Excluded 82%: A Record of Chinese Creditors' Bail-in Amidst the FTX Liquidation Dispute

As the bankruptcy liquidation of FTX enters a critical stage, a highly controversial motion regarding the claims handling plan for users from "restricted countries" has caused a stir among global creditors.

The FTX liquidator stated that they will first seek legal advice to determine whether assets can be allocated to these jurisdictions; if the conclusion is that compensation is not possible, related claims may even be "legally confiscated" and transferred to a liquidation trust account. This means that Chinese creditors may not only receive nothing, but their assets may also become "confiscated funds" of the trust fund.

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

BlockBeats conducted an exclusive interview with Will (@zhetengji), who is not only one of the major creditors of FTX but also a key initiator opposing the motion and raising objections. He elaborated on why he chose to step up to lead this struggle, the procedural operations against the motion, the real difficulties faced by the creditor community, and his in-depth observations on the motivations behind the motion.

The following is the full content of the interview:

BlockBeats: Please introduce yourself and share your experience in the cryptocurrency industry or your investment background?

Will: I am Will, with a background in science and engineering. I studied geophysics for both my undergraduate and graduate degrees, and later obtained a PhD in geophysics. I officially entered the cryptocurrency industry in 2017, starting out working at a CEX. Later, I began investing myself, participated in several projects, and ran my own Crypto Fund for a while, which was an early attempt in this field. At the same time, I invested in many funds and had in-depth cooperation with several LPs. Additionally, I have mined cryptocurrencies—I once owned a substantial number of Bitcoin mining machines, and also worked with Litecoin and Dogecoin mining machines. However, domestic policies later prohibited mining, and I basically phased out that part.

Currently, my status can be considered semi-retired from the crypto circle, mainly just looking at some assets I invested in years ago and occasionally trading in the crypto market.

I have always been a Bitcoin-focused investor. For me, Bitcoin is not just an asset, but a belief. Over the past few years, my significant gains have actually come from several major cycles and fluctuations of Bitcoin. It can be said that many of my decisions and judgments are made from a Bitcoin-centric perspective.

BlockBeats: What pending compensation assets do you have on FTX? Mainly coins or U?

Will: The reason I allocated a considerable amount of assets on FTX was actually influenced by the industry atmosphere at that time.

I clearly remember that during the big drop on March 12, I basically went all-in to buy the dip in Bitcoin. Subsequently, as Bitcoin rose, I gradually liquidated my position and sold off my holdings. At that time, my thinking was to wait for the next wave of correction to reposition, so I transferred most of my USDT to FTX, preparing to catch the next low point.

Unexpectedly, the result was that FTX itself became the trigger for the next round of big declines.

Also, one more thing, at that time I was actually used to keeping my assets in a wallet, but due to the tight regulatory atmosphere at that time, I wanted to first transfer through a trading platform and then withdraw the funds back to my wallet. Because of this, I even transferred the Bitcoin from my base position to FTX, intending to transfer it out at a more opportune time. So to summarize, my main assets on FTX are USDT and Bitcoin.

BlockBeats: Could you please share the approximate scale and magnitude of assets above?

Will: I can only say that I am a major creditor, and several accounts combined will definitely make it into the top 100.

Why raise an objection?

According to the documents provided by the FTX creditors' representative, the core of this motion is to include users from certain jurisdictions (mainly China) in the "restricted foreign jurisdictions" and to seek legal advice on whether compensation can be made; if the legal opinion negates the possibility of compensation, the corresponding claims will be regarded as "disputed assets" and may be placed in trust, with no further distribution to the relevant users.

Will explicitly state in the formal opposition letter to the U.S. bankruptcy court that the motion lacks factual and legal basis, and is in violation of the provisions of U.S. Bankruptcy Code Section 11230 1928374656574839201 a() 4( regarding "equal treatment of creditors within the same class."

The letter clarifies three main reasons:

1. Compensation is denominated in US dollars, which is no different from traditional bankruptcy claims. FTX's restored trust has explicitly stated that compensation will be made using US dollars or US dollar stablecoins. Even without using crypto assets, Chinese users can receive US wire transfers through legal channels such as Hong Kong accounts, which does not constitute any legal obstacles. In the Celsius case, a US court also successfully paid USD compensation to Chinese creditors through international wire transfers.

2. Even with payment in cryptocurrency, Chinese law does not prohibit individuals from holding or receiving it. Courts at all levels in China have recognized that virtual assets such as Bitcoin fall under the property category of the Civil Code, and Hong Kong has established a compliant regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies. The regulatory statements in the Macau region also do not prohibit individuals from holding coins or participating in clearing, and the policy texts cited in trust matters do not have legal binding force.

3. The market is experiencing manipulation due to the motion. The letter specifically points out that some distressed asset funds have leveraged this motion to apply pressure, claiming that Chinese creditors should immediately sell their claims at a discount, or they will "never receive compensation," and manipulating market sentiment by stating that "as long as 5% of Chinese creditors are excluded, the remaining 95% will support". This not only amplifies panic but also turns bankruptcy liquidation into a game of wealth reshuffling.

Will respectfully request the court to deny the motion in opposition, in order to avoid the formation of an "arbitrage mechanism of low-priced acquisition + full compensation," while ensuring that global creditors have an equal opportunity for compensation in both procedure and substance.

BlockBeats: Are there any precedents in previous international compensation cases that exclude Chinese creditors?

Will: This motion can actually be divided into two steps. The first step is for the clearing party to hire lawyers from 49 countries to issue a legal opinion to determine whether compensation can be made to users from these countries. The second step is more controversial; if the legal opinion concludes that compensation cannot be made, the funds in question will need to be returned to the trust account they established.

According to my understanding, the operation in this second step is unprecedented in past bankruptcy liquidation cases. The "confiscation" of user assets in a certain country has never occurred in history. To put it bluntly, I believe this is no longer simply a matter of not compensating, but rather a form of confiscation.

As for the practice of completely excluding Chinese creditors and denying any claim eligibility, I have not seen this in other cases. I have studied quite a few precedents of bankruptcy and liquidation, but systematically excluding users from a country like this is indeed the first time I have seen it.

BlockBeats: Why Stand Up to Express Motion Objections?

Will: The process for this motion is as follows: first, the deadline for creditors to oppose the motion is July 15. Once the motion is passed, the liquidation trustee will hire lawyers to issue a legal opinion regarding the 49 "restricted countries" users to determine whether compensation can be made to these users.

![])https://img-cdn.gateio.im/webp-social/moments-f7f37b584534ee0d7936b56f15e90c77.webp(

The total claims in restricted jurisdictions amount to $470 million, with Chinese investors being the largest group of creditors of FTX, holding $380 million in claims, accounting for 82% of the restricted claims.

I believe the real key lies in this point - if the motion is passed and Trust takes the lead in selecting lawyers and making legal judgments, the controllability of this matter will be greatly reduced. Because these lawyers are chosen by them, we have no way of knowing whether these lawyers truly understand the actual situation of cryptocurrency regulation in China and whether they can accurately grasp the boundaries of law and policy. Once we reach this step, we basically lose the initiative.

The purpose of my motion to oppose is to hope to prevent the establishment of this motion from the root. Only in this way can we retain more proactive space, and in the future, there will be more things we can do.

Additionally, we have also seen a very concerning viewpoint where some creditors, especially those acquiring the debts, openly state that Chinese creditors currently only account for about 4% to 5% of the total debt, while the remaining 95% are creditors from other countries. If this motion is successfully passed, the vast majority will benefit from it, while only Chinese users will be excluded.

In other words, this motion is likely to pass in the overall vote. Therefore, we must stand up and oppose it at this stage; once it enters the next stage, it will be extremely detrimental to us. This is the reason why I have decided to initiate the opposition motion this time.

BlockBeats: What are the key steps, material preparation, and submission process when you initiate a motion of dissent?

Will: There are actually two main ways to submit objections regarding the operational process of this opposition motion.

The first method is to submit through the American lawyer you are collaborating with. The lawyer will complete the formal submission of the opposition documents through the electronic system of the U.S. bankruptcy court. This method is the most recommended in terms of compliance and efficiency.

The second method is self-submission, which means you complete the entire process in your personal capacity. However, it is important to note that self-submission is a relatively complex and strictly regulated process, requiring you to notify at least four relevant parties separately by mailing letters.

Specifically, these four aspects include:

1. The presiding judge of the bankruptcy case: Currently, the judge overseeing the FTX case is Judge Owens. You need to send a physical letter to him, which is the officially recognized method of notification by the court. If you do not have a lawyer, you can only send the letter in person; if you have a lawyer, you can submit it directly through the court system, saving the mailing process.

2. The legal team of the FTX Recovery Trust: They are divided into two parts, one part is the New York law firm responsible for the main case, and the other part is the local law firm located in the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction, which handles matters related to this case. Both parties must be notified.

If it is submitted through the lawyer system, the system will automatically send a copy to them; if it is submitted by an individual, you need to send them physical letters separately or, in case of urgency, send an email. However, please note that whether the email is officially accepted and acknowledged is not up to us to decide.

3. U.S. Trustee's Office (UST): This is the agency under the U.S. Department of Justice responsible for overseeing bankruptcy proceedings, acting as the regulatory body for this case. Considering that this motion has already lost fairness in terms of procedure, I believe it is necessary to copy our objection to the UST so that the regulatory agency can also see it. Currently, when I encourage other creditors to write letters of opposition, I also suggest that they copy the UST. The UST accepts both paper letters and emails, but the formal process still recommends sending paper letters.

In summary, there are two paths for the process of opposing a motion:

First, submitting through a lawyer with full authorization ensures a smooth process and easier compliance;

Secondly, you personally submit the physical letter to ensure that all four parties receive it.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that the deadline for opposing motions is July 15th, which means that regardless of the method chosen, the relevant materials must be submitted and delivered before this date. This time point is crucial, and missing it means that one cannot intervene in the current process.

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

I am a person in Singapore, and this is actually the second time I have sent a letter in the past few days. Today is July 7th, and I am using DHL for international express delivery, which is expected to arrive at the US court by July 9th. This method is relatively reliable, and the timing is also more controllable.

![])https://img-cdn.gateio.im/webp-social/moments-86324ea3abf4f2c32c43a15abe487da6.webp(

However, for friends in mainland China, the delivery time may be slightly longer, usually taking 3 to 4 days, and it could even extend to 4 to 5 days. Therefore, if you want to ensure that the letter is received by the court before the deadline of July 15, it is best to send it out before July 9. If you wait until July 10 or later to send it, there is a significant risk that it may be considered overdue, which could result in the objection being invalidated.

Regarding what content needs to be included in the letter of opposition, there are mainly two parts:

1. Formal letter to the judge: This letter expresses your position against the motion, explaining your reasons and basis for disagreement. This is the core part, and it needs to clearly articulate your opposing views.

2. Certification of Service: This is a document that indicates you not only sent the letter to the court but also sent it concurrently to several other parties. This step is crucial as it formally shows that you have followed the complete service process, and the judge will use this to determine whether your opinion is compliant and valid.

Currently, I have established a coordination group on Telegram to oppose the motion, and more than 400 creditors have joined, nearing 500 people. In the group, I shared a letter template that I wrote myself and detailed the operational process for everyone's reference. At the same time, I also recorded a video showing what materials are included in the four letters I sent out and what the format looks like, helping everyone understand the entire process more intuitively.

![])https://img-cdn.gateio.im/webp-social/moments-89e03dfddff68546ba15a749a822d840.webp(

Will's rights protection letter mailing process

BlockBeats: Didn't you send a letter together with other creditors?

Will: At first, I did consider whether to submit the opposition motion in a "joint voice" manner, which means organizing a group of people to sign together and initiate together. At that time, I was also collecting some information in the group, such as everyone’s creditor ID on FTX, account information, etc. The original intention was to hope to gather more voices and enhance representation.

However, later I communicated with some legal professionals around me and consulted a few lawyers familiar with U.S. bankruptcy procedures. They gave me an important piece of feedback: the effect of an opposing letter is not necessarily "the more people, the better." In other words, even if more people co-sign, it does not automatically enhance the legal effect of the letter. On the contrary, due to differing opinions and mixed content, it may lower the judge's or lawyer's recognition of its professionalism.

So I began to change my strategy, emphasizing "diversity" rather than "centralization and unification." Because I also observed that in the discussions within the group, some viewpoints that I personally find reasonable may not necessarily persuade others; conversely, some perspectives that I don't quite agree with can resonate with other members of the group. This kind of diverse voice is actually an advantage.

Therefore, I now encourage the members in the group to write letters independently and express themselves independently, trying to articulate their true thoughts and positions— as long as they do not make obvious procedural errors, everyone can stand up and make their voices heard. This approach is more extensive and representative in terms of its effects.

Before your interview with me, I made a rough count, and I currently know of about 15 creditors who have completed sending letters. Although their positions and ways of expressing themselves vary, and there have even been debates and disagreements within the group, I think that's okay. As long as everyone can clearly express their own views, this strategy of multiple points of effort is actually more beneficial 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 always believe that there is a chance for success in this matter. But to be honest, when we see that today's motion has developed to such an outrageous extent, it is actually very difficult to predict what direction it may take in the future. Although I still hold hope in my heart, I must admit that anything can happen. All we can do is try our best, and leave the outcome to the process.

BlockBeats: So when will the final result be out?

Will: Theoretically, it is July 22.

BlockBeats: Has there been a case where a community proposed a motion against something and it was accepted by a judge?

Will: I haven't systematically studied all similar cases, so I'm hesitant to make a particularly clear judgment. However, I know that there are actually many creditor communities overseas, not just Chinese users who are paying attention to this matter. For example, there is a French creditor in our group who has already received compensation, but he still believes that this motion is very unfair. Driven by a pursuit of fairness, he has been continuously following up and actively helping to brainstorm ideas in the group, even assisting other creditors in revising materials and providing substantial help.

He himself has also put forward many motions in the past, covering various levels. For example, another creditor representative I know is currently a very influential person in the FTX creditor community, and he is very active on Twitter. He has always opposed the use of "dollarized" settlement in the FTX liquidation plan, advocating for repayment based on original asset value. He has united a group of people and submitted motions multiple times to protest, continuously pushing for the struggle for discourse power.

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

So for us, this action is not just a simple opposition to this motion. Subsequently, we will also proactively propose more motions, such as requiring FTX to immediately pay eligible creditors; if there is continued delay, compensation must be made for this waiting period, such as providing additional compensation or calculating interest.

The losses incurred during this period of inactivity are essentially caused by the clearing party, and they should be held accountable. Although I am not sure about the proportion of previous motions that were adopted, our future strategy is clear: we will continue to put forward more well-reasoned motions to strive for our rightful rights.

In fact, the way we propose motions now is already not considered the most powerful approach. The most effective way should be to have a seat in the creditors' committee. I actually considered this issue early on when the incident first happened—because at that time I was relatively one of the larger creditors and had attempted to run for a seat on the creditors' committee.

At that time, we had a group with several creditors who had larger claims, some of whom were even ranked in the top 30 or top 20, making them very important participants. But their initial attitude was very clear: they were unwilling to reveal their identities and did not want to show up. So during the election, everyone chose to take a step back. On the contrary, my lawyer encouraged me to take a step forward, so I registered and entered the subsequent phone interview stage. However, I was ultimately not selected.

After that, I didn't participate particularly actively, but I always kept this matter in mind. About a year later, one member of the creditor committee withdrew because they no longer held the debt. According to the rules, committee members must continuously hold their debts and cannot transfer or sell them; otherwise, they lose the qualification to represent other creditors. I guess he might have thought that the recovery price at that time was quite good, so he chose to withdraw.

Later, they sent me an email asking if I was willing to be placed on the waiting list. I immediately replied that I was willing. I have always felt that we creditors should have someone speak up, not because I am so noble, but out of self-interest. I hope this process can be properly monitored to ensure that the entire compensation process proceeds smoothly, and ultimately to get back what belongs to me.

I just wasn't chosen in the end, and after that, I stopped following it continuously. However, my mindset is actually the same as many of my friends in the group now — since the asset recovery has made great progress and repayment is on the agenda, there is no reason to deviate from the path. Everyone is actually waiting for the process to be completed to get back their share of the money. On the contrary, paying too much attention frequently can easily lead to emotional setbacks.

It is precisely for this reason that when I saw this proposal, I was really taken aback and had to stand up.

Why are FTX claims so popular?

BlockBeats: Can you share some information about the creditor community you are currently in with the readers?

Will: In fact, most of my friends do not have legal assistance. I have always had a legal team following up on this. In New York, I have a long-term cooperating lawyer, and he also brought in a lawyer who specializes in bankruptcy matters to help me deal with related issues. As soon as I received the motion documents, I immediately contacted them. However, it coincided with a holiday in the United States, and they replied that they needed time to study it and would contact me after the holiday.

But I feel that just waiting is not a solution, so I decided to take action myself. I have already sent out the letter opposing the motion this morning, addressing it to the judge and the other four relevant parties. At the same time, I also wrote an email to them expressing my desire to arrange a conference call as soon as possible. I told them that I hope to communicate at the earliest opportunity—on one hand, I hope they can help me formally submit the opposition motion again in the system to ensure the process is complete; on the other hand, I also want to hear their more professional opinions to assess the direction of this matter.

In addition, we have one or two friends in North America in our group, one in California and two in Canada. They are also trying to contact lawyers recently. But I don't think their chances of catching up this time are high. Because you have to find a suitable lawyer first, then sign a contract, and then let the other party spend time researching the case. If they are not lawyers who specifically handle such cases, it will be very tight for them to complete all these preparations before July 15.

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

Will: First of all, I have no prejudice against the sale of claims itself. On the contrary, I believe that to some extent, this actually provides a channel for creditors in urgent need of money to exit, which has its positive significance.

But what I find unacceptable is the so-called "debt agents" or intermediaries, especially since a considerable portion of them are locals, who play a very negative role in this process. They constantly sell anxiety to the community, creating panic through various means, which in turn lowers the price of debts. In such an environment, many already anxious individuals are forced to sell their debts at low prices, and I find this behavior to be very unethical.

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

But the problem is that the current situation has turned into a very unfair scenario. Why can't we, the original creditors, receive the final compensation? Yet those who bought the debt at a discount are able to receive full compensation or even a higher proportion of payout? Why are the arbitrage opportunities left for them, rather than allowing us, the original creditors, to maximize our benefits?

What makes me feel even more unfair is that there is a very critical but easily overlooked clause in this motion—it is written in very small letters: if a third-party institution buys your debt rights, then when determining compensation eligibility, your original holding country will no longer be considered. In other words, once this motion is passed, it will artificially create an arbitrage space. Chinese creditors are like being driven away, with no choice but to sell their debt rights. If someone buys, you have to sell, and the buyer may enjoy compensation eligibility due to policy arrangements.

BlockBeats: How big is this arbitrage space?

Will: The conservative estimate may be between 20% and 30%. In the case of FTX's bankruptcy liquidation, the debts are calculated on an annual interest accumulation of 9%, so how much can ultimately be recovered will also depend on the time dimension and the scale of the assets recovered. Additionally, FTX currently has multiple lawsuits that are still ongoing, and any funds recovered in the future are also likely to be redistributed to creditors.

So, for me, this entire arrangement seems extremely unfair. The arbitrage opportunity has been shifted to the "interim taker," while the original creditors not only face selling pressure but may also lose the rights that should belong to them.

BlockBeats: If what you say is true, if this motion unfortunately passes in the end, is there still a possibility for Chinese creditors to recover funds through some "off-the-books" method, such as transferring their claims to foreign individuals, who then claim the compensation on their behalf? Is this approach operationally feasible?

Will: I heard that there are indeed some similar custody solutions now, where creditors can entrust their claims to a third party, who will complete the asset recovery operations on their behalf. Of course, the custodian will charge a certain percentage as a fee for their services.

If it really comes to the point of having to sell the debt, I actually considered selling when the debt price was still at 80%, and I had communicated 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 further.

I personally believe that if you really have to choose to sell your debt rights, you should try to find mature and trustworthy institutions to handle it. In fact, in this market, there are not many truly powerful large buyers or mature debt institutions; their communication with the courts and trustees is also smoother. If it really comes to that, including the friends in the group today who are asking me, my advice is that you can only sell, but you should also try to unite and negotiate a relatively reasonable price, or find a suitable channel and partner to ensure that this step is taken steadily.

BlockBeats: Can creditors sell at a price exceeding 100% of the debt now?

Will: has always been over 100%, even reaching 120% to 130%.

BlockBeats: Then wouldn't this be more appropriate than direct compensation?

Will: It must be that direct compensation is more, which allows for this space. I can give you a simple calculation, and you'll understand this logic.

Assuming the principal is 100%, according to the current compensation plan, creditors can not only recover the entire principal but also earn interest at an annualized rate of 9%. By calculating the time, it has been nearly three years since the incident occurred. Based on the 9% annualized rate, the interest over three years is approximately 27%—which means a total recovery of about 127%.

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

This is also why there are so many professional securities firms and institutions willing to buy FTX debt at a discount now. They are not only interested in the current repayment ratio but also in the potential for additional returns in the future.

For these debt agencies, there is a huge information gap between them and ordinary creditors. Early on, I was actually paying continuous attention to this matter and could feel that they indeed obtained a lot of internal information much earlier than us during the process of acquiring debts.

For example, the quotes for the debt rights were constantly changing in the market at that time, with some people acquiring at 40% and 50%, while others offered over 80%. This indicates that these institutions had already started large-scale deployments early on. From what I understand, the largest credit-related financial institutions may have invested several hundred million dollars individually, expecting to recover around 2 billion dollars in assets from this wave.

Moreover, they also have more complex financial operation pathways. For example, if they can ultimately achieve an annualized return of 9%, they can package this portion of debt into financial products and sell it to users or institutional investors at a yield of 5%. For them, this creates a stable and low-risk arbitrage space.

It is precisely because of the existence of this structural arbitrage space that the FTX debt market appears particularly "attractive" this time. The key lies in the fact that the amount of this batch of debts is very large. In traditional financial markets, it is indeed possible to achieve a stable return of around 5% by purchasing U.S. Treasury bonds and other means, but finding an investment target that is both high-yield and stable, and can accommodate hundreds of millions of dollars in capital, is extremely rare.

BlockBeats: Looking back at this rights protection process, what do you think was the biggest challenge? What costs and resources did you approximately invest in this rights protection?

Will: From the perspective of capital investment, the cost of this matter itself is not high. I have always been hiring lawyers to handle related affairs to ensure that the entire process can proceed smoothly. So although everyone now sees me speaking out front, I am not motivated by "I want to represent everyone," but rather because my own core interests are deeply bound up in this.

![])https://img-cdn.gateio.im/webp-social/moments-28716c13315f2f69e7659a8ccbc90c56.webp(

The main investment currently is lawyer fees and related expenses for preparing materials, but this part of the cost is relatively controllable and not large. The real investment is actually time and energy.

These past few days, I've been working on this matter day and night. First, I must get the message out, so I've started actively reaching out to the media, and some KOL friends have helped with sharing. I need to frequently release information, respond to everyone, and maintain continuous public attention, which has taken up a lot of my time and energy.

The second is to maintain the normal operation of our community. Every day there are new members joining, and I have almost become customer service, constantly having to popularize relevant knowledge. Because the entire proposal process itself is relatively complex, many new friends may feel very confused at first, especially some creditors who are in the country and have poor English skills; they struggle to understand the English materials we prepare and may even retreat because of this.

At this time, we not only need to play the role of "information guides", but also act as "psychological supporters". On one hand, we need to let them know that we are ready and that the process is not actually complicated; on the other hand, we need to soothe their emotions, encourage them to move forward, and make them realize that they are not fighting alone.

For me personally, this period should have been a relatively relaxed phase. I had originally planned to take a vacation, travel, or exercise to unwind. But 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 maintains the restrictions after the hearing on July 22, what are your next plans?

Will: If this motion is ultimately passed, there are actually two more stages to respond.

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

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

So after the hearing on July 22, I believe there are three main actions to take next:

The first step is to quickly involve a lawyer and prepare possible response actions.

Pay close attention to the other party's movements, especially whether they will disclose further operational details or appoint a legal team representing Chinese creditors.

Thirdly, if the situation further deteriorates, for instance, if the hope for compensation is basically shattered, then preparations for "stop-loss" should begin, such as considering the transfer of claims or selling at a discount. It's like in the market; if you judge that a certain coin is about to plummet, you can only choose to sell it in time.

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

Will: I believe that submitting the materials before July 9 is still feasible in terms of timing. The next course of action is suggested to follow two paths: first, if possible, seek the help of a professional lawyer; second, if hiring a lawyer is not feasible for the time being, you can also choose to submit a letter of opposition in your personal capacity. The cost of sending the letter itself is not high, even if sent from within the country, it would only be a few hundred yuan in expenses. The key is to act quickly.