The conversation should be objective. Although I have a good relationship with everyone at OKX, back in 2018, OKX's contract risk control had significant flaws. There were no restrictions on position size and leverage, and the insurance fund was limited, relying mainly on social sharing. Meanwhile, BitMEX had already implemented the ADL mechanism. Today, OKX has addressed and improved these risk control deficiencies. Going back 8 years, after the systemic loss, the platform bore 2500 BTC of the loss, recovered a portion from profitable users, and froze 517 BTC from users who suffered margin calls. Article 6.2 of the agreement allowed for the closure, restriction, or rollback of trades. The terms were biased towards the platform, but the actions were within the scope of the textual authorization. The terms are controversial, but the operations were within the framework of the agreement. Disputes can only be resolved through legal channels. On Twitter, the public opinion regarding this 8-year-old issue is difficult to assess in terms of FUD. Let's look at the user behavior specifically. 1/ Whether market manipulation occurred: In 2018, a $450 million long position was opened. Given the market depth at the time, this size inevitably impacted prices, revealing a risk control loophole on the platform. Such a large position should not have been allowed to trade. Freezing the position after triggering the alarm was a risk control measure. With 20x leverage, a fluctuation of less than 5% would result in liquidation. The claim that the position would automatically be reduced if it wasn't frozen is illogical. However, the combination of high leverage and an extremely high position ratio constitutes a typical structure of manipulated risk, ultimately leading to a margin call and systemic risk. Clause 6.2 of the agreement allows for the closure, restriction, or rollback of trades. The clause is biased towards the platform, but the actions were within the scope of the textual authorization. 2/ Was freezing 517 BTC reasonable? The announcement shows that a margin call occurred. The platform used 2,500 BTC to cover the losses and then deducted profits from users through social sharing, while simultaneously freezing 517 BTC. The total margin call size was approximately 4,000 BTC or more. The agreement stipulates that sub-accounts and wallets are considered as a unified asset. The clause is controversial, but the operation was within the framework of the agreement. Rather than dwelling on the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) caused by issues from 8 years ago, it's better to pursue legal action. 8 years ago, OKX's risk control did indeed have the above-mentioned flaws, but through 8 years of gradual improvement, I personally feel very confident using OKX.

I think OKX did a flawless job with this move.

It's been 8 years, and things are still being improved.