Issuing lawyer letters to retail investors, is this serious? Does mainland law support it?

I really want to know if these two images are real, can someone related provide some accurate information!

If it's true, I feel like this approach will backfire! 😳

This matter needs to be viewed from several details to see the whole picture —

1⃣ Responsibility attribution issue: Platform or user?

The essence of the abnormal fluctuation of $VOXEL is a chain liquidation and abnormal transactions caused by Bitget's system vulnerability.

Logically speaking, the platform, as the system provider, bears absolute responsibility for the stability of the system. The bug itself is the original sin.

When the bug vulnerability is exploited, besides blaming the arbitrageurs, are there not two other questions —

Who allowed the arbitrage opportunities to exist?

Who exposed retail investors to risks?

2⃣ Is selective law enforcement really a problem?

After the incident, I feel that Bitget's public relations response was not adequate; the soothing measures were insufficient, and the direct blanket approach amplified the voices of doubt, leading more people to start writing denunciation letters.

This wave may indeed have hurt some vital artery of Bitget. If freezing accounts and rolling back trades can be understood from the perspective of CEX,

then now issuing a lawyer's letter is equivalent to telling the market —

When the system goes wrong, if you win, we don't acknowledge it; if you lose, you bear it yourself.

This is actually a very dangerous signal, undermining the platform's long-term credibility, and not just a single arbitrage.

Because this seems to have not solved the problem, but instead exposed the dual issues of "system fragility + damaged credibility."

CeFi platforms are already facing a liquidity competition, and this feels like cutting off their own future.

After the VOXEL incident, more users will only accelerate their migration to platforms with higher transparency and more standardized governance, or turn to DEX.

3⃣ Can this lawyer's letter actually have an effect?

Returning to the lawyer's letter itself, assuming it is real, there may be several problems —

1. The legal positioning of "cryptocurrency trading disputes" in mainland China is quite awkward.

According to the official classification in 2021, cryptocurrency is considered illegal financial activity in mainland China and is not legally protected.

This means that once a cryptocurrency dispute arises, the buying and selling behavior itself is not recognized in the mainland court system.

In simple terms: the bets in the crypto circle are essentially illegal acts, and nobody can sue anyone.

2. Lawyer's letter ≠ lawsuit. It is more about applying pressure and lacks enforcement power.

A lawyer's letter is merely a means of civil pressure, not a court filing notice.

In the mainland environment, especially regarding lawyer letters involving crypto assets, it is more about psychological deterrence, not real utilization of public power for sanctions.

3. The actual execution difficulty is extremely high.

Involving crypto arbitrage, funds usually flow to overseas exchanges/blockchain addresses, lacking effective judicial execution pathways.

For Bitget to truly hold arbitrage users accountable, it must prove:

① The system vulnerability indeed led to "illegal profits"

② The profit-making behavior violates criminal law or civil law provisions

③ And the behavior occurred within the jurisdiction of mainland judicial authority

➡️ The reality is that the probability of Bitget achieving these three points is infinitesimally close to zero.

So, the path they want is simply: I want to report this to the police, and if you are really afraid of something being uncovered, then just obediently return the money.

4⃣ My viewpoint —

The authenticity of this lawyer's letter is questionable; if it is true, I believe it is more of a public relations move, not a genuine desire to wage a cross-border, cross-jurisdictional litigation battle.

In the crypto circle, technology is faith, and credit is lifeblood. The system can be repaired if it crashes, money can be earned if it's lost, but if credit collapses, it's basically a death sentence.

What can truly deter retail investors is not the lawyer's letter, but:

The security of the platform's system

The platform's ability to restore credibility

The platform's genuine protection attitude towards user rights

If an important financial infrastructure relies solely on issuing letters to plug holes, then what will ultimately be lost is not just the amount of a single arbitrage, but the future trust of users in the entire ecosystem.

Considering the speed of the FTX collapse back then, this is very frightening!