Director Chen Zhi-han (YouTube name: Biao Han, Director with a notorious reputation), recently traveled to Shanghai for a cross-strait livestream that attracted massive attention, with online viewership peaking at 193,000 people, sparking numerous political debates and becoming the primary news topic. Director's sudden announcement of going to China for a livestream also raised suspicions among some Taiwan-centric individuals. Today, a Threads user "gulshan_ara0987" claimed that the director's China livestream was actually a performance show for receiving benefits, which also triggered online skepticism. The director responded during the livestream:
Many people say I came to Shanghai to sell out Taiwan. Why don't you ask the Democratic Progressive Party why they're targeting Ko Wen-je?
Director Receiving Millions in USDT?
The Threads user suggested that the director's claim of not receiving money might be false, stating that a week before departure, related addresses received over 300,000 USDT, and within 48 hours, the funds were laundered through a mixer, describing the process as "clean, swift, and untraceable":
Over 300,000 USDT, approximately NT$10 million, entered within 48 hours, completed through three-stage splitting, each transfer passing through mixers and bridge addresses, ultimately transferred to Binance International, making actual user tracking difficult.
Information Questioned
After the post, netizens questioned "How do you have the director's cold wallet" "Where is the address", and the post was subsequently deleted, with uncertainty about whether it was self-removed.
Regarding the authenticity of this news, BlockTempo consulted an anonymous blockchain expert who indicated that these statements alone would hardly prove the director received millions in USDT or link it to the Shanghai trip. The expert emphasized that blockchain records are not omnipotent, typically only describing address interactions without directly proving personal financial relationships. Without further off-chain evidence identifying the wallet address as the director's, one cannot definitively claim he received benefits through USDT.
He didn't mention the wallet address. Even if I assume it exists, how would you prove this is the director's address?
Additionally, the funds entered Binance International. If law enforcement has grounds, Binance typically cooperates with investigations. The next questions are: First, what law did the director potentially violate by traveling to China for a livestream? Second, would Binance's KYC data actually match this transaction?
These are matters for law enforcement to evaluate, considering whether investigation costs are proportionate to potential findings.
From another perspective, would someone truly transfer funds to Binance International if intending to launder money? Aren't there cleaner, swifter, more untraceable methods?
These are merely academic blockchain data speculations. The key is not to conflate on-chain records with evidence, as proving address ownership isn't the responsibility of blockchain data analysts. Identifying a financial flow doesn't equate to proving someone's guilt.
