Dog head to save life: Today's article analyzes from a neutral and objective standpoint, without taking sides or whitewashing, if you don't agree, you can unfollow, but don't insult me.
This afternoon, bg sending lawyer's letters to users who took advantage sparked reactions on Twitter and many communities, with everyone's unanimous response being:
Damn, is BG exchange so short-sighted? Earned money but won't let it go? Can't handle it like this?
Currently, the mainstream opinion is roughly like this.
Because this matter has been going on for some time, online KOLs have been quite active in commenting and sharing about it, but Juzi has not spoken out because I really don't want to get involved.
I am neither a bg user nor have I brought any users to bg.
The reason is simple; I don’t trade coins.
The incident originated a week ago when a bug occurred in the bg exchange's voxe/usdt trading pair, and the parties involved made a considerable amount of money in a short time and withdrew it from bg.
Although bg subsequently blocked a batch of users' withdrawals and fixed the bug, this matter is still not over. Until today, users received a lawyer's letter from bg, demanding full compensation for illegal gains.
Once this thing came out, everyone felt like they would be the next targeted user; if no one speaks for him today, then when it comes to me, no one will speak for me either, which led to various forces attacking bg.
The logic is actually very simple; in the eyes of users in the crypto world, exchanges, especially contract exchanges, are equivalent to casinos, and running a casino requires the ability to play.
An exchange that only allows losses and not profits, who would still play?
Moreover, as a user, today I can block others' withdrawals, then tomorrow they can block my withdrawals, I must speak up for ordinary users and go after bg.
The logic is not flawed, but Juzi also privately talked with bg, and they also have their own explanation.
Again, I emphasize, this is what they said, not something I made up for them, just showing you the two sides of the issue.
Bg made a very interesting analogy:
I forgot to lock the door before leaving my house, and as a result, a group of people went in and took things.
Then I came back, locked the door, but the things were already gone.
It's fine if small items are lost, but I already know who took the big items, so is it wrong for me to ask them to return what they took?
Why are a bunch of people saying I lack foresight now?
Hearing this, it seems to make a bit of sense.
It left me at a loss for how to refute.
Moreover, as the understanding deepens, some unknown details gradually come to light, and next, Juzi will briefly talk about it.
Bg said, don’t be misled by the lawyer’s letter, it has a huge impact, but the actual scope of impact is small, only about seven or eight people, and it is precisely because of these few people that the system bug was triggered.
Just these nine people took 20 million U from bg, while all the others combined only took 10 million U. Bg stated that they will focus on these nine people and will not pursue the remaining 10 million U.
And these nine people are a wool gang from Shenzhen, otherwise, think about what kind of user could achieve a trading volume of 10 billion dollars in ten minutes? The other party's exact words were: ordinary users don't have such skills.
Because a large withdrawal was successful, there is now a counter to capital, of course, pressure can be applied to bg.
So at this point, Juzi realized why the amount in the lawyer's letter was blurred out. You damn took over a billion, brother!
Then the other party asked Juzi a question that left Juzi baffled:
So... can you understand that kind of feeling?
Damn, brother, if you took one or two million, I would definitely be happy for you.
But you damn took 20 million U!
Everyone was poor and doing fine, why did you want to get rich first?
I want to take 160 million, and I don't want to pay back a single cent!
As for why bg would send a lawyer's letter? It’s because after consulting a lawyer, they found that there are indeed many precedents in the country, and the other party has also sent them all.
Do you still remember the precedent document in the screenshot above?
Juzi took a look and found one similar case that was judged for over three years, but it was a precedent from ten years ago.
Other precedents are all about profiting from platform loopholes, which were ultimately classified as theft.
It can be seen that bg has made relatively sufficient preparations in this regard, and this matter will inevitably be recorded in the annals of the crypto world, becoming the largest record of user exploitation in the industry.
Additionally, the other party revealed some details to Juzi:
It was said that in this public opinion event, bg's capital outflow was not obvious, and instead, the registration volume reached a new high.
I don't know if more users, after learning about this matter, also want to come to bg to take advantage.
As for the authenticity of the information, Juzi makes no guarantees; you can just consider it entertainment.
The most pitiful ones are actually the users, who became the entertainment.
I originally thought it was to speak for my comrades, but the other party turned out to be a scientist who took 1.6 billion.
Empathy has gone to the dogs.
This is bg's side of the story; you should be able to see the announcement later. I still won't get involved in this matter, I won't take sides or create a narrative, just objectively and neutrally talk about the situation.
So, that's it, it's over.
I am Juzi, the founder of Web3 Oasis, and an expert in recovering crypto assets.