bitcoin prices, between $40,000 and $47,000, almost completely. After that, I put all my USDT into FTX, preparing to gradually build my position. Because all my previous significant profits came from trading Bitcoin during its big cycles.
So in this context, I still had a significant amount of BTC in FTX at that time, and besides that, I only held USDT. My positions were basically in these two types. I can't disclose the specific amounts, but I can say that according to the earliest statistical data, I should be one of the top 100 creditors.
Colin: So was your original crypto primarily held on OKEx or Binance?
Will: Binance.
Colin: So actually, you are not a regular trader on FTX; you mainly chose to transfer there due to the specific background at that time.
Will: In fact, I also always had positions in FTX. Before the event broke out, my asset allocation was about two-thirds on Binance and one-third on FTX. I did have positions on FTX, especially during that time when its spot lending function was very powerful. That period was exactly when DeFi was booming, and I was often conducting arbitrage operations on the chain, so I needed to keep some assets on FTX for borrowing. Therefore, I originally had a portion of assets on FTX, but after the event occurred, I transferred most of my core assets there. One could say I put over 90% of my assets in the crypto space into FTX.
Colin: Do you remember roughly when it started to turn?
Will: I remember FTX went bankrupt in November, and the specific time for transferring should be around July or August. I can't recall exactly.
The cost of trusting FTX and missing the opportunity to sell claims.
Colin: Why did you trust FTX so much at that time, transferring 90% of your assets there?
Will: I feel that I indeed made a significant oversight in this matter. I have previously worked at an exchange, and frankly speaking, I essentially do not trust any centralized exchanges. But the reason I built trust in FTX at that time was that the overall market environment and public opinion atmosphere made you feel that FTX was an emerging star project.
Especially during that period, I had already started planning to live overseas, and FTX had the strongest function for converting digital currencies to USD at that time, unmatched by any other exchange. So in that overall environment, I thought its fiat currency inflow and outflow channels were very smooth and considered it a regulated and compliant platform.
Moreover, FTX's spot lending function was also very beneficial for my arbitrage operations on the chain. All these various reasons combined led me to make the decision to transfer a large amount of assets into FTX.
Colin: Actually, at that time, you had basically sold all your BTC, and your main holding was actually USDT, so you transferred your funds to FTX to prepare for bottom-fishing?
Will: At that time, I did indeed consider bottom fishing. I still hold a portion of BTC; my overall position is divided into daily positions and core positions. My core position is resolutely untouched, but why did I transfer my core position into FTX at that time? The reason is that the overall environment made me worry about information leaks, and I hoped to use the exchange as a transit to erase some traces on the chain.
So I transferred my core position, USDT holdings, and assets on Binance into it. My plan was to bottom-fish some first and then move the assets back to my wallet. That was my operational thought at that time, but later FTX collapsed too quickly; honestly, it was indeed a bit of bad luck.
Colin: When he was completely unable to withdraw funds and filed for bankruptcy, did it not make you feel desperate?
Will: Yes, but my overall mentality has been relatively good; of course, there have been moments of despair. Because I was actually preparing to allocate some other assets for my family, having already identified the targets. Therefore, I also intended to gradually withdraw cash through FTX and convert it into USD for allocation. Sometimes during those quiet nights, I did feel a bit guilty towards my family, especially towards my wife and children.
However, overall, my mentality has been relatively stable, but many people around me were worried for me, thinking that such a large loss might be too much for me to bear. Some even specifically notified my family to keep an eye on me, fearing I might make some irrational moves.
Colin: Yes, in fact, many creditors after FTX's bankruptcy find it psychologically very difficult to accept.
Will: Yes. But I personally do not have strong material desires. In my view, these losses are just fluctuations in numbers. So about two or three days later, I adjusted quickly. Then I quickly began to contact lawyers to seek rights protection and see what else I could do.
Colin: As the claim price gradually rose, did your overall mood become more optimistic?
Will: This matter can be discussed in several phases. In fact, when the claim price rose to about 50%, I thought about whether to sell. However, there were some external factors at that time, and ultimately the transaction did not happen. I started thinking at 50%, but the price of Bitcoin had already begun to rise significantly.
Colin: At that time, indeed many people wanted to sell their claims and bottom-fish BTC.
Will: Yes. I am primarily a person who thinks in cryptocurrency terms. My mindset is that as long as I don't have enough Bitcoin, I will feel uncomfortable. At that time, BTC was rising too fast, and my mindset became somewhat 'like a retail investor,' wondering if it would pull back a bit before selling the claims and then buying BTC. As a result, I hesitated.
When the claim price rose to 82%, I officially contacted a UK institution called Attestor, which should be one of the companies that acquired the most claims in this round of FTX bankruptcy. Many people reached out to me because my claim amount was relatively large, and I was quite active in the entire event.
I have four accounts, not concentrated in one account. One of those accounts' KYC had not passed at that time, and the market price difference for KYC approval was about 5%, with some institutions even unwilling to take over accounts that did not pass KYC. I contacted them through intermediaries, and they indicated they did not mind whether KYC was completed and had the ability to handle it.
In the initial contract, I requested to complete the transaction within three weeks because I wanted to reallocate Bitcoin once the funds were received. I am very sensitive to time; if the speed is slow, I would rather not sell.
As a result, there was an episode within three weeks. I was very cautious, communicating with intermediaries in the Telegram group to confirm whether accounts that had not passed KYC would affect the quote. I even sent an email requesting their formal reply to confirm it would not affect the price. Although the intermediary said OK in the group, they never replied to the email. Ultimately, this matter was delayed for over three weeks, and I did not proceed with the transaction.
So this experience has made me very cautious about selling claims. I feel that the trust cost in the middle is too high, and there may be various traps. Therefore, I have not sold and have continued to hold until now.
Review of FTX's debt repayment progress: Chinese creditors still excluded.
Colin: So FTX actually started to repay debts gradually in the last six months or so? But at first, it seemed to only repay small claims, so it did not involve major creditors like you. Can you introduce the overall timeline for debt repayment?
Will: I can't specify exact timelines, but I can describe the general process. First, they handled claims under $50,000. When submitting a claim, there was an option called 'fast repayment,' which means that even if your claim amount exceeds $50,000, as long as you accept the fast repayment terms, they will only pay you $50,000. If your original claim was below $50,000, it was paid directly to you in the first distribution; that's the first phase.
The second phase was last month, where they conducted the second distribution, and this time it was possible to receive about 70% or 78% of the total claim, roughly in that range.
But the problem is that during this repayment process, Chinese creditors did not receive any money. FTX explained that there are currently no suitable suppliers capable of completing repayment for this portion of users in China, and they hope we can wait until they find suitable suppliers to handle this.
This reason seems very suspicious to us Chinese creditors. Because the original two cooperating suppliers were BitGo and Kraken, and many Chinese people, including myself, actually use Kraken to handle USD inflows and outflows. So everyone cannot accept this explanation.
I could only comfort myself that maybe Kraken was hesitant to openly state that they served Chinese clients, and perhaps FTX would find more suitable suppliers? So I just waited; after all, I had already waited so many years.
So, my repayment progress consists of these two steps; mentally, I believe this matter should not deviate too far, and we continue to wait.
Colin: OK, so the first wave of repayments under $50,000 did not exclude Chinese people, right?
Will: I'm not too sure about this because I'm not in that category of people and did not pay particular attention at that time.
The 'restricted jurisdiction' motion reveals systemic injustice and risk.
Colin: So the latest development is that they launched a motion directly. What form does this motion take? What impact will it have? Can you elaborate?
Will: OK. The name of this motion is about implementing a 'restricted jurisdiction' procedure, which translates to this in Chinese. This procedure is actually divided into two steps.
The first step is that they listed about 49 countries, including China, which they consider 'unfriendly' towards cryptocurrencies. If the FTX trust institution directly repays creditors in these countries with cryptocurrency, their executives or lawyers could face legal risks. Therefore, they are unwilling to bear such risks.
So they proposed to hire local lawyers in each 'problematic country' to issue legal opinions. If the lawyers believe it is possible to repay creditors in that country with cryptocurrency, then the repayment will proceed as usual; if the legal opinion states that repayment is not possible, then that portion of funds will not be given to creditors in those countries, but will return to the FTX trust fund to be redistributed to the remaining 95% of creditors.
Colin: Simply put, they need to find, for example, lawyers familiar with Chinese law, to see if it is legal to repay claims. If not, then they won't pay and will give it to others, right?
Will: Yes, this is the logic. The reason this matter has become very serious is also one of the reasons why I want to stand up against this motion.
First of all, these lawyers were hired by them, not by us creditors. If the lawyers they hired provide a 'not possible' legal opinion, then this matter will be completely out of control. As long as the court approves this motion, our fate will no longer be in our own hands.
The key issue is how to ensure the impartiality of the lawyers they hired. After all, these lawyers are serving FTX, and their goal is to represent the interests of the majority of creditors. Now we Chinese creditors have become the '5%' minority.
I shared a video on Twitter yesterday, which was from a debt acquisition agency person. He said this motion will definitely be approved because 95% of the people are beneficiaries, and the remaining 5% do not matter to them. Isn't that quite scary?
Colin: Well, it's hard to not care, right? Unless there are really very few people.
Will: Yes, but the reality is that proportionally, we have indeed become the minority. And they are very eager for this motion to pass because passing it would accelerate the progress of the FTX bankruptcy process. Meanwhile, for the original more than 95% of other creditors, this would also be beneficial.
Detailed explanation of the legal path and operational process for creditors opposing the motion.
Colin: So, what is your next step in responding to this motion?
Will: That's right. The reason I stood up this time and formed a Telegram group is that we still have time to act. We can write to the judge before July 15 to express our opposition to this motion.
There are mainly two ways to oppose the motion: first, as an independent creditor, I can directly write to the judge to express my opposition; second, I can also work with my lawyer in the U.S. to submit a formal opposition to the judge using their lawyer system. I am pursuing both paths simultaneously.
According to my understanding of U.S. bankruptcy law, there are several key steps that must be followed. First, write a letter to the judge in charge of this case, clearly expressing our reasons for opposition. Then this letter must be copied to the FTX Recovery Trust and their lawyers.
FTX's lawyers consist of two aspects: one is their main law firm in New York, and the other is their local lawyer team in the bankruptcy court's location. In addition, because we believe this matter has deviated from normal legal logic, we also need to copy this letter to the regulatory authorities.
So we have also sent the letter to the United States Trustee (UST), which is the official regulatory body for bankruptcy cases in the U.S. They play a supervisory role in the entire FTX bankruptcy case.
So I and my group friends, along with some creditors who interacted with me on Twitter, are sending out these letters of opposition in our personal capacities. Meanwhile, since it is currently a U.S. holiday, my long-term cooperating lawyer in New York will meet with me on Monday, and I hope he can formally submit legal objections on my behalf through the lawyer system.
Colin: We previously discussed a rather controversial issue, which is that those who sold their claims, in contrast, were not affected by this motion, right?
Will: Yes. This motion clearly states that the claims held by institutions that have already purchased claims will not be affected by the motion; this is explicitly mentioned in the motion text.
Colin: For example, if there is a UK or Singapore institution, or even it seems the documents do not mention Hong Kong, if the claim is under a Hong Kong identity, it should not be affected, right?
Will: It’s like this. I have an account under a Hong Kong company name; I am the legal person of that company and hold 100% of the shares, and I hold a Chinese passport, yet this account has not received any distribution.
Colin: Theoretically, the document only restricts mainland China and Macau, right?
Will: Theoretically, yes. But I studied the relevant legal clauses carefully, and the criteria for judgment are actually based on 'tax residency' rather than passport nationality. If judged by tax residency, I should be able to receive compensation, as I am a tax resident of Singapore.
This issue has actually dragged on for a long time, and there are many people in my Telegram group who are like me. When submitting claims, most of us were still tax residents of mainland China, but later many have gone abroad, some to Canada, some to the U.S., and others like me have become local tax residents in Singapore or Hong Kong, and some have even changed their passports.
Although this information, including tax forms and KYC materials, can be updated, I updated my tax form myself, but the other party still determined that I could not receive compensation. This shows that there are serious loopholes in this mechanism.
Disputes over tax residency and the pull between selling claims and retreating.
Colin: If we take another analogy, for example, if there is a debt acquisition company that specializes in handling tax issues, buying claims from you, wouldn’t they be able to smoothly receive compensation?
Will: Yes, they can do it. In fact, after this motion was put forward, three companies of this kind proactively contacted me. So I feel that this matter has become extremely unfair and unjust.
Colin: What was the range of their offers? What price could they offer?
Will: Because I have a relatively large claim, the offers I received previously were around 120% to 130%.
Colin: This price is actually quite good.
Will: Yes, theoretically, this can be used as a last resort.
Colin: But would you worry that one day even this path could be blocked off? Or that they too might face limitations?
Will: Of course I am worried, how could I not be? After all, this is not a small amount. I'm a normal person. But I might be a bit stubborn; I feel that I won't make concessions easily until the last moment. Of course, that doesn't mean I will never concede; I just feel that this matter, from the perspective of a science and engineering guy, is simply unreasonable. Moreover, my wife is a lawyer, and I have many lawyer friends who also think there are issues with this matter.
Colin: Yes, you still think there is room for negotiation in this matter; it is not completely hopeless.
Will: I can't say with 100% certainty. But I believe that as long as they have a sense of legal principles, this motion shouldn't be pushed through so easily.
Colin: If normal compensation were to occur now, could it compensate you around 150%?
Will: Its calculation method is actually quite simple. First is your original claim amount, and if calculated in USDT terms, you could theoretically get back 100%. Of course, if you were holding BTC, you would definitely incur losses because they are calculating at a price of $16,500 per coin, which is definitely far below the current price.
At that time, I also held a lot of USDT, and that portion of USDT can be fully compensated, which is the basic 100%. Then they will also calculate interest based on time, at an annual rate of 9%. This means that from the start of the bankruptcy, when the case is finally settled, you will receive the accumulated interest over these years.
So now everyone generally believes that ultimately receiving around 140-130% is relatively stable.
Colin: In the end, the difference isn't that big, only about a 10% gap.
Will: But there is another very crucial point, which is information asymmetry. They still have many assets that have not been recovered, and there are many lawsuits ongoing, with significant potential recovery amounts. This is also why many institutions are currently very actively acquiring FTX's debts.
Because in the current global financial environment, an annualized return of 9% is already quite attractive, and this claim also carries additional potential returns. Moreover, as a financial asset, it is actually very high quality.
Colin: So does this mean that the compensation for this claim you have now may not be immediately available to you? You can choose to wait, right?
Will: That's not the case. They are paying in installments; this is just an initial payment, and the subsequent compensation may take quite a long time, but no matter how long it takes, they promise to compensate you with an annualized interest of 9%.
So for traditional financial institutions or debt acquisition companies, this asset package is very attractive. It not only has stable returns but also has the potential for time value growth.
Colin: You just mentioned that this time the compensation is 70%, right?
Will: 70% or 78%. But what they call 90% is estimated from the overall recovery perspective.
The differentiation among creditors and questioning of institutional fairness, legal disputes over stablecoin compensation escalate.
Colin: What about the creditors around you? I see you have a group with hundreds of people. Are most of them choosing not to sell, or have they already sold their claims?
Will: Now it is actually divided into several categories. In my group, the active members are basically those who have not sold; everyone is actively writing letters and speaking out to resist; these people have chosen to continue holding their claims. However, there are also some people, especially after this motion was announced, who have chosen to sell. Originally, they were also holders, but after this motion was issued, many people were forced to start selling their claims.
Colin: Would you suspect whether these debt collection agencies have some internal communication or special relationship with FTX officials?
Will: Of course I suspect, and I explicitly mentioned this in my letter to the judge, because I find this phenomenon very unreasonable. You see, my claim is at the 5A level, and according to U.S. bankruptcy law, claims of the same category, regardless of the holder's nationality or jurisdiction, should theoretically enjoy the same rights to compensation.
But now it has become that after I sell my claim to a debt collection company, they can receive compensation, while I cannot if I hold it myself. Is this reasonable? That’s why I firmly stood up to oppose this motion.
I read the original text of the motion, and the arguments in it are fundamentally untenable. First, we need to clarify that the current claim is essentially USD debt, not calculated in cryptocurrency.
Colin: Ultimately, the compensation you receive will also be in USD, right?
Will: Yes, it's in USD. However, FTX proposed during the process that due to its extensive business coverage, using stablecoins for compensation would be a more 'convenient' way. The court approved this at that time. In fact, the SEC also questioned the use of stablecoins for payments, but in the end, most people, including our Chinese creditors, expressed understanding and acceptance since it's very convenient for crypto users to use stablecoins.
The problem is that now FTX suddenly reverses, saying that due to regulatory issues with virtual currencies, it cannot compensate Chinese users. This makes no sense to me. First of all, you have USD debt, and secondly, there is so much trade between China and the U.S., and many cross-border bankruptcy cases have occurred without any company refusing to compensate Chinese creditors due to so-called 'foreign exchange control'; only FTX raised such a motion this time.
Colin: Well, to be objective, China's legal definition of stablecoins and cryptocurrencies is indeed quite ambiguous, which may pose some obstacles.
Will: I agree with this point. But I want to emphasize that the legal basis cited by FTX in their motion is actually very far-fetched. They cited an announcement jointly issued by Chinese regulators when ICOs were booming in 2017, which only stated that financial institutions, payment institutions, and banks are not allowed to participate in token issuance and related services.
However, FTX has interpreted this passage through the Macau version to imply that 'China does not support virtual currencies' and used this as a legal basis for denial of compensation. I think there is a serious issue with this way of citation.
Analysis of the reasonableness of foreign exchange control disputes and alternative paths through overseas accounts.
Colin: But to be objective, China has indeed introduced some new regulations that do not allow Chinese institutions to participate in activities related to virtual currencies. If they want to strictly interpret these clauses, they might find some legal basis.
Will: Yes, I agree. But I believe that, overall, most of those legal clauses mainly restrict trading activities, such as prohibiting private fundraising and private placements, but there is no explicit provision that it is illegal for Chinese citizens to hold virtual currency assets. I have carefully reviewed these clauses.
Colin: But what about the payment part? They may believe that payment paths are limited, leading to the inability to fulfill compensation.
Will: If the issue is that the payment path is not operational, why not use USD wire transfer? You can't deprive me of my right to obtain property just because the payment method is inconvenient.
Colin: Does China still have foreign exchange controls? Could this also be part of the issue?
Will: I believe this issue is also not valid. Other countries also have foreign exchange controls, such as South Korea, and their creditors still received compensation. Moreover, foreign exchange controls only occur when funds enter mainland China and need to be converted into RMB. So if I have a bank account in Hong Kong or Singapore and receive USD wire transfers through these accounts, it does not involve foreign exchange issues at all.
Colin: Yes, if using compliant institutions like HashKey or OSL to operate, it seems feasible.
Will: Yes, and we do not need to go through exchanges; we can complete it using traditional bank wire transfers. As long as I provide a bank account, even if it is not in mainland China, it does not involve foreign exchange restrictions. If there really is an issue, I can also normally pay taxes according to Chinese law. This is entirely different from the general understanding of 'foreign exchange control.'
Colin: But the reality is that the process is indeed quite complex in China. For example, when it comes to paying taxes, who do you go to? That itself is quite troublesome.
Will: But you see, in the same series of cases with FTX, there is another similar case that ultimately compensated Chinese creditors, and it was completed through USD wire transfer. That was a U.S. company, handled by the Southern District Court, and belongs to the same series of cases as FTX.
Colin: This could perhaps serve as a rebuttal or provide a reference.
Will: In addition, there is also the Mt. Gox compensation case, which involved Chinese users. And they compensated based on Bitcoin, of course, that case was ruled by a Japanese court.
Colin: Different judicial systems may have different views, especially domestically, where this aspect is indeed quite vague.
Will: Therefore, I believe that this motion from FTX itself has serious issues. Even if the compensation path is a bit complicated, it cannot deprive us of our legitimate assets.
Will: Actually, I think it doesn’t need to be that complicated. We return to a core point — this is USD debt, stablecoins are just one payment method. They can completely use traditional bank wire transfers for payment. As long as I have a Hong Kong bank account, I can receive payments without going through an exchange. So the direction of this motion is wrong; its original intention and the possible consequences deviate from common sense.
As the hearing date for the motion approaches, creditors intensify their opposition actions.
Colin: I think we have already discussed the entire process very clearly. Next, he has officially submitted this motion, and it will be up to the judge to review this matter, right? When is that likely to be?
Will: July 22.
Colin: This means that the judge will determine at that time whether to approve this motion. If it is approved, then they will proceed to find related lawyers, such as local lawyers in China, to confirm the relevant legal issues.
Will: Yes. After finding a lawyer, we will have 45 days. This period is to find a lawyer and submit objections. For example, if I want to oppose this motion now, I can prepare my materials and submit my legal opinion within these 45 days.
Colin: So the ongoing process will still be a relatively long tug-of-war.
Will: Yes, actually I am not afraid of the long wait. What really makes me feel urgent is now — because the timeline is very tight. We must submit our objections before July 15, otherwise we won't even qualify to object.
However, most of us Chinese creditors do not have lawyers. I have a lawyer, but most people in the group do not have lawyers, and submitting documents through the U.S. electronic system in such a short time is very difficult. You still need to find a lawyer, sign a contract, and prepare materials; these processes are very time-consuming.
So our main strategy right now is to send letters. However, sending a letter from mainland China to the U.S. takes three to four days or even longer to receive, and we need to copy it to four institutions, so time is very tight. Therefore, I have recently started to do some intensive output, sharing the information I have organized with everyone for their reference and action.
