WutalkWu

The essence of the Bitget matter, as I understand it, is: the proprietary market maker and risk control went wrong, external market makers made 43 million dollars, and 20 million dollars were withdrawn, possibly some of which were frozen by Binance.

Then both sides continue to fight, BG focuses on the judiciary, the market makers focus on public opinion, putting pressure on each other. If one side cannot withstand the pressure, they may seek a compromise. It is also possible that both sides have grown tired and are silent, and we will see the final judgments from the courts in Singapore and the mainland.

Today, there are rumors in the community that profits from trading US stocks are being taxed by the mainland tax bureau, and that Futu and Tiger Brokers are suspected of providing information to the tax bureau.

Some friends are also concerned whether profits from trading cryptocurrencies will be taxed.

I believe that, for now, they will not be, because the legality in the mainland is uncertain and there is no legal basis.

However, the tax department definitely wants to impose taxes. In the past few years, they have tested the waters; some exchanges have already submitted information and data about large accounts to them. A few large accounts and many companies in the cryptocurrency sector have also been investigated, but there has not been a large-scale rollout. As long as an exchange has a large number of users in a certain area, the tax department will ultimately request information and KYC.

In short, trading cryptocurrencies is very special in the mainland. You can say it is illegal, but individual investments are not illegal. You can say it is not illegal, but the government claims that the law does not protect relevant activities. In summary, it is a very peculiar gray area.

Shuǐ dī zī běn dà shān zài Space shàng shuō: Zuìjìn wǒmen yǒu sì gè xiàngmù shàngxiànle bì ān, dàn shíjì shang méiyǒu yīgè xiàngmù àn yuēdìng gěi tóuzī rén fā bì. Míngmíng zài tóuzī xiéyì lǐ xiě de qīngqīng chǔchǔ yào fā bì, dàn shàngxiàn hòu xiàngmù fāng kěyǐ suíyì xiūgǎi tiáokuǎn, tóuzī rén méiyǒu rènhé fǎnzhì shǒuduàn. Yīnwèi zài mùqián de huánjìng xià, shàng bù shàng tóubù jiāoyì suǒ qūbié tài dàle.

Shuǐdī zīběn Dàshān zài Space shàng shuō: Zuìjìn wǒmen yǒu sì gè xiàngmù shàngxiànle Bì'ān, dàn shíjì shang méiyǒu yīgè xiàngmù àn yuēdìng gěi tóuzīrén fā bì. Míngmíng zài tóuzī xiéyì lǐ xiě de qīngqīngchǔchǔ yào fā bì, dàn shàngxiàn hòu, xiàngmù fāng kěyǐ suíyì xiūgǎi tiáokùn, tóuzīrén méiyǒu rènhé fǎnzhì shǒuduàn. Yīnwèi zài mùqián de huánjìng xià, shàng bù shàng tóubù jiāoyì suǒ, qūbié tài dàle. Dāngqián de kùnjìng, zhǔyào shì yīnwèi tóubù jiāoyì suǒ guòyú qiángshì, qiě quēfá yǒuxiào de hángyè jiānguǎn.

The statements from Bitget and the accused "market maker" have some new details:

The market maker's profit once reached 43 million US dollars, but most of it was not withdrawn; a small amount was transferred to Binance, but some accounts have been frozen; Bitget said that there are still 20 million US dollars in profits transferred out (there may be other market makers).

This cycle has seen quite a few tragedies caused by ETH, but if you don't use leverage, it's bearable; holding spot won't lose you too much.

In 2017 - 2018, some projects raised ETH through ICOs but did not sell, and ETH fell from a peak of $1400 to a low of $89, leading many projects to quietly shut down.

There was also an episode where VB urged the foundation to sell 70,000 ETH, most of which were sold at the peak.

However, while some project teams shut down, there were still teams holding tens of thousands or even more ETH without selling, managing to hold on, and later it was heard that they quietly became wealthy.

Although the cryptocurrency industry appears international, the real power holders are still primarily China and the United States. To put it simply: China's offshore exchanges, mining machine manufacturers, miners, and large traders; the United States' VCs, project teams, Wall Street institutions, and compliant exchanges. The sad reality is that while the U.S. president supports cryptocurrency with national strength, practitioners in China have to hide in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Dubai.

Cryptocurrency (Bitcoin): A currency that truly belongs to you, not controlled by the government or anyone else, and just this aspect is worth 10 trillion dollars. It is now 30% complete.

But to go further, for example, on-chain Nasdaq, Web3 Internet (which seems to coincide with the visions of Solana and Ethereum), could be something of even greater value, but currently only 1% is completed.

Rough words, but not rough reasoning. It seems that project parties in the cryptocurrency space should also read this when they use airdrops to PUA users.

Binance has released a more detailed listing guide, and project teams are likely intensifying their research.

Here are my insignificant suggestions:

First: All listing projects must disclose the market maker list and market maker strategies.
Second: Any project team holding tokens worth more than $500,000 must announce any significant changes 24 hours in advance.
Third: The rule that Binance employees can only trade 90 days after holding tokens should be reinstated.

https://www.binance.com/en/support/announcement/detail/d378c2176ac841bb8eae68f63d4c4845

When will the cryptocurrency world have its own bank?

Is OKX also entering the payment track?

Looking at the screenshots released by Lao Xu, there are a few key points: there is a U card; it is used on its own L2; there are DeFi yields; it has social attributes; it supports USDT and USDC.

One point of doubt is: can mainland Chinese users use KYC?

Involving fiat currency exchange, currently, many mainstream exchanges have not opened up U cards for Chinese KYC, or require detours. It seems that it might also be a bit difficult for OKX?

It seems there is a paradox

CZ has always emphasized that the most important thing is to protect users, but also emphasizes that CEX should list tokens without permission just like DEX

CEX has significantly loosened the listing criteria, resulting in a bunch of relatively poor projects, and even rampant manipulation. How can we protect users? These two things are contradictory

How to resolve this?

Should project parties be required to disclose more information? Core point one: who are the market makers, and what are the terms? Core point two: should large token releases be transparently disclosed?

The most classic memory is that early on, a group of people stole the code to create a new exchange, and then sold the code everywhere. In the end, that technical lead was sent to prison by Lao Xu. Since then, it seems that Lao Xu no longer trusts anyone, often saying: 'If someone is greedy for 100 yuan, I will spend a million to send you in.'

In the last cycle, top VC DPI could reach tens to dozens of times, but in this cycle, achieving 1 is very difficult (i.e., if LP invests 1 yuan, the return is 1 yuan).

This cycle has seen roles replaced by headliners and KOLs, with the wealth effect of VC coins replaced by memecoins.

The headliners in this cycle, like VCs in the last cycle, buy at low valuations, hype up, and sell off.

The only difference is that the cycle has shortened rapidly; VCs may need to wait several months, 1 year, or even several years, while headliners might only need a few hours or days.