On May 15, 2026, a token named "Luo Yonghao" suddenly appeared in the "Wallet" tab of the Binance App, with an icon directly stealing Luo Yonghao's portrait and name, yet there was no corresponding trading entry found in the "Trading Platform" tab (according to a single source). This subtle yet striking front-end display quickly touched the nerves of the individual involved. Luo Yonghao immediately turned to the public opinion arena, posting on the X platform, directly naming @cz_binance, requesting Binance to either remove this unauthorized token that used his image or provide a formal, traceable complaint and delisting channel, to prevent ordinary users from being misled by a celebrity-named token. Following this statement, according to a single source, the Binance wallet page allegedly made adjustments to block this token, and users can no longer find it through regular searches in the wallet, with the changes clearly outlining a brief chain of actions: celebrity IP was unauthorizedly used to issue tokens → the individual publicly defended their rights → the platform quickly cooled down in its display aspect. Although as of that day there had not been any formal enforcement decisions made by regulatory agencies or courts regarding this incident, this seemingly "product fine-tuning" process illuminated the originally vague gray area between celebrity name rights, portrait rights, and the boundaries of trading platform products, pressing a compliance question that has been repeatedly thrown around the entire industry — when the wallet page begins to "recommendively display" certain celebrity tokens, do platforms merely bear the obligation of technical access, or have they entered a sensitive regulatory territory that requires review, screening, and protection for investors.

The Chaos of Celebrity Meme Coins: Traffic Tokenization Crossing Legal Red Lines

Before Luo Yonghao publicly defended his rights, the market had already been stirred up by a batch of tokens that "hijacked celebrity traffic." The research brief noted that in recent years, tokens associated with names such as "Trump," "Musk," and various internet celebrities and artists surged, often without any official endorsement, yet deliberately labeled to attract retail users who are not sensitive to technical details. Issuers typically remain anonymous, with white papers or information disclosures being vague or even absent, project groups frequently promise "the next hundred times myth," and once prices collapse, liquidity is drawn away, or the project disappears, such tokens would be questioned by investors and the media as "hotbeds of fraud," yet it is difficult to find responsible parties in the real world.

From a legal perspective, celebrity meme coins are not merely speculative games but tread the edges of multiple rights and regulatory red lines. On one hand, the direct use of names and portraits such as "Trump," "Musk," or "Luo Yonghao" touches upon name rights and portrait rights, and in some contexts may even relate to trademark rights; on the other hand, when these tokens utilize celebrity effects to "tell stories" to ordinary users, they inevitably fall under the purview of consumer protection rules. The research brief points out that the "Luo Yonghao" token appearing in the Binance App's "Wallet" tab stole Luo Yonghao's portrait and used his name for promotion, and it was not authorized by him according to media and brief descriptions, while Luo Yonghao's previous attempts related to blockchain mainly focused on the "Xiao Ye" e-cigarette NFTs, and he has never issued a personal token in his name. This means that without the celebrity himself speaking up, his name and face have already been "tokenized" and placed on the platform’s wallet shelf, and the preemptive protective mechanisms for celebrity IP on-chain are virtually absent. The platform's obligations in reviewing and warning regarding the display of these high-risk assets have become an unavoidable new question as regulators focus on investor protection and platform display responsibilities.

Wallet Display Does Not Equal Listing? The Ambiguous Responsibilities of Binance's Product Line

According to a single source, the token named "Luo Yonghao" only appeared in the "Wallet" tab of the Binance App and did not enter the "Trading Platform" tab. This "only supports custody, does not open matching" design may be understood internally by the product team as not having completed the formal listing process, but for ordinary users, being able to directly search for and see a particular asset in the official app's wallet interface can easily be interpreted as "the platform has conducted a basic screening" and "at least it’s not a complete scam." More importantly, centralized exchanges assume dual roles as both "custodial wallets" and "matching traders" within the same app, often merely switching from one tab to another; however, the function and responsibility boundaries undergo a qualitative change at the legal level, and this difference is challenging to convey to users through a few lines of small print.

When a token causes disputes due to celebrity name rights, portrait rights, or fraud risks, regulatory agencies and courts do not only look at whether it is listed under the "Trading Platform" section, but will return to the most intuitive user touchpoint: does it appear in the official wallet list, can it be added and valued with one click, is it on the same visual level as the platform's other "official assets"? According to a single source, after Luo Yonghao publicly defended his rights, the Binance wallet page allegedly blocked this token, and users could no longer search for the related name in the wallet; this change itself reinforces a signal — the platform has proactive control over what is displayed in the wallet layer, rather than being a passive neutral channel. If investor losses or celebrity rights protection lawsuits arise in the future, this product design and display adjustment could very well be used to measure the platform's "level of involvement" with the relevant assets, and this delineation of front-end display boundaries is becoming a key piece of evidence in future regulatory and judicial judgments regarding platform responsibility.

Celebrity Online Rights Protection: From Public Appeals to Enforcement Challenges in On-Chain Infringement

In this incident, Luo Yonghao did not first seek a lawyer to file a lawsuit but directly put the battlefield on the X platform. He named “@cz_binance, please delist the token 'Luo Yonghao' that has stolen my portrait, or provide a formal complaint delisting channel to prevent users from being scammed,” locking his demands precisely on "delisting" and "complaints channels." The research brief did not disclose whether he has simultaneously initiated formal legal procedures or communicated offline with Binance, indicating that on the publicly visible level, he prioritized a path of "public pressure + platform self-correction." For top internet celebrities accustomed to interacting with the public via social media, this approach can quickly focus attention and compel the platform to respond, while also objectively throwing subsequent responsibility questions back at the named platform and its management.

Supporting this choice is the structural bottleneck of traditional judicial paths in on-chain infringement scenarios: token issuers can remain anonymous and deploy contracts cross-border, making it difficult for the aggrieved party to identify responsible entities and executable assets promptly. Even domestically, bringing a civil lawsuit based on name rights and portrait rights faces practical difficulties in judicial jurisdiction and enforcement. More complex is when infringement occurs within a combination of "on-chain assets + cross-border platform display," where "who bears the duty to delist, who bears the reminder responsibility" lacks directly referable provisions in existing laws, while the current IP protection framework is primarily designed around Web2 platforms, how to apply it to these wallet products that only display front-end remains an enforcement gap. In this institutional vacuum, public appeals from celebrities compelling platforms to take down actions or provide complaint procedures are likely to become a conventional means of rights protection for this type of infringement dispute for quite a long time.

Platform Responsibility Line: How Much Obligation Do Exchanges Bear for Token Display?

In the wallet display layer that is not yet fully covered by the system, a clear consensus among global regulatory agencies has emerged in recent years: intermediary platforms aimed at retail users must be responsible not only for "whether they can buy" but also for "how they see" and "how they understand." Financial regulators in multiple countries have repeatedly included product appropriateness, risk warnings, and high-risk asset display methods in the chapters of "investor protection" in policy documents and public speeches, emphasizing that platforms cannot evade their obligation to explain to retail investors through interface design and functional divisions. In other words, regulators are more concerned with the reasonable expectations of a typical user in actual use: when a high-risk token appears within a major platform's official application, even if its location is in the "wallet" rather than "trading," users naturally interpret it as a form of being "recognized" by the platform rather than a purely technical listing.

After Luo Yonghao named Binance, the token was quickly allegedly blocked in the wallet page, which, based on the behavior chain disclosed in the research brief, is the only "action" that can be confirmed by the external world, objectively acknowledging the platform's cautious selection obligation over "what to display" and "what not to display." Even if the platform argues that "wallet display does not mean listing," the more likely judgment standard in any future disputes or regulatory reviews will still be "how an ordinary user understands risk and responsibility upon seeing this interface." As of now, there is no evidence that any regulatory agency has initiated enforcement against Binance due to this case, but the trend of regulatory focus extending from "whether to list" to "whether to display and how to label" is already clear. This will force trading platforms to reconstruct the logic of front-end token display, fill in celebrity token labels and risk warnings, and leave a clearer evidence chain in complaint and delisting processes. This dispute surrounding a small icon of a portrait is pushing the platform responsibility line from "whether to list" to "whether to dare to display" and will long hover over the heads of product managers and compliance officers across all major trading platforms.

After the Luo Yonghao Controversy: How Will Celebrities, Platforms, and Regulators Redraw Boundaries?

The Luo Yonghao token incident has brought the long-standing issue of "hijacking celebrity token issuance" into the spotlight of top platform product design and responsibility boundaries for the first time: this unauthorized token that stole both name and portrait did not enter the Binance "Trading Platform" tab, yet was visible in the "Wallet" layer to users, ultimately halting after Luo Yonghao publicly defended his rights and Binance allegedly blocked it. As of now, there has been no regulatory punishment or court ruling; this game has only remained between the celebrity and the platform. However, it has pressed a core question: on the eve of the absence of a unified regulatory framework, if platforms do not proactively build IP complaint channels, front-end delisting paths, and prominent risk labeling mechanisms, they will struggle to withstand celebrity rights protection pressures based on name rights and portrait rights, and also find it difficult to prove their "diligence" in displaying high-risk assets to retail investors. From a research perspective, this incident can almost be seen as a textbook case of "the gray area of celebrity meme coins": when wallet display standards are opaque, and celebrity images are arbitrarily placed on-chain, should similar tokens lead to massive user losses in the future, it could easily trigger regulatory intervention and the establishment of "celebrity token display rules." For project parties, this means that attracting attention with celebrity IP may no longer just be a market topic but could directly step on the compliance red lines that are about to take shape; for platforms, whether to display or how to label will be viewed as equally important regulatory observation windows as the decisions to list; for celebrities, Luo Yonghao's public rights protection has provided a template: celebrity tokens will no longer be merely a traffic business but represent the most sensitive trial line that can easily trigger chain reactions before the regulation redraws boundaries.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

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。