As the FTX bankruptcy liquidation enters a critical stage, a highly controversial motion regarding the treatment of claims from users in "restricted countries" has caused a global uproar among creditors.

The FTX liquidators have stated that they will first seek legal advice to determine if assets can be distributed to these jurisdictions; if the conclusion is that compensation is not possible, the related claims may even be "legally confiscated" and transferred to the liquidation trust account. This means that Chinese creditors may not only receive zero compensation, but their assets may also be seized as part of the trust fund's "forfeited funds."

According to data disclosed on social media by Sunil, a representative of FTX creditors, the total amount of claims from restricted jurisdictions is $470 million, with Chinese investors being the largest group of FTX creditors, holding $380 million in claimable assets, accounting for 82% of the restrictive claims.

BlockBeats conducted an interview with Will (@zhetengji), who is not only one of the high-value FTX creditors but also a key initiator of opposition to this motion. He elaborated on why he chose to lead this opposition, the process of objecting to the motion, the actual challenges within the creditor community, and his in-depth observations on the motives behind the motion.

Below is the full interview:

BlockBeats: Could you please introduce yourself and describe your experience in the cryptocurrency industry in terms of work or investment?

Will: My name is Will, and my background is in science and engineering. I studied geophysics in both my undergraduate and graduate studies, eventually earning a Ph.D. in geophysics. I officially entered the cryptocurrency industry in 2017, starting out working at a centralized exchange (CEX). Later, I began investing on my own, participating in numerous projects, and even ran my own Crypto Fund for a period, making me one of the early adopters. I have also invested in many funds and had deep collaborations with various LPs. Additionally, I mined cryptocurrency—I once owned a significant number of Bitcoin mining machines and also dabbled in mining Litecoin, Dogecoin, and similar coins. However, due to changes in domestic policies that prohibited mining, I had to mostly divest from this area.

Currently, I would say I am semi-retired from the industry, mainly reviewing some early investments and occasionally engaging in short-term trading within the crypto sphere.

I have always been a Bitcoin-centric investor. For me, Bitcoin is not just an asset but also a belief. Over the years, a significant portion of my profits has actually come from major Bitcoin cycles and trading opportunities. It can be said that many of my decisions and judgments are made from a core perspective centered around Bitcoin.

BlockBeats: What pending assets do you have on FTX? Are they mainly coins or stablecoins?

Will: The reason I allocated quite a few assets on FTX was actually influenced by the industry atmosphere at the time.

I clearly remember that during the March 12th market crash, I basically went all-in to buy the dip in Bitcoin. As Bitcoin started to rise, I gradually unwound my positions and sold off. At that time, my strategy was to wait for the next pullback and then reposition, so I transferred most of my USDT to FTX to seize the next low point.

Unexpectedly, FTX itself became the fuse for the next big drop.

Another point is that, at that time, I actually used to keep my assets in a wallet, but because there was too much regulatory noise during that period, I wanted to do an interim transfer through a trading platform first and then withdraw the funds from the trading platform back to the wallet. It was for this reason that I even transferred my core Bitcoin holdings to FTX, intending to transfer them out opportunistically. So, in summary, my main assets on FTX are USDT and Bitcoin.

BlockBeats: Would you mind revealing roughly the scale and magnitude of your assets on there?

Will: I can only say that I am a major creditor, and the total of several accounts surely ranks in the top 100.

Why Raise an Objection?

According to the file provided by the FTX creditors' representative, the core of this motion is to include certain jurisdiction (mainly including China) users in the "Restricted Foreign Jurisdiction" and seek legal advice to determine if compensation can be made; if legal advice denies the possibility of compensation, the relevant claims will be considered as "Disputed Assets" and may be collected into a trust and no longer distributed to the related users.

In his formal objection letter to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Will clearly pointed out that the motion lacks facts and legal basis, and is contrary to Section 1123(a)(4) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code regarding the "equal treatment of the same class of creditors."

The letter outlined three main reasons:

1. Compensation is based on U.S. dollar valuation, no different from traditional bankruptcy claims. FTX's restored trust has explicitly used U.S. dollars or USD stablecoins for compensation. Even if no cryptocurrency is used, Chinese users can receive USD wire transfers through legal channels such as Hong Kong accounts, posing no legal barriers. In the Celsius case, a U.S. court has successfully made international wire transfers to Chinese creditors for USD compensation.

2. Even when paying with cryptocurrency, Chinese law does not prohibit individuals from holding or receiving it. Judgments from various levels of Chinese courts have recognized that virtual assets such as Bitcoin fall under the category of property in the Civil Code, and Hong Kong has also established a compliant crypto regulatory system. Regulatory statements in Macau also do not prohibit individuals from holding coins or participating in settlement, and the policy texts referenced in the trust do not have legal binding force.

3. Market manipulation is occurring due to this motion. The letter also specifically points out that some distressed asset funds have used this motion to apply pressure, claiming that Chinese creditors should immediately sell their claims at a discount, or else they will "never be compensated," and manipulating market sentiment by stating that "as long as 5% of Chinese creditors are excluded, the remaining 95% will support" to orchestrate a wealth reshuffle game in bankruptcy liquidation.

Will, in the opposition letter, urges the court to reject the motion to prevent the formation of an "arbitrage mechanism of low-price acquisition + full compensation," while ensuring that global creditors have equal opportunity for compensation both procedurally and substantively.

BlockBeats: Have there been precedents in previous international compensation cases where Chinese creditors were excluded?

Will: In fact, this motion can be divided into two steps. The first step is for the liquidator to hire lawyers from 49 countries to provide a legal opinion on whether users from these countries can be compensated. The second step is more controversial; if the legal opinion deems that compensation cannot be made, the funds for these users will have to be recollected back into the trust account they established.

From what I understand, this second step of operation is unprecedented in past bankruptcy liquidation cases. The "confiscation" -type treatment of assets from users of a specific country has never occurred in history. To put it bluntly, I believe this is no longer just a matter of non-compensation but rather a form of confiscation.

As for completely excluding Chinese creditors and not granting any right to claim compensation, I have not seen such practices in other cases. I have studied many bankruptcy and liquidation precedents, but systematically excluding the users of a country is indeed the first time I have seen.

BlockBeats: Why did you step forward to express dissent to the motion?

Will: The process of this motion is as follows: the deadline for creditors to object to the motion was July 15. Once the motion is approved, the liquidation trustee will then hire lawyers to provide a legal opinion for users from 49 "restricted countries" to determine if these users can be compensated.

The total amount of claims in the restricted jurisdiction is $470 million. Chinese investors are the largest group of FTX creditors, holding $380 million in claim rights, accounting for 82% of the restrictive rights.

I believe the real key point lies in this—if the motion is passed, allowing the Trustee to lead in selecting lawyers and making legal judgments, the controllability of this matter will be significantly reduced. Because these lawyers are their choices, we have no way of knowing whether these lawyers truly understand China's practical situation in cryptocurrency regulation and whether they can accurately grasp the boundaries of law and policy. Once we reach this point, we have basically lost our initiative.

So, the purpose of my initiative to oppose the motion is to fundamentally prevent the establishment of this motion. Only in this way can we retain more autonomy and have more possibilities for future actions.

Additionally, we have seen a very concerning view. Some creditors, especially some who have acquired the debt, have publicly stated that Chinese creditors currently account for only about 4%-5% of the total debt, with the remaining 95% being creditors from other countries. If this motion can be smoothly passed, the vast majority will benefit from it, and only Chinese users will be excluded.

In other words, there is a high likelihood that this motion will pass in the overall vote. Therefore, we must stand up and oppose it at this stage. Once we enter the next stage, it will be extremely disadvantageous to us. This is the reason why I decided to initiate opposition to the motion.

BlockBeats: What were the key steps, materials preparation, and submission process when you initiated the opposition to the motion?

Will: Regarding the operational process of opposing the motion this time, there are actually two main ways to submit objections.

The first method is to submit through your cooperating U.S. lawyer. The lawyer completes the formal objection filing through the U.S. bankruptcy court's electronic system, which is the most recommended way in terms of compliance and efficiency.

The second way is self-submission, where you go through the entire process in your personal capacity. However, it is important to note that self-submission is a relatively complex and strict process that requires you to notify at least four relevant parties by mailing letters.

Specifically, these four parties include:

1. Presiding Judge of the Bankruptcy Case: Judge Owens, who is currently overseeing the FTX case, is the one you need to send physical mail to as a recognized formal notification method by the court. If you do not have a lawyer, you must personally mail the letter; if you have a lawyer, you can submit it directly through the court system, bypassing the mailing process.

2. FTX Recovery Trust's Legal Team: They are divided into two parts, one being the New York law firm in charge of the main case and the other being a local law firm in the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction handling the case's affairs, both of which must be notified.

If submitted through the lawyer system, they will automatically be copied; if submitted personally, you will need to separately mail them physical letters or send emails in urgent situations. However, please note that whether the emails are officially acknowledged and recognized is not for us to decide.

3. U.S. Trustee's Office (UST): This is an entity under the U.S. Department of Justice responsible for overseeing bankruptcy proceedings, equivalent to the regulator of this case. Considering the imbalance in procedure and fairness in this motion, I believe it is necessary to copy our opposition to the UST so that the regulatory body can also see it. Currently, I am encouraging other creditors to write letters of opposition and suggesting they simultaneously copy the UST. The UST also accepts physical mail and emails, but it is still recommended to formally send physical mail.

In summary, the process of opposing the motion has two paths:

One is to submit through a lawyer with full authority, which is a smoother and more compliant process;

The other is for you to submit physical letters in your personal capacity to ensure that all four parties mentioned above receive them.

To reiterate, the deadline for opposing the motion is July 15th, which means that regardless of the chosen method, the relevant materials must be submitted and delivered by then. This time point is crucial, as missing it will preclude any further intervention in the current process.

Regarding sending letters of opposition, I can share my practical experience.

I am currently in Singapore, and these past few days mark the second time I have sent a letter. Today is July 7th, and I used DHL for international courier service, expecting the delivery to reach the U.S. court by July 9th. This method is relatively reliable, with a more predictable timeline.

However, for friends in mainland China, the delivery time may be slightly longer, typically taking 3 to 4 days, and possibly even up to 4 to 5 days. So, if you want to ensure that the letter reaches the court before the July 15th deadline, it is best to mail it out before July 9th. If you wait until July 10th or later to send it, there is a significant risk of it being considered late, leading to the opposition being deemed invalid.

The opposition motion letter itself needs to include the following main parts:

1. Formal Letter to the Judge: This letter expresses your opposition to the motion, stating the reasons and basis for your disagreement. This is the most critical part and needs to clearly outline your opposition.

2. Certification of Service: This is a document that proves you not only sent the letter to the court but also simultaneously sent it to other parties. This step is crucial as it procedurally demonstrates that you followed the complete service process, and the judge will rely on this to assess the validity of your opinion.

Currently, I have set up a coordination group for opposing the motion on Telegram, and now there are over 400 creditors who have joined, nearing 500. In the group, I have shared a template of the letter I wrote myself and have also detailed the operation process for easy reference. Additionally, I have recorded a video showing what materials are included in the four letters I sent out, what the format is, to help everyone better understand the entire process.

Will's Rights Protection Letter Sending Process

BlockBeats: So you did not send the letter jointly with other creditors?

Will: Initially, I did consider whether to submit the opposition motion in a "united voice" manner, which is to organize a group of people to co-sign and launch together. At that time, I also collected some information in the group, such as everyone's creditor ID and account information on FTX. The original intention was to gather more voices to enhance representation.

However, later I communicated with some legal professionals around me and consulted several lawyers familiar with the U.S. bankruptcy process. They gave me a very important feedback: the effectiveness of the opposition letter does not necessarily mean "the more, the better." In other words, even if more people co-sign, it does not automatically enhance the legal effectiveness of this letter and may instead reduce the recognition of its professionalism by the judge or lawyers due to inconsistent views and mixed content.

So I started to change my strategy, emphasizing "diversity" rather than "centralized unity." Because I also observed that in the group discussions, some viewpoints that I consider reasonable may not necessarily convince others; conversely, some perspectives I do not fully agree with can resonate with other members in the group. This kind of diverse voice is actually an advantage.

Therefore, I now encourage members of the group to write letters independently, to express themselves independently, and to try to articulate their true thoughts and positions—as long as, without committing obvious procedural errors, everyone can speak out. This way of communication is more inclusive and representative in terms of its effectiveness.

As of before your interview with me, I roughly estimated that about 15 known creditors have explicitly sent their letters. Although their positions and modes of expression are different, and there have even been debates and disagreements within the group, I believe this is not an issue. As long as everyone can clearly articulate their viewpoints, this multi-pronged approach is actually more advantageous for the entire Chinese creditor community.

BlockBeats: What do you think the probability of success is?

Will: I am a relatively optimistic person, and I have always believed that this matter has a chance of success. But to be honest, when we see how absurd the motion has developed to this day, it is really difficult to predict what might happen in the future. Although I still have hope in my heart, I must admit that anything is possible. We can only do our best, and the outcome is left to the process.

BlockBeats: When will the final result be announced?

Will: Theoretically, it is on July 22.

BlockBeats: Has there been a case where a community proposal was made against and accepted by a judge?

Will: I have not systematically studied all similar cases, so I dare not give a very clear judgment. But I know that there are actually many creditor communities overseas, not just Chinese users paying attention to this matter. For example, there is a French creditor in our group who has actually received compensation, but he still believes that this motion is very unfair. In pursuit of justice, he has been continuously following up, actively providing ideas in the group, and even assisting other creditors in modifying materials and providing substantial help.

He himself has put forward many proposals in the past, covering various aspects. For example, another creditor representative I know is a very influential figure in the FTX creditors' group and is also very active on Twitter. All along, he has been opposing the "dollarization" settlement approach in the FTX liquidation plan, advocating for repayment based on the original asset basis. He has united a group of people, submitted proposals for protest multiple times, and continuously pushed for the assertion of their voices.

From my current understanding, it seems that FTX has started to be willing to communicate with him. This also indicates that as long as continuous action is taken, a response is possible.

So for us, this action is not just a simple opposition to this motion. In the future, we will actively put forward more motions, such as requesting FTX to immediately pay out eligible claims; if there is further delay, there must be compensation for this waiting period, such as additional compensation or interest calculations.

The loss caused by this blank period is essentially caused by the clearinghouse, so they should take responsibility. Although I'm not sure of the adoption rate of previous motions, our future strategy is clear, which is to continue to put forward more well-founded motions to strive for our rights.

Actually, our current way of proposing motions is not the most powerful approach, to be honest. The most powerful way should be to have a seat on the creditors' committee. In fact, when the event first occurred, I had already considered this issue—because at that time, I was one of the relatively larger creditors and had tried to run for a seat on the creditors' committee.

At that time, we had a group, and there were several creditors with larger claims, some even ranking in the top 30 or top 20, all very important participants. But their initial attitude was clear: they were unwilling to disclose their identities and did not want to show themselves. So when it came to the election, everyone chose to step back. It was actually my lawyer who encouraged me to step forward at the time, so I signed up and went through subsequent phone interviews. However, I was not ultimately selected.

After that, I did not actively participate, but I have always kept this matter in mind. About a year later, one member of the creditors' committee withdrew as he no longer held any debt claims. According to the regulations, committee members must continue to hold their debt claims, cannot transfer or sell them, otherwise they lose the right to speak for other creditors. I guess he might have felt that the recovery price at that time was not bad, so he chose to withdraw.

Later, they sent me an email asking if I would be willing to enter the waiting list. I immediately replied that I was willing. I have always felt that we creditors should have a voice, not because I am noble, but out of self-interest. I hope this process can be properly monitored to ensure the smooth progress of the entire compensation process and eventually get back what belongs to me.

But in the end, they didn't select me, and I haven't been following it continuously since then. However, my mentality is actually the same as many of the buddies in the group now—since asset recovery has made significant progress and repayment is also on the agenda, there is no reason to deviate. In fact, everyone is waiting for the process to be completed, to get back their share of the money. Instead, frequent attention can easily cause emotional setbacks.

That's exactly why when I saw this motion, I was really taken aback and had to step up.

Why is FTX Debt so Popular?

BlockBeats: Can you share some insights into the current situation of the creditor community you are in for readers?

Will: In fact, most of the buddies do not have a lawyer to assist. I have had a legal team following up on my end, with a long-term cooperating lawyer in New York who also brought in a lawyer specializing in bankruptcy to help me with the relevant matters. After receiving the motion document for the first time, I immediately contacted them. However, it happened to be during a U.S. holiday, and they replied at that time that they needed time to study and would contact me after the holiday.

But I felt that just waiting was not the solution, so I decided to take action myself. I have already sent out the letter of objection to the motion this morning, sent to the judge and four other relevant parties. At the same time, I also wrote an email to them, expressing my willingness to arrange a conference call as soon as possible. I told them that I hoped to communicate as soon as possible—on one hand, I hope they can help me resubmit the objection in the system formally to ensure the process is sound; on the other hand, I also want to hear their more professional opinions and judge the direction of this matter.

Furthermore, we have one or two buddies in our group in North America, one in California, and two in Canada who are also trying to contact lawyers. But I think the chances are slim for them this time. Because you have to first find a suitable lawyer, sign a contract, and then let the other party spend time studying the case. If they are not the type of lawyer who happens to specialize in these cases, trying to complete these preparations by July 15 is very tight for them.

BlockBeats: Some creditors suggest selling their debt to an address with compliance qualifications. What do you think of this debt transfer plan? Is it a better choice for these small creditors?

Will: First of all, I have no bias against the debt trading itself. On the contrary, I believe that to some extent, this actually provides a way out for creditors in urgent need of money, which has its positive significance.

But what I find unacceptable is some so-called "debt agents" or intermediaries, especially a considerable portion of them are Chinese, playing a very negative role in this process. They continuously sell anxiety to the community, create panic through various means, and thereby depress the debt price. In such an environment, many originally very anxious buddies are forced to sell their debt at a low price, which I find very unethical.

I am also an ordinary person, now doing my best to hope that things can move in a reasonable and fair direction. But if one day I find that the situation has really deviated, then what I can do may be to sell my own debt.

But the problem is, the current situation has become a very unfair situation. Why can't we, the original debt holders, receive the final compensation? And why can those who bought the debt at a discount receive full or even higher proportionate compensation? Why should arbitrage opportunities be left to them, instead of allowing us, the original debt holders, to maximize our interests?

What makes me feel even more unfair is that there is a very key but easily overlooked clause in this motion—buried in a single line of very small print: if a third-party institution buys your debt, your original country of holdings will no longer be considered when determining eligibility for compensation. In other words, once this motion is passed, an arbitrage space will be artificially created. Chinese debt holders are being driven away, with no choice but to sell their debt. If someone buys, you have to sell, while the buyer may be entitled to compensation due to policy arrangements.

BlockBeats: How big is this arbitrage space?

Will: Conservatively, it may be around 20% to 30%. In the bankruptcy liquidation of FTX, debt is calculated based on a 9% annual interest accumulation, so the final amount that can be recovered depends on the time frame and the scale of asset recovery. In addition, FTX currently has multiple unresolved litigations, and the funds recovered in the future are highly likely to be reallocated to debt holders.

So, to me, this whole arrangement seems extremely unfair. The arbitrage space has been transferred to the "latecomers," while original debt holders not only face selling pressure but may also lose their rightful interests.

BlockBeats: If what you say is true, if this motion unfortunately passes in the end, is there still a possibility for Chinese debt holders to, through some "off-the-books" means, such as transferring debt to overseas individuals, have them claim compensation on their behalf, thereby achieving fund recovery? Is this path operationally feasible?

Will: I have heard that there are indeed some similar escrow schemes now, where debt holders can escrow their debt to a third party, who will then complete the asset recovery operations on their behalf. Of course, this escrow agent will charge a certain percentage fee as compensation.

If it really comes to the point where debt has to be sold, I actually considered selling when the debt price was still at 80% and had conversations with several debt institutions. However, the communication process at that time was not smooth, and I judged that there were some potential risks, so I ultimately did not proceed.

I personally believe that if you really need to choose to sell the claim rights, it is still advisable to try to find a mature and trustworthy institution to operate. In fact, in this market, there are not many truly powerful large buyers or mature claim rights institutions. Their communication with the court and the trustee is also smoother. If it really comes to that point, including the buddies in the group asking me today, my advice is that you can only sell, but you should also try to unite, negotiate a relatively reasonable price, or find a suitable channel and partner to proceed steadily.

BlockBeats: Can creditors now sell for more than 100% of the claim rights?

Will: It has always been more than 100%, even up to 120% to 130%.

BlockBeats: Doesn't that make it more suitable than direct compensation?

Will: Certainly, direct compensation would receive more, which is why there is room for this. I can give you a simple calculation so you understand this logic.

Assuming the principal is 100%, according to the current compensation plan, the creditor can not only recover the entire principal but also receive interest at an annualized rate of 9%. Calculating over time, from the event to now, it has been close to three years. Based on a 9% annualized calculation, it is about 27% interest over three years—meaning they can receive a total of around 127% repayment.

If the compensation period continues to extend, the interest will continue to accumulate, and this doesn't even consider the further distribution that may come from the recovery of additional assets. In other words, this is an almost certain, relatively stable income path—a 9% annualized return in the traditional financial system itself is a very attractive product.

This is also why there are now so many professional securities firms and institutions willing to buy FTX claim rights at a discount. What they value is not just the current repayment ratio but the potential for additional returns in the future.

For these claim rights institutions, there is already a huge information gap between them and ordinary creditors. Early on, I actually kept an eye on this matter, and I could feel that they have indeed obtained a lot of internal information earlier in the process of acquiring claim rights than we did.

For example, at that time, the bid price for the claim rights was constantly changing in the market, with some people acquiring at 40%, 50%, while others went above 80%. This indicates that these institutions had already been strategically positioning themselves on a large scale from very early on. From what I understand, the largest few credit-financial institutions may have each invested several billion U.S. dollars, anticipating to recover around $20 billion in assets from this wave.

Moreover, they have a more complex financial operation path. For example, if they can ultimately achieve a 9% annualized return, they can package this portion of debt into a financial product and then sell it to users or institutional investors at a 5% yield. For them, this forms a stable and low-risk arbitrage opportunity.

It is precisely because of the existence of this structural arbitrage opportunity that this FTX debt market appears particularly attractive. The key is that the amount of this batch of debt is very large. In the traditional financial market, it is indeed possible to achieve a stable return of around 5% through purchasing US Treasury bonds, but finding an investment target that is both high-yielding and stable, and can carry hundreds of millions of dollars in funds, is very rare.

BlockBeats: Looking back at this process of safeguarding rights, what do you think was the biggest challenge? And what costs and resources have you invested in this safeguarding process?

Will: In terms of financial investment, the cost of this matter itself is not high. Because I have always been hiring lawyers to handle related matters to ensure that the entire process can proceed smoothly. So although everyone now sees me speaking out in the forefront, it is not out of the motivation of "I represent everyone," but because my core interests are deeply bound up in it.

Currently, the main investment is in legal fees and related expenses such as preparing materials, but these costs are relatively manageable and not significant. What I have truly invested the most in is time and energy.

These days, I have been dealing with this matter almost around the clock. First, I must get the message out, so I started actively contacting the media, and some KOL friends helped relay the information. I need to frequently post information, respond to everyone, maintain continuous public attention, which takes up a lot of my time and energy.

Second, it is to maintain the normal operation of our community. Newcomers join every day, and I have almost become a customer service representative now, constantly educating them on relevant knowledge. Because the entire initiative process is relatively complex, many new members are initially very confused, especially some debtors in China with limited English proficiency, who find it difficult to understand the English materials we have prepared and may even back off because of it.

At this point, we not only play the role of "information guide," but more like "emotional supporters." On one hand, we need to let them know that we are ready, and the process is not that complicated; on the other hand, we need to soothe their emotions, encourage them to move forward, and make them realize they are not fighting alone.

Personally, this period of time was supposed to be a relatively relaxed stage for me. I had originally planned to take a vacation, travel, or engage in some physical activities to relax. However, now I find myself sitting in front of the computer almost all day, constantly preparing materials, answering questions, and maintaining communication. I have indeed invested a lot of time and energy.

BlockBeats: If the court upholds the restrictions after the hearing on July 22, what are your plans next?

Will: If this motion is ultimately approved, there are actually two more stages to deal with.

The first is a 45-day objection period. During this time, creditors can still intervene through a lawyer, including attending hearings, submitting materials, or taking other legal actions.

At the same time, we can also pay attention to whether the liquidator will appoint a lawyer specifically to handle Chinese affairs during this period. This "regional lawyer" actually plays a very crucial role—if we can contact this lawyer, communicate his views and judgments via video or other means, we can assess whether his advice aligns with the current reality and whether there is an opportunity to seek compensation within the existing framework.

Therefore, after the hearing on July 22, I believe the next actions mainly involve three points:

First, quickly engage a lawyer to prepare for possible actions;

Second, closely monitor the other party's actions, especially whether they will announce further operational details or appoint a legal team representing Chinese creditors;

Third, if the situation further deteriorates, such as hopes for compensation being dashed, then preparations should be made for "stop-loss," such as considering debt transfer or selling at a discount. This is similar to the market—if you anticipate a sharp decline in a coin, you can only choose to sell it in time.

BlockBeats: What advice do you have for Chinese creditors who have not taken action yet?

Will: I believe that submitting materials before July 9 is still within time. The recommended actions to take next can be divided into two paths: First, if possible, seek assistance from a professional lawyer; second, if unable to engage a lawyer for now, you can also choose to submit a dissenting letter in your personal capacity. The cost of mailing the letter itself is not high, even if sent from within the country, it is only a few hundred yuan. The key is to act quickly.

Welcome to join the official BlockBeats community:

Telegram Subscription Group: https://t.me/theblockbeats

Telegram Discussion Group: https://t.me/BlockBeats_App

Official Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia