Is it reasonable to judge the past using our current understanding? Is the purpose of risk control to protect the interests of the public or the interests of a single individual? Let's talk about the 517 BTC. For example, the current price of BTC is 100 yuan: If BTC rises to 110 yuan, and I open a 10x position, I should make 100 yuan. If BTC drops to 90, and I open a 10x short position, I should make 100 yuan. But is that really the case? Limited by the counterparty and nominal value, those who have opened contracts know that this is not the case, but it should be the general trend as perceived by users. Given the risk control mechanisms at the time, was the freeze operation reasonable? The platform's risk control mechanism at the time consisted of an insurance fund plus a profit margin from the same underlying asset to cover the difference between the liquidation price and the settlement price (the market depth was insufficient at the time). In 2018, Ms. Yang opened a long position of $450 million. Once the $450 million long position was closed out, the system would force the entire sequence of opposing positions to be closed. If it could not be closed out, the insurance fund (hedge fund) would be triggered first, and then the position would be wiped out. The reason for many sharp disagreements at the time was the same. As for whether the spot and contract order books were separated at that time, I can't remember. In the early days, there were no restrictions on opening positions and risk control was not perfect. Yang Jie's leveraged 20x isolated margin will trigger a liquidation sell-off if the price fluctuates by 5%, forcing all users to bear the loss. Determining whether Sister Yang intends to actively manipulate the market is somewhat subjective. Sister Yang: I have money, I'm optimistic, so I'll buy more. OKEx: Even a small amount of volatility can cause massive liquidations, and back then, many people used huge positions and cross-exchange hedging to target OKEx users. The value of the opposing positions wasn't sufficient, and according to the rules, the losses from massive liquidations should be shared among the holding users. If the position can be reduced to a healthy level that satisfies both parties to the contract, OKEx should not intervene. Yang Jie was very firm at the time and refused to reduce her holdings. OKEx could only manage risk from the perspective of most users. Judging from the final result, Ms. Yang's trade likely resulted in a margin call. She incurred a large portion of the losses, while the risk control mechanism absorbed a portion of the opposing trade's profits (which was the mechanism at the time). As for whether to freeze other spot trading accounts, according to OKEx's terms at the time, losses needed to be settled in a unified account, so these 517 BTC are likely gone as well. A little digression. Digging up old stories feels like a business war; if you were frozen for 8 years and your Bitcoin had increased tenfold, wouldn't you cause a huge uproar? With the current market rife with insider trading and malicious manipulation, users are increasingly wary of exchanges. Once an exchange is accused of wrongdoing, users tend to oppose it, and no one bothers to examine the details closely. Whether it's a business battle or a joke, it's all part of the story. Can you big shots please stop hurling insults at each other? You came, he left; that's all the people left in the crypto. By supporting each other, we can expand the market and benefit users. I'm so frustrated, I haven't had a morning erection in a month. @okxchinese @star_okx @Haiteng_okx @Mercy_okx