Trendaavat aiheet
#
Bonk Eco continues to show strength amid $USELESS rally
#
Pump.fun to raise $1B token sale, traders speculating on airdrop
#
Boop.Fun leading the way with a new launchpad on Solana.
Will的折腾纪
Good toss|Bankrupt, FTX...; Engaged in academics and published papers; Led a team and made a product; I have never worked, and I have never been ashore; A bunch of theories, useless.
Since this morning, I haven’t taken a single break after seeing FTX’s omnibus reply to our objections. I just finished reviewing everything and writing my response—still working on organizing it. I’ll send it to my lawyers once done, but they’re probably just waking up and may not have enough time to prepare. I hope if I can’t speak, they can speak for me. To everyone in the group—please get ready. I’ll share my final version soon. Let’s push together!
#FTX #FTXRecovery #FTXCreditors #CryptoBankruptcy #CryptoJustice #SpeakUp
4,7K
FTX doesn't want me to speak now!!
They filed a motion saying I live in Singapore, not in a "Restricted Jurisdiction," so I shouldn't speak.
But you marked my claim as disputed! I am a creditor who hasn't received my money!
Please note that your Restricted Jurisdiction motion has not been approved yet and is not in effect! As a creditor, I have the right to participate and speak!
FTX Recovery Trust is trying to silence me!
They filed a motion saying I’m in Singapore—not a "Restricted Jurisdiction"—so I shouldn’t speak.
But my claim is disputed!
I’m exactly the kind of creditor who hasn’t been paid!
Your Restricted Jurisdiction motion is not approved yet.
As a creditor, I have the right to speak!
#FTX #FTXbankruptcy #CryptoJustice #FTXcreditors
293,74K
Many people asked me about Backpack’s new claim selling feature. I believe it’s well-intentioned — directly connecting sellers with a buyer helps small creditors who struggle to find channels, and that’s a positive thing. But in essence, it's no different from previous claim buyout offers — there’s only one buyer behind it: ftxcreditor, and the price offered is, in my view, not very friendly. Whether to participate is up to each individual. As for me, I’m still fighting to get what we rightfully deserve — not to be forced into selling our claims.
#FTX #Backpack #FTXcreditors #CryptoBankruptcy #Web3 #CreditorRights
9,87K
Let me boldly speculate on the dire consequences if the court approves FTX's motion:
This would set an extremely dangerous precedent—any overseas exchange could simply apply for bankruptcy in the U.S. and follow FTX's lead, arbitrarily designating China and 49 other countries as "restricted jurisdictions," legally seizing user assets without compensation.
Ironically, this list is not determined by a judge, but can be created by them simply hiring a lawyer to draft a "legal opinion." Yes, what they want is the power to make this decision.
This is not just a loss for Chinese creditors, but a systemic risk to the safety of global user assets in the entire cryptocurrency industry.
If approved, the consequences will be devastating.
#FTX #cryptocurrency #bankruptcy #digitalassets #CryptoLaw #ChineseCreditors #Web3 #judicialjustice
4,72K
When FTX filed this outrageous motion, many people’s first reaction was: “Too complicated, just sell the claim.” A bunch of friends told me the same—“Sell it and move on.” I know you mean well.
But I have to ask: isn’t this exactly why we get taken advantage of? It’s rightfully ours—why should we settle for less? If we don’t stand our ground when we’re right, then when will we?
Regarding FTX's outrageous motion, most people's first reaction was: "So troublesome, just sell it." A bunch of friends around me also advised me, just sell it, it’s less hassle. I know you mean well.
But I want to say: isn’t this one of the reasons we are easily bullied? It’s clearly ours, why should we give up our rights? Why can’t we get it all back? If we don’t stand firm when it’s reasonable, then when will we?
3,81K
FTX Recovery Trust does not have the legal authority and practical ability to delineate "restricted jurisdictions".
As stated in the motion of FTX Recovery Trust, FTX's pre-bankruptcy business covered hundreds of countries and regions around the world, and the scope of the case was extremely wide. At the same time, as an emerging thing, the global regulatory framework for crypto-digital assets is still immature, and the policies, administrative regulations, laws and regulations of various countries are still changing.
In this context, from a practical point of view, FTX Restoration Trust does not have the ability to make accurate, authoritative and dynamic judgments on the legal systems of various countries. Even though the motion claims to have "conducted a study of the judicial situation in various countries", as we have already pointed out, its description of the current state of Chinese law is clearly incorrect – citing a number of policy and guidance documents, which are neither judicial precedents of Chinese courts nor legal norms with mandatory force issued by the legislature.
Worse still, even the references to these policy documents are clearly misinterpreted and exaggerated. These documents are intended to provide principled guidance for the regulation of specific financial activities and market access, and do not prohibit or deny the receipt of overseas claims by Chinese citizens in accordance with the law. FTX's interpretation of the trust as the basis for "inability to pay" is an out-of-context and over-inferred policy semantics, and uses it as a reason to exclude Chinese creditors, which seriously deviates from the prudence and accuracy due to the application of law.
This kind of mistake just illustrates a key problem: as a bankrupt debtor, FTX Recovery Trust does not have the authority to adjudicate the application of law, nor does it have the actual ability to accurately judge the legal risks of various jurisdictions. However, the list of "restricted jurisdictions" formed by its subjective judgment is used to determine the eligibility and time of payment for some creditors, which lacks a legal basis and objective standards, which is an extremely irresponsible act for creditors and undermines the legal fairness of the entire bankruptcy procedure.
At the same time, the large-scale expenditure on legal services, the hiring of experts, and the delay in the process surrounding the mechanism have further raised the economic and time costs of bankruptcy proceedings, eroded assets that should have been prioritized for creditor repayment, and ultimately harmed the collective interests of all creditors.
Based on the above reasons, we implore the court to make a clear determination that FTX Restoration Trust does not have the right or ability to create a "restricted jurisdiction", and the relevant motion should be dismissed to protect the legitimacy, fairness, and efficiency of the bankruptcy proceedings.
12.7. klo 21.55
FTX's new motion, which hopes to add the concept of "restricted jurisdictions" to divide creditors, may directly affect the return of 5% of creditors, including Chinese creditors.
It's easy to lead people into the trap of proving the legitimacy of cryptocurrencies in a jurisdiction, and forget that FTX Recovery Trust is a non-profit organization that resolves debt-debt relationships and settles debts. Their main task is to complete the repayment of creditors' claims, and their performance of debt repayment has nothing to do with the transaction and payment of cryptocurrency, it is essentially a process of debt repayment through US dollars, so what does it have to do with the policies and regulations of cryptocurrencies in various countries?
In terms of the regulation and regulations of cryptocurrencies in various countries, does FTX Recovery Trust have the ability to clarify the policies, laws and regulations of each country? Do you have the ability to ensure that the interpretation of policies and regulations is objective and impartial? Not to mention the important matter of wanting to interpret and decide whether the creditor's claim should be released.
In China, for example, the motion passed the 2017 policy document on ICOs by various ministries in an attempt to illustrate the legal risks associated with repaying Chinese creditors.
There is a glaring error here:
1. The 2017 ICO announcement is a policy document, not a law or regulation, and only represents the regulatory intent and direction of the administrative authority.
2. The original text is to restrict domestic banks and financial institutions from providing services for the issuance of virtual currency, but not to restrict Chinese creditors from legally obtaining their own creditor's compensation.
This shows that FTX has neither the ability nor the legal basis to formulate a "restricted jurisdiction", and it is extremely irresponsible to use such subjective interpretations and policy documents to determine whether creditors can be compensated.
On the other hand, if the interpretation of the policy document can be used as the basis for defining the "restricted jurisdiction", then it is also possible to interpret the "restricted jurisdiction" through the local regional administrative document in the country region where the claim has been issued before. Considering fairness and justice, since 49 countries are to be divided into "restricted jurisdictions", is it possible to ask FTX to provide policy interpretations of the countries that have been issued, and if there are contradictions in the policy interpretations, does the entire debt issuance need to be reversed?
FTX cases account for only 5% in the United States and 95% overseas. According to the fairness requirements of the same kind of creditors in the United States, FTX should provide a judicial interpretation of the country or jurisdiction where all 95% of creditors are located, so as to slightly explain how to divide "restricted jurisdiction" and "non-restricted jurisdiction". However, encrypted digital currency is a new thing, the development of different countries is different, legal and regulatory development is also dynamic, more than 100 countries of judicial interpretation, policy interpretation, can the FTX team do it? Can objectivity and impartiality be ensured? Is there a guarantee that there is no bias?
So the result of this subjective assumption of motion is:
1. It consumes a lot of legal resources, funds and time, which are borne by all creditors.
2. Unable to obtain objective and fair results, affecting bankruptcy liquidation and bankruptcy process.
3. Causing secondary harm to the affected creditors, causing an indelible impact
Therefore, the judge should reject this motion, return to the debt-creditor relationship, and urge FTX to repay the creditors of various countries equally as soon as possible, so as to ensure the fairness and justice of the U.S. bankruptcy process.
ps: The wifi editing on the plane cannot be precisely modified, and the overall meaning has been expressed
2,41K
FTX's new motion, which hopes to add the concept of "restricted jurisdictions" to divide creditors, may directly affect the return of 5% of creditors, including Chinese creditors.
It's easy to lead people into the trap of proving the legitimacy of cryptocurrencies in a jurisdiction, and forget that FTX Recovery Trust is a non-profit organization that resolves debt-debt relationships and settles debts. Their main task is to complete the repayment of creditors' claims, and their performance of debt repayment has nothing to do with the transaction and payment of cryptocurrency, it is essentially a process of debt repayment through US dollars, so what does it have to do with the policies and regulations of cryptocurrencies in various countries?
In terms of the regulation and regulations of cryptocurrencies in various countries, does FTX Recovery Trust have the ability to clarify the policies, laws and regulations of each country? Do you have the ability to ensure that the interpretation of policies and regulations is objective and impartial? Not to mention the important matter of wanting to interpret and decide whether the creditor's claim should be released.
In China, for example, the motion passed the 2017 policy document on ICOs by various ministries in an attempt to illustrate the legal risks associated with repaying Chinese creditors.
There is a glaring error here:
1. The 2017 ICO announcement is a policy document, not a law or regulation, and only represents the regulatory intent and direction of the administrative authority.
2. The original text is to restrict domestic banks and financial institutions from providing services for the issuance of virtual currency, but not to restrict Chinese creditors from legally obtaining their own creditor's compensation.
This shows that FTX has neither the ability nor the legal basis to formulate a "restricted jurisdiction", and it is extremely irresponsible to use such subjective interpretations and policy documents to determine whether creditors can be compensated.
On the other hand, if the interpretation of the policy document can be used as the basis for defining the "restricted jurisdiction", then it is also possible to interpret the "restricted jurisdiction" through the local regional administrative document in the country region where the claim has been issued before. Considering fairness and justice, since 49 countries are to be divided into "restricted jurisdictions", is it possible to ask FTX to provide policy interpretations of the countries that have been issued, and if there are contradictions in the policy interpretations, does the entire debt issuance need to be reversed?
FTX cases account for only 5% in the United States and 95% overseas. According to the fairness requirements of the same kind of creditors in the United States, FTX should provide a judicial interpretation of the country or jurisdiction where all 95% of creditors are located, so as to slightly explain how to divide "restricted jurisdiction" and "non-restricted jurisdiction". However, encrypted digital currency is a new thing, the development of different countries is different, legal and regulatory development is also dynamic, more than 100 countries of judicial interpretation, policy interpretation, can the FTX team do it? Can objectivity and impartiality be ensured? Is there a guarantee that there is no bias?
So the result of this subjective assumption of motion is:
1. It consumes a lot of legal resources, funds and time, which are borne by all creditors.
2. Unable to obtain objective and fair results, affecting bankruptcy liquidation and bankruptcy process.
3. Causing secondary harm to the affected creditors, causing an indelible impact
Therefore, the judge should reject this motion, return to the debt-creditor relationship, and urge FTX to repay the creditors of various countries equally as soon as possible, so as to ensure the fairness and justice of the U.S. bankruptcy process.
ps: The wifi editing on the plane cannot be precisely modified, and the overall meaning has been expressed
4,63K
Now on the plane, you can stop a little bit to update, these days are really busy with stars ✈️🌟
If all goes well, I personally will formally file 4 opposing motions by July 15th:
The first two should have been received by the court;
The third is today's one, with a legal opinion from a Chinese lawyer;
The fourth will be filed by my U.S. attorney through the system by the 15th.
Everything that could be done was done. I've accumulated a lot of perspectives along the way, and I'll share them in the future.
Let's start with the conclusion: if it is white, it cannot be said to be black, and Chinese users should get back their claims and compensation.
Currently mid-air, finally got a minute to breathe ✈️
Been a crazy few days. If all goes well, I will have formally filed 4 objections before July 15:
✅ First two should already be received by the court
📄 The third one is today’s filing, including a legal opinion from a Chinese attorney
🧾 The fourth will be submitted by my U.S. counsel before the 15th.
I’ve done everything I can. Collected many thoughts along the way, and will be sharing them soon.
But here’s the bottom line: If it’s white, don’t call it black.
Chinese users deserve full creditor compensation.
#FTX #FTXcreditors #CryptoBankruptcy #DigitalAssets #JusticeForCreditors #公平对待中国债权人 #RestrictedJurisdiction
2,89K
Johtavat
Rankkaus
Suosikit