Author: Wu Talks Blockchain

In this episode of the podcast, Will, a major creditor in the FTX China region, details his personal experiences during the FTX incident, the process of asset loss, and the potential impact of FTX's motion for "restricted jurisdiction" on Chinese creditors. Will points out that this motion could prevent creditors from 49 countries, including China, from receiving compensation, with the core issue being that the legal opinion issued by lawyers hired by FTX may lack impartiality, resulting in the deprivation of rights for Chinese creditors. Will has contacted lawyers and initiated actions against the motion, while also calling on more creditors to write to the judge to express their objections. The interview also covers Will's review of asset allocation decisions before and after the FTX collapse, legal strategies for rights protection, and the systemic injustices behind the motion. The audio can be listened to on mainstream audio platforms such as Wu Talks, Apple, and others both domestically and internationally.

FTX Motion Raises Concerns Among Chinese Creditors, Will Shares Personal Experience and Motivation for Rights Protection

Colin: Hello everyone, welcome to today's Wu Talks podcast. We are here with Will. He has recently been involved in a very significant event, as FTX announced the possibility of not compensating Chinese creditors, which has sparked considerable discussion and controversy in the Chinese community. Will is a major creditor of FTX and has taken on a leadership role among creditors during this wave. So we invited Will to share his experiences. Will, please introduce your background.

Will: Hello everyone, my name is Will. I have a background in science and engineering, with a PhD in geophysics. I entered the crypto space in 2017.

I have tried many things in the crypto world; I have managed a fund, worked at exchanges, and even mined. I used to hold a certain number of Bitcoin and Ethereum mining machines and led a quantitative trading team. You could say I have experienced many aspects of the crypto space. However, upon reviewing this situation, I found that my greatest gains came from holding Bitcoin. Therefore, I consider myself a loyal believer in Bitcoin and have always used Bitcoin as the basis for my investment strategy.

In the FTX incident, I am a relatively large creditor. Initially, I even ran for their creditors' committee, specifically the unsecured creditors' committee. I consulted a lawyer because I was quite frustrated by this incident, and the lawyer suggested I run for election. One reason was that I am somewhat of an insider, and the other was that my claim amount was significant. We believed it was necessary to have a Chinese person speaking up to ensure our rights, so I decided to run.

I made it to the second round in my first election. At that time, the person in charge or the judge, or someone from FTX Trust, called me for an interview. However, I was ultimately not selected. After some time, I can't recall exactly how long, but after the case progressed for a while, someone withdrew from the creditors' committee. They emailed me to ask if I was willing to be on the alternate list, and I replied that I was, but by then it was quite late, and there wasn't much decision-making power left. Still, I expressed my willingness to join. However, they never replied to my email, so I was ultimately not selected. This is the general background of my involvement in this matter.

The reason I stood up this time is that the FTX Recovery Trust filed a new motion with the court. After reading the original text of the motion, I interpreted it word by word and found that it deviated significantly, potentially harming our rights to seek compensation. So I started speaking out on Twitter and formed a Telegram group to gather friends who still hold FTX claims, brainstorming ideas on what we could do to raise our voices and protect our rights.

Colin: So the assets you had in FTX were mainly Bitcoin.

Will: That's correct. The reason I had a significant amount of funds in FTX was that, at one point, there were rumors that exchanges like Binance or OK would provide the information of large holders to domestic regulatory authorities or the police. In that context, users like me, who were still in the country, were very concerned about asset safety. At that time, I was still in China, and to avoid potential risks, I transferred a large amount of assets to FTX. I almost put all my wealth in after "312."

At that time, I was bottom-fishing BTC, and after that, I sold all of it when the price was between $40,000 and $47,000, almost completely liquidating. After that, I put all my USDT into FTX, preparing to gradually build my position. My previous significant gains had all come from trading Bitcoin in large cycles.

So under such circumstances, I had quite a bit of BTC in FTX, and besides that, just USDT. I can't disclose the specific amounts, but I can say that according to the earliest statistics, I should be among the top 100 creditors.

Colin: Did you originally hold your coins on OK or Binance?

Will: Binance.

Colin: So you weren't actually a regular trader on FTX; you mainly moved over due to the specific circumstances at that time.

Will: I did have positions on FTX as well. Before the incident broke out, my asset allocation was about 2/3 on Binance and 1/3 on FTX. I did have positions on FTX, especially since its spot lending function was very strong during that time. It was also the peak of DeFi, and I often conducted arbitrage operations on-chain, so I needed to keep some assets on FTX for borrowing. Therefore, I already had some assets on FTX; it was just that after the incident occurred, I transferred almost all my core assets there, which should be over 90% of my assets in the crypto space.

Colin: Do you remember approximately when you started transferring?

Will: I remember FTX went bankrupt in November, and I think I started transferring around July or August. I can't recall exactly.

The Cost of Trusting FTX and the Missed Opportunity to Sell Claims

Colin: Why did you trust FTX so much at that time to transfer 90% of your assets there?

Will: I think I made a significant oversight in this matter. I had previously worked at an exchange, and to be frank, I fundamentally do not trust any centralized exchange. However, the reason I built trust in FTX was that the overall market environment and public opinion made it feel like FTX was a rising star project.

Especially during that time, I had already started planning to live overseas, and FTX had the strongest functionality for converting digital currencies into USD at that time; no other exchange could compare. So in that overall environment, I felt that its fiat deposit and withdrawal channels were very smooth, leading me to believe it was a regulated and compliant platform.

Moreover, FTX's spot lending function was very beneficial for my arbitrage operations on-chain. All these reasons combined led me to decide to transfer a large amount of assets to FTX.

Colin: At that time, you had basically sold all your BTC, and your main holding was USDT, so you were planning to bottom-fish by transferring funds to FTX?

Will: Yes, I did have plans to bottom-fish. I still held a portion of BTC, and my overall holdings were divided into daily positions and core positions. My core position was absolutely untouchable, but why did I also transfer my core position to FTX at that time? The reason was that the overall environment made me worry about information leakage, and I wanted to use the exchange as a middleman to erase some traces on-chain.

So I transferred my core position, USDT holdings, and assets from Binance into FTX. My plan was to bottom-fish a portion first and then move the assets back to my wallet. That was my operational thought at the time, but later FTX collapsed too quickly; to be honest, I was indeed a bit unlucky.

Colin: When it became completely impossible to withdraw funds and FTX filed for bankruptcy, did you feel a sense of despair?

Will: Yes, I did. But my overall mindset remained relatively stable, though there were certainly moments of despair. At that time, I was actually preparing to allocate some other assets and had already identified targets for new assets for my family. So I originally planned to gradually withdraw funds through FTX, convert them into USD, and then allocate them. During the quiet nights, I sometimes felt a bit guilty towards my family, especially towards my wife and children.

But overall, my mindset was quite stable; however, many people around me were worried for me, thinking that such a significant loss might be too much for me to bear. Some even specifically notified my family to keep an eye on me, fearing I might take some irrational actions.

Colin: Yes, many creditors after FTX's bankruptcy found it psychologically difficult to accept.

Will: Yes. But personally, I don't have a strong desire for material things. To me, these losses are just fluctuations in numbers. So after about two or three days, I adjusted myself. Soon after, I started contacting lawyers to pursue my rights and see what else could be done.

Colin: As the prices of claims gradually increased, did your overall mood become more optimistic?

Will: This matter can be discussed in several stages. In fact, when the claim prices rose to around 50%, I considered whether to sell. However, there were some external factors at that time, and I ultimately couldn't complete the transaction. I started thinking about selling at 50%, but Bitcoin's price had already begun to rise significantly.

Colin: Yes, at that time, many people wanted to sell their claims and then bottom-fish BTC.

Will: Right. I have always been someone who thinks in terms of Bitcoin. My mindset is that as long as I don't have enough Bitcoin in hand, I will feel uncomfortable. At that time, BTC was rising too quickly, and my mindset became somewhat "retail," wondering if it would pull back a bit before selling my claims and then buying BTC. The result was indecision.

When the claim price rose to 82%, I officially contacted a UK institution called Attestor, which is one of the companies that collected the most claims in this round of the FTX bankruptcy case. Many people reached out to me because my claim amount was significant, and I was quite active throughout the event.

I had four accounts, not concentrated in one account. One of those accounts had not passed KYC at that time, and the market price difference between KYC-approved and non-approved accounts was about 5%, with some institutions even unwilling to take on accounts that had not passed KYC. I contacted them through an intermediary, and they indicated they did not mind whether KYC was completed and had the capability to handle it.

In the preliminary contract, I requested that the transaction be completed within three weeks because I wanted to reallocate Bitcoin once the funds were in hand. I am very sensitive to time; if it takes too long, I would rather not sell.

However, an incident occurred within those three weeks. I was very cautious and communicated with the intermediary in the Telegram group. To confirm whether the KYC status would affect the quote, I even sent an email requesting a formal reply confirming 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 pursue the transaction further.

So this experience made me very cautious about selling claims. I felt that the trust cost in the middle was too high, and there could be various traps. Therefore, I have not sold and have held on until now.

Review of FTX Debt Repayment Progress: Chinese Creditors Still Excluded

Colin: So FTX has actually started repaying debts gradually over the past six months? But initially, it seems they only repaid small claims, so it didn't involve larger creditors like you. Can you provide an overall timeline for the debt repayment?

Will: I can't specify exact dates on the timeline, but I can outline the general process. First, they dealt with claims under $50,000. When submitting claims, there was an option called "fast repayment," meaning that even if your claim amount exceeded $50,000, if you accepted the fast repayment terms, they would only repay you $50,000. If your original claim was below $50,000, it was directly repaid in the first distribution; that was the first phase.

The second phase occurred last month, where they conducted a second distribution, and this time creditors could receive about 70% or 78% of the total claim amount, roughly in that range.

However, the problem is that during this repayment process, Chinese creditors did not receive any funds. FTX explained that there are currently no suitable vendors capable of completing repayment operations for Chinese users and asked us to wait until they find a suitable vendor to handle it.

This explanation seems very suspicious to us Chinese creditors. Originally, the two cooperating vendors were BitGo and Kraken, and many of us Chinese, including myself, typically use Kraken for USD deposits and withdrawals. So everyone found this explanation unacceptable.

I could only comfort myself by thinking that perhaps Kraken was hesitant to publicly state that they serve Chinese clients, and FTX might be looking for more suitable vendors? So we would just wait; after all, we have already waited for so many years.

So currently, my repayment progress consists of these two steps. In terms of mindset, I believe this matter shouldn't deviate too far, and we will 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 that because I wasn't part of that group and didn't pay much attention at the time.

"Restricted Jurisdiction" Motion Reveals Systemic Injustice and Risks

Colin: So the latest development is that they have directly initiated a motion. What form does this motion take, and 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 actually consists of two steps.

The first step is that they listed about 49 countries, including China, which they consider "unfriendly" to cryptocurrencies. If FTX's trust institution directly repays cryptocurrency to creditors in these countries, their executives or lawyers might face legal risks. Therefore, they are unwilling to take on that risk.

So they proposed to hire local lawyers in each "problematic country" to provide legal opinions. If the lawyers believe it is permissible to repay cryptocurrency to creditors in that country, then repayment will proceed as usual; if the legal opinion states that repayment is not permissible, then those funds will not be distributed to creditors in those countries but will instead return to the FTX trust fund to be redistributed to the remaining 95% of creditors.

Colin: In simple terms, they want to find, for example, lawyers familiar with Chinese law to see if it is legal to repay the claims. If not, then they won't repay and will give it to others, right?

Will: Yes, that's the logic. This matter has become very serious, and it's one of the reasons I decided to stand up against this motion.

First of all, these lawyers are chosen by them, not by us creditors. If the lawyers they hire issue a "no" legal opinion, then this matter will be completely out of control. Once the court approves this motion, our fate will no longer be in our own hands.

More critically, how can the lawyers they hire ensure impartiality? 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 that "5%" minority.

Yesterday, I shared a video on Twitter featuring someone from a claims acquisition agency. He said this motion will definitely be passed because 95% of the people are beneficiaries, and the remaining 5% do not matter. Isn't that quite frightening?

Colin: Well, it seems unlikely that they wouldn't care, right? Unless it's really a very small number of people.

Will: Yes, but the reality is that proportionally, we have indeed become the minority. Moreover, they are very eager for this motion to pass because doing so would expedite the FTX bankruptcy process. At the same time, it would also benefit the other creditors who make up more than 95%.

Legal Pathways and Operational Processes for Creditors to Oppose the Motion

Colin: So what are your next steps in responding to this motion?

Will: The reason I am speaking out and forming 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 write directly to the judge to express my opposition; second, I can also work through my lawyer in the U.S. to submit a formal objection to the judge using their legal system. I am pursuing both pathways simultaneously.

Based on my understanding of U.S. bankruptcy law, there are several key steps that must be followed. First, we need to write to the judge responsible for this case, clearly stating our reasons for opposition. Then, this letter must be copied to FTX Recovery Trust and their lawyers.

FTX's legal team consists of two parts: one is their main law firm in New York, and the other is their local legal team in the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction. Additionally, since we believe this matter has deviated from normal legal logic, we also need to copy this letter to regulatory agencies.

Therefore, we are also sending 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 throughout the FTX bankruptcy case.

So my group members and I, including some creditors who interact with me on Twitter, are sending out these opposition letters as individuals. Meanwhile, since it is currently a holiday in the U.S., my long-term cooperating lawyer in New York will meet with me on Monday, and I hope he can formally submit a legal objection on my behalf through the legal system.

Colin: We previously discussed a rather controversial issue, which is that those who sold their claims are not affected by this motion because they can transfer the location of their claims, right?

Will: Yes. This motion clearly states that institutions that have already purchased claims are not affected by the motion, and this is explicitly stated in the motion text.

Colin: So, for example, if there is an institution in the UK or Singapore, or even it seems the document doesn't mention Hong Kong, if the claim is under a Hong Kong identity, it would not be affected, right?

Will: That's correct. I have an account under a Hong Kong company name, and I am the legal representative of that company, holding 100% ownership, while I hold a Chinese passport, yet this account has not received any distributions to date.

Colin: Theoretically, the document only restricts mainland China and Macau, right?

Will: Theoretically, yes. But I carefully studied the relevant legal clauses, and the determination standard is actually based on "tax residency" rather than passport nationality. If judged by tax residency, I should be eligible for compensation because I am a tax resident of Singapore.

This issue has actually dragged on for a long time. Many people in my Telegram group are in the same situation as me. When submitting claims, most of us were still tax residents of mainland China, but later many people moved abroad, some to Canada, some to the U.S., and others like me became local tax residents in Singapore or Hong Kong, and some have even changed their passports.

Although this information, including tax forms and KYC data, can be updated—I have updated my tax form—the other party still deems me ineligible for compensation. This indicates that there are serious loopholes in this mechanism.

Tug-of-War Between Tax Residency Disputes and Exit Strategies for Selling Claims

Colin: Now, if we take another example, if there is a claims acquisition company that specializes in handling tax issues and buys claims from you, can they smoothly obtain compensation?

Will: Yes, they can. In fact, after this motion was issued, three such companies proactively contacted me. So I feel that this situation has become very, very unfair and unjust.

Colin: What kind of price range are they offering? What kind of valuation can they provide?

Will: Since my claim is relatively large, previous offers have been around 120% to 130%.

Colin: That actually sounds like a good price.

Will: Yes, theoretically, this could serve as a last resort.

Colin: But are you worried that one day this path might also be closed off? Or that they might also be restricted?

Will: I am worried, of course. How could I not be worried? After all, this is not a small amount. I am a normal person. But I might be a bit stubborn; I feel that I won't easily make concessions until the very last moment. Of course, that doesn't mean I will never concede; I just think that from my perspective as a science and engineering person, this situation is simply unreasonable. Moreover, my wife is a lawyer, and I have many lawyer friends who also think there is a problem with this matter.

Colin: Right, you still believe there is room to fight for this and that it is not completely hopeless.

Will: I can't say I am 100% confident. But I believe that as long as they still have some legal awareness, this motion should not be pushed through so easily.

Colin: If it were normal compensation, would it be around 150% that you could receive now?

Will: The calculation method is actually quite simple. First, it is based on your original claim amount, calculated in USDT, which theoretically can be recovered at 100%. Of course, if you held BTC, you would definitely incur losses because they are calculating it at a price of $16,500 per coin, which is certainly far below the current price.

I also had a lot of USDT in my holdings, and that portion of USDT can be fully recovered, 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 until the final settlement, you will receive the accumulated interest over these years.

So now everyone generally believes that ultimately receiving around 140-130% is relatively stable.

Colin: So the final difference isn't that significant, just about a 10% gap.

Will: But there is one very critical point, which is the information asymmetry. They still have many assets that have not been recovered, and there are many lawsuits still ongoing, so the potential recovery amount is actually quite substantial. This is also why many institutions are currently very actively acquiring FTX claims.

Because in the current global financial environment, an annualized return of 9% is already very attractive, and this claim also comes with additional potential returns. Moreover, as a financial asset, it is actually of very high quality.

Colin: So does this mean that even if you currently hold this claim, you might not be able to receive all of it immediately? You can choose to wait a bit, right?

Will: It's not like that. They are paying in batches; right now, they are just sending a portion first, and the subsequent compensation may take a while, but no matter how long it takes, they promise to compensate you with an annualized interest of 9%.

So for traditional financial institutions or claims 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 the 90% they mentioned is estimated from an overall recovery perspective.

Division Among Creditors and Questions of Systemic Fairness, Legal Disputes Over Stablecoin Compensation Escalate

Colin: What about the creditors around you? I see you have a group with several hundred people. Do most of them choose not to sell, or have they already sold their claims?

Will: Right now, they are actually divided into several categories. In my group, the active members are basically those who haven't sold; everyone is actively writing letters and speaking out in opposition. These people have chosen to continue holding their claims. However, there are also some, especially after this motion was announced, who have chosen to sell. Originally, they were holding, but after this motion came out, many were forced to start selling their claims.

Colin: Do you suspect that there might be some internal communication or special relationships between these claims acquisition institutions and FTX officials?

Will: I certainly suspect that, and I explicitly mentioned this in my letter to the judge. I believe this phenomenon is very unreasonable. You see, my claim is rated 5A, and according to U.S. bankruptcy law, claims of the same class should theoretically enjoy the same compensation rights, regardless of the holder's nationality or jurisdiction.

But now it has become that if I sell my claim to a claims company, they can receive compensation, while I cannot if I hold it myself. Is that reasonable? That's why I firmly stand against this motion.

I read the original text of the motion, and the arguments in it are fundamentally flawed. First, we need to clarify that the current claims are essentially dollar-denominated debts, not calculated in cryptocurrency.

Colin: Ultimately, the compensation you receive will also be in dollars, right?

Will: Yes, it will also be in dollars. But FTX has stated during the process that due to the broad scope of their business, using stablecoins for compensation is a more "convenient" method. The court approved this at the time. In fact, the SEC also questioned the use of stablecoins for payment, but ultimately, most people, including us Chinese creditors, expressed understanding and acceptance, as using stablecoins is very convenient for cryptocurrency users.

The problem is that now FTX suddenly reverses course, saying that due to regulatory issues with virtual currencies, they cannot issue compensation to Chinese users. This makes no sense to me. First, you are dealing with dollar-denominated debt; second, 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 controls." Only FTX has proposed such a motion this time.

Colin: Well, to be fair, China's legal definitions regarding stablecoins and cryptocurrencies are indeed somewhat vague, which may pose some obstacles.

Will: I agree with that. But I want to emphasize that the legal basis cited by FTX in their motion is actually very tenuous. They referenced an announcement jointly issued by relevant regulatory authorities in China during the ICO boom in 2017, which simply stated that financial institutions, payment institutions, and banks are not allowed to participate in token issuance and related services.

However, FTX has interpreted this content through a version from Macau to mean "China does not support virtual currencies," and used this as a legal basis for refusing compensation. I think this method of citation itself has serious issues.

Foreign Exchange Control Disputes and the Reasonableness of Alternative Paths via Overseas Accounts

Colin: But to be fair, China has indeed introduced some new regulations that prohibit Chinese institutions from participating in virtual currency-related activities. If they want to strictly interpret these provisions, they might find some legal basis.

Will: Yes, I agree. But I believe that overall, most of those legal provisions mainly restrict trading activities, such as prohibiting private fundraising and private placements, but they do not explicitly state that it is illegal for Chinese citizens to hold virtual currency assets. I have carefully reviewed these provisions.

Colin: But what about the payment aspect? They might think that the payment path is restricted, making it impossible to fulfill the compensation.

Will: If the issue is that the payment path is not operational, then why not use a dollar wire transfer? You cannot deprive me of my right to property just because the payment method is inconvenient.

Colin: But doesn't China also have foreign exchange controls? Could that be part of the problem?

Will: I think that argument doesn't hold up either. Other countries also have foreign exchange controls, like South Korea, and their creditors still received compensation. Moreover, foreign exchange controls only come into play when funds enter mainland China and need to be converted into RMB. If I have a bank account in Hong Kong or Singapore and receive dollar wire transfers through those accounts, it doesn't involve foreign exchange issues at all.

Colin: Right, if you use compliant institutions like HashKey or OSL, it seems feasible.

Will: Yes, and we don't even need to go through exchanges; we can complete the process using traditional bank wire transfers. As long as I provide a bank account, even if it's not in mainland China, it doesn't involve foreign exchange restrictions. If there really is an issue, I can also report taxes according to Chinese law. This is completely different from the general understanding of "foreign exchange controls."

Colin: But the reality is that the process in China is indeed more complicated. For example, when it comes to paying taxes, who do you go to? That in itself is quite troublesome.

Will: But you see, in a similar case within the same series of FTX cases, compensation was ultimately given to Chinese creditors, and it was completed through dollar wire transfers. That was an American company, adjudicated by the Southern District Court, and it belongs to the same series of cases as FTX.

Colin: That could perhaps serve as a rebuttal or a reference point.

Will: In addition, there is the Mt. Gox compensation case, which also involved Chinese users. They compensated in bitcoin, and of course, that case was ruled by a Japanese court.

Colin: Different judicial systems may have different perspectives, especially domestically, where this area is indeed quite vague.

Will: So I believe that this motion from FTX itself has serious issues. Even if the compensation path is slightly more complicated, it cannot justify depriving us of our legitimate assets.

Will: In fact, I think it doesn't need to be that complicated. We return to a core point—this is dollar debt, and stablecoins are just one method of payment. They could completely use traditional bank wire transfers for payment. As long as I have a bank account in Hong Kong, I don't need to go through an exchange to receive funds. So the entire direction of this motion is wrong; its original intention and the potential consequences deviate from reason.

As the Motion Hearing Date Approaches, Creditors Intensify Opposition Actions

Colin: I think we've already discussed the entire process quite clearly. Next, the motion has been formally submitted, and now it will be up to the judge to review the matter, right? When is that likely to happen?

Will: July 22.

Colin: So the judge will determine at that time whether to approve this motion. If approved, they will then seek relevant lawyers, such as local Chinese lawyers, to confirm the related legal issues.

Will: Right. After finding the lawyers, we will have a 45-day period. This time is for us to find lawyers and submit our objections. For example, if I want to oppose this motion now, I can prepare my materials and submit my legal opinions within these 45 days.

Colin: So the subsequent process will still be a relatively lengthy tug-of-war.

Will: Yes, actually, I'm not afraid of it being lengthy. What makes me feel urgent is now—because the timeline is very tight. We must submit our objections by July 15; otherwise, we won't even have the qualification to oppose.

Most of us Chinese creditors do not have lawyers. I have a lawyer, but most people in the group do not have one, and submitting documents through the U.S. electronic system in such a short time is very difficult. You still have to find a lawyer, sign contracts, and prepare materials; all these processes are 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, and we also need to copy it to four institutions, so the timeline is very tight. Therefore, I have recently started to do some intensive output, sharing the information I have organized with everyone so they can reference and take action.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。