Author | Wu Talks about Blockchain

In this podcast, Will, a major creditor of FTX in China, details his personal experience in the FTX incident, the process of asset loss, and the potential impact of FTX's "restricted jurisdiction" motion on Chinese creditors. Will pointed out that the motion may result in creditors in 49 countries, including China, being unable to obtain compensation. The core issue is that the legal opinion issued by FTX's own lawyers may be unfair, resulting in the deprivation of the rights of Chinese creditors. Will has contacted lawyers and initiated actions to oppose the motion, and called on more creditors to write to the judge to express their objections. The interview also covers Will's review of FTX's asset allocation decisions before and after the collapse, the legal strategy of the rights protection action, and the institutional injustice behind the motion. Please listen to the audio on mainstream audio channels at home and abroad such as Wu Shuo Xiao Yuzhou and Apple.

FTX's motion has attracted the attention of Chinese creditors. Will tells his personal experience and motivation for rights protection

Colin: Hello everyone, welcome to the Wu Says Podcast today. We are here to chat with Will. He was recently involved in a very big event, which was FTX's announcement that it might not compensate Chinese creditors. This also caused a lot of discussion and uproar in the Chinese community. Will is a very big FTX creditor and a leader who represented some creditors in this wave. So we invited Will to talk about his experience. Will, please introduce your background first.

Will: Hello everyone, my name is Will. I am a science major, I studied geophysics, and I am studying for a PhD in science. I entered the circle in 2017.

I have tried many things in the cryptocurrency world. I have run a fund myself, worked in an exchange, and also mined. I have held a certain number of Bitcoin and Ethereum mining machines, and also led a quantitative trading team. It can be said that I have experienced many things in the cryptocurrency world. But after reviewing this matter, I found that my biggest profit still comes from holding Bitcoin. So I position myself as a loyal believer in Bitcoin, and I have always used Bitcoin as my investment program.

In the FTX incident, I was a relatively large creditor, and I actually participated in the election for their creditors committee, which is the unsecured creditors committee. I found a lawyer at the time because I was very depressed about this incident, and the lawyer suggested that I run for election. First, because I am also considered an insider, and second, because my debt amount is relatively large. We think we need a Chinese, or Chinese people, to speak up in it to ensure our rights, so I ran for election.

I actually made it to the second round in my first election. At that time, their person in charge, or the judge, or someone from FTX Trust called me for an interview. But in the end, I was not selected. Some time passed in between, I don’t remember how long it was, anyway, after the case was advanced for a while, someone withdrew from the creditors committee. At that time, they also sent an email to ask if I was willing to be on the waiting list. I replied that I was willing, but it was already late at that time, and I didn’t have that much decision-making power, but I still said I was willing to join. As a result, they didn’t reply to my email later, so I was not selected in the end. This is the general background of my involvement in this matter.

The reason I came forward this time is because FTX Recovery Trust filed a new motion with the court. After reading the original text of the motion and interpreting it word by word, I found that this motion was very far away and might really endanger our rights to seek compensation. So I started to speak out on Twitter and set up a Telegram group to gather friends who still hold FTX debts. Everyone brainstormed and hoped to do something to make a voice and safeguard our own rights.

Colin: So what you put in FTX is probably mainly Bitcoin.

Will: Actually, it was like this. Why did I put a large amount of funds in FTX at that time? Colin, do you remember that there was a rumor for a while that whether it was Binance or OK, these domestic exchanges would provide the information of large investors to domestic regulatory authorities or public security. Under this background, users like me who were still in China would be very worried about the safety of their assets. I was still in China at the time, and in order to avoid potential risks, I transferred a large amount of assets to FTX. At that time, I put almost all my wealth after the "312" incident into it.

At that time, I was buying the bottom of BTC. After that, I sold all of them in the last round of Bitcoin price between 40,000 to 47,000 US dollars. I threw away almost all of them. After that, I put all the USDT into FTX and prepared to gradually build positions. Because all my previous big profits came from the swing operation of Bitcoin in the big cycle.

So in this context, I still had a lot of BTC in FTX at the time, and the other was USDT. My positions were basically these two. I am not in a position to disclose the specific amount, but what I can say is that according to the earliest statistics, I should be one of the top 100 creditors.

Colin: So your original coins are mainly kept in OK or Binance?

Will: Binance.

Colin: So you weren’t actually a regular trader at FTX, you chose to move there mainly because of the specific context at the time.

Will: Actually, I have always had a position in FTX. Before the incident, my asset allocation was about 2/3 in Binance and 1/3 in FTX. I did have a position in FTX, especially during that period, its spot lending function was very powerful. And that was when DeFi was popular, and I often did some arbitrage operations on the chain, so I needed to put some assets in FTX to borrow coins. So I originally had some assets in FTX, but after the incident, I basically transferred all my core assets there. It should be said that more than 90% of my assets in the currency circle were placed in FTX.

Colin: Do you remember approximately when it started to rotate?

Will: I remember that FTX went bankrupt in November, and the specific time of the transfer should be around July or August. I don’t remember it clearly.

The cost of trusting FTX and missing the opportunity to sell your claims

Colin: Why did you trust FTX so much at that time and transfer 90% of your assets there?

Will: I think I did make a big mistake in this matter. I used to work in an exchange, and frankly speaking, I don’t trust any centralized exchange. But the reason why I built up trust in FTX at that time was because the entire market environment and public opinion atmosphere made you feel that FTX was a rising star project.

Especially during that time, I had already started planning to live overseas, and FTX was the best in the industry at that time in terms of the function of exchanging digital currencies into US dollars, and no other exchange could compare. So in the overall environment at that time, I felt that its fiat currency deposit and withdrawal channels were very smooth, so I determined that it was a regulated and compliant platform.

Moreover, FTX’s spot lending function is also very beneficial for my on-chain arbitrage operations. All these reasons combined led me to make the decision to transfer a large amount of assets to FTX.

Colin: Actually, you had basically sold all your BTC at that time, and your main holding was actually U. So you transferred the funds to FTX to buy at the bottom?

Will: I did intend to buy at the bottom. I still have some BTC, and my overall holdings are divided into daily positions and base positions. I was determined not to move my base position, but why did I transfer my base position to FTX at that time? The reason was that the overall environment at that time made me worry about information leakage, and I hoped to make a transfer through the exchange to erase some traces on the chain.

So I transferred my base position, USDT position, and assets on Binance. My plan was to buy some of the bottom first, and then move the assets back to the wallet. This was my operating idea at the time, but then FTX exploded too quickly, and to be honest, I was a bit unlucky.

Colin: When he was completely unable to withdraw his coins and filed for bankruptcy, did you feel desperate?

Will: Yes. But actually my overall mentality has always been pretty good, of course there were times of despair. Because I was actually preparing to allocate some other assets, some new assets for my family, and the targets were already promising. So I was also planning to gradually withdraw funds through FTX, convert them into US dollars, and then allocate them. At that time, in the dead of night, I did sometimes feel a little sorry for my family, especially my wife and children.

But overall my mentality was relatively stable. However, many people around me were worried about me, thinking that I might not be able to withstand such a huge loss. Some people even specifically notified my family and asked them to keep an eye on me, fearing that I would do something irrational.

Colin: Yes, in fact, many creditors of FTX found it difficult to accept psychologically after its bankruptcy.

Will: Yes. But I personally don’t have a strong desire for material things. In my opinion, these losses are just floating numbers. So it took me about two or three days to adjust. Then I quickly started to contact lawyers and started to protect my rights to see if there was anything else I could do.

Colin: As bond prices continue to rise, do you become more optimistic?

Will: This matter can be divided into several stages. In fact, when the bond price rose to about 50%, I thought about whether to sell it. But there were some off-market factors at that time, and the transaction was not completed in the end. When it was 50%, I started to think about it, but the price of Bitcoin had already started to rise sharply.

Colin: Well, at that time many people did want to sell their debt and buy BTC at the bottom.

Will: Yes. I have always been a person who thinks mainly in terms of currency. My mentality is that as long as I don’t have enough Bitcoin, I will feel uncomfortable. At that time, BTC rose too fast, and my mentality became a bit "leek", thinking whether it would fall back a little bit, then sell the debt, and then buy BTC. The result was indecision.

When the debt price rose to 82%, I formally contacted a British agency called Attestor, which should be one of the companies that collected the most debts in this round of FTX bankruptcy. Many people came to me at that time because I had a large amount of debt and was relatively active in the whole incident.

I have four accounts, not concentrated in one account. One of the accounts had not passed KYC at that time. The price difference between KYC passing and not passing in the market is about 5%, and some institutions are even unwilling to take over accounts that have not passed KYC. I contacted them through an intermediary, and they said they didn’t mind whether KYC was completed and they were able to handle it.

I asked for a three-week deadline in my initial contract because I wanted to redistribute my bitcoins once the funds were in hand. I am very time-sensitive and would rather not sell if the pace is slow.

As a result, an incident occurred within three weeks. I was very cautious and communicated with the agent in the Telegram group. In order to confirm whether the account that did not pass KYC would affect the quotation, I also sent an email specifically asking them to officially reply and confirm that it would not affect the price. Although the agent said OK in the group, they never replied to the email. In the end, this matter was delayed for more than three weeks, and I did not move forward with the transaction.

So this experience made me very cautious about selling debt. I think the trust cost is too high and there may be various traps. So I never sold it and have held it until now.

FTX debt repayment progress review: Chinese creditors are still excluded

Colin: So FTX has actually started to repay its debts in the past six months or so? But it seems that it only repaid small amounts of debts at the beginning, so it did not involve larger creditors like you. Can you introduce the overall debt repayment timeline?

Will: I can’t tell you the exact timeline, but I can tell you the general process. The first step is to process claims less than $50,000. When submitting a claim application, there was an option called “Quick Repayment”, which means that even if your claim exceeds $50,000, as long as you accept the quick repayment terms, he will only pay you $50,000. If your original claim is less than $50,000, it will be paid back to you directly in the first distribution. This is the first stage.

The second phase was last month, when they carried out the second distribution. This time they were able to get about 70% or 78% of the total debt, which is roughly in this range.

But the problem is that during this repayment process, Chinese creditors did not get the money. FTX explained that there is currently no suitable supplier that can complete the repayment operation for these Chinese users, and they hope that we will wait until they find a suitable supplier before processing it.

This reason is very suspicious to us Chinese creditors. Because the two original suppliers are BitGo and Kraken, and many Chinese people, including myself, usually use Kraken to process USD deposits and withdrawals. So no one can accept this explanation.

At the time, I could only comfort myself by thinking that Kraken was afraid to openly state that it would serve Chinese customers, and FTX might find a more suitable supplier? Then I would just wait, since I had waited for so many years anyway.

So my current repayment progress is these two steps. Mentally, I think this matter should not deviate too far, so let's just continue to wait.

Colin: OK, so the first wave of repayments below $50,000 did not exclude Chinese people, right?

Will: I’m not sure about that because I’m not in that group of people and I didn’t pay much attention to it at the time.

The “Restricted Jurisdiction” Initiative Reveals Institutional Injustices and Risks

Colin: So the latest development is that he has directly launched a motion. What is the specific form of this motion? What impact will it have? Can you tell us more about it?

Will: OK. The name of the motion is about implementing a "restricted jurisdiction" procedure, which is translated into Chinese. This procedure is actually divided into two steps.

The first step is that they listed about 49 countries, including China, which they considered to be "unfriendly" to cryptocurrencies. If FTX's trust directly reimbursed the creditors in these countries, their executives or lawyers might face legal risks. Therefore, they were unwilling to take this risk.

So they proposed to hire local lawyers in each "problematic country" and have them issue a legal opinion. If the lawyer believes that the cryptocurrency can be repaid to the creditors of the country, then the repayment will be made as usual; if the legal opinion believes that it cannot be repaid, then this part of the funds will not be issued to the creditors of these countries, but will be returned to the FTX Trust Fund and distributed to the remaining 95% of creditors.

Colin: To put it simply, they need to find, for example, a lawyer who is familiar with Chinese law to see whether the debt can be repaid legally. If not, then they will not pay it back and will return it to someone else, right?

Will: Yes, that's the logic. This matter has become very serious, and it is one of the reasons why I stood up and opposed this motion.

First of all, these lawyers were hired by themselves, not by us, the creditors. If the lawyers they hired issued a "no" legal opinion, then this matter would be completely out of control. As long as the court approves this motion, our fate will no longer be in our own hands.

More importantly, how can the lawyers they hire ensure fairness? After all, these lawyers serve FTX, and their goal is to represent the interests of the majority of creditors. Now we Chinese creditors have become the minority of the "5%".

I also reposted a video on Twitter yesterday, which was a speech by a person from a debt acquisition agency. He said that this motion will definitely be passed because 95% of the people are the beneficiaries, and the remaining 5% don't care. Isn't this terrible?

Colin: Well, it's unlikely that they don't care, right? Unless it's a very small number of people.

Will: Yes, but the reality is that we are indeed in the minority in terms of proportion. And they really hope that this motion will pass, because it will speed up the FTX bankruptcy process. At the same time, it is also beneficial to the original 95% of other creditors.

Detailed explanation of the legal path and operational procedures for creditors to object to motions

Colin: So what are your next steps in responding to this motion?

Will: That's right, the reason why I spoke out this time and formed a Telegram group is because we still have time to act. We can write to the judge before July 15 to express our opposition to this motion.

There are two main ways to oppose a motion: first, as an independent creditor, I can write directly to the judge to express my objection; second, I can also submit a formal objection to the judge through my lawyers in the United States and use their legal system. I am pursuing both of these paths simultaneously.

Based on my understanding of US bankruptcy law, there are several key steps that must be followed. The first is to write a letter to the judge in charge of the case, clearly stating our objections. Then this letter must be copied to the FTX Recovery Trust and their lawyers.

FTX's lawyers have two sides, one is their main law firm in New York, and the other is their local lawyer team in the bankruptcy court. In addition, because we believe that this matter has deviated from normal legal logic, we also need to copy this letter to the regulator.

So we also sent a letter to the United States Trustee (UST), which is the official regulator of U.S. bankruptcy cases. They play a supervisory role in the entire FTX bankruptcy case.

So my group members and I, including some creditors who interacted with me on Twitter, are sending these objection letters in our personal capacity. At the same time, since it is a US holiday, my long-term New York lawyer will meet with me on Monday, and I also hope that he can formally submit legal objections through the lawyer system on my behalf.

Colin: We talked about a very controversial issue before, which is that those who sold their claims are not affected by this motion because they can transfer the location of their claims, right?

Will: Yes. The motion clearly states that the institutions that have already purchased the debt will not be affected by the motion. This is clearly stated in the text of the motion.

Colin: So if we take an example, for example, there is an institution in the UK or Singapore, and I don’t even see any mention of Hong Kong in the documents, then if the debt is registered under the identity of Hong Kong, it will not be affected, right?

Will: That's right. I have an account in the name of a Hong Kong company. I am the legal representative of the company and I hold 100% of the shares. I also hold a Chinese passport, but I have not received any distribution to this account so far.

Colin: In theory, the document only restricts mainland China and Macau, right?

Will: In theory, yes. But I carefully studied the relevant legal provisions, and the criteria are actually based on "tax residency" rather than passport nationality. If it is judged based on tax residency, I should be able to get compensation because I am a tax resident of Singapore.

This issue has actually been delayed for a long time. There are many people in my Telegram group who are like me. When submitting the claims, most of us were still tax residents in mainland China, but later many of us have gone abroad, some to Canada, some to the United States, and some like me have become local tax residents in Singapore and Hong Kong, and some have even changed their passports.

Although this information, including tax forms and KYC information, can be updated, and I updated my tax forms myself, the other party still determined that I could not get compensation. This shows that there are serious loopholes in this mechanism.

The tug-of-war and choice between tax identity disputes and selling debts as a way out

Colin: Now let’s use another analogy. For example, if there is a debt acquisition company that specializes in handling tax issues and it buys the debt from you, can they get compensation smoothly?

Will: Yes. They can. In fact, after this motion was issued, three companies of this type contacted me. So I felt that this matter became very, very unfair and unjust.

Colin: What is the approximate range of their quotations? What price can they offer?

Will: Because this is a relatively large debt, the quote given by someone before was between 120% and 130%.

Colin: Actually, this price is quite good.

Will: Yes, theoretically this can be the last resort.

Colin: But are you worried that one day even this path will be blocked? Or that they will also be restricted?

Will: I am worried. How can I not be worried? After all, it is not a small amount of money. I am also a normal person. But I am a bit stubborn. I think I will not easily make concessions until the last step. Of course, it does not mean that I will never make concessions. I just think that this matter is too unreasonable from the perspective of a science and engineering man like me. Moreover, my wife is a lawyer, and there are many lawyers around me. They all think that this matter is problematic.

Colin: Yes, you still think there is room for this matter, and it is not completely without chance.

Will: I can’t say I’m 100% sure. But I think as long as they still have some legal awareness, this motion should not be pushed forward so easily.

Colin: If it is normal compensation, can you be compensated about 150% now?

Will: The calculation method is actually quite simple. First, the original amount of your debt, if calculated in USDT, theoretically you can get back 100%. Of course, if you hold BTC, you will definitely lose money, because they calculate it based on a price of $16,500 per coin, which is definitely much lower than the current price.

I also had a lot of USDT in my holdings at the time, so I could get the full amount of USDT, which was 100% of the base amount. Then they would also calculate interest based on time, at 9% per year. In other words, starting from the time of bankruptcy, when the case is finally closed, you will be given the accumulated interest over the past few years.

So now everyone generally believes that it is relatively stable to get around 140-130% in the end.

Colin: Actually the final difference is not that big, only about 10%.

Will: But there is another key point here, which is information asymmetry. They still have a lot of assets that have not been recovered, and there are many lawsuits still in progress. The potential recovery amount here is actually not small. This is why many institutions are now very actively acquiring FTX's debt.

Because in the current global financial environment, an annualized return of 9% is very attractive in itself, and this debt also comes with additional potential returns. Moreover, as a financial asset, it is actually very high-quality.

Colin: Does this mean that even if you have the compensation for the debt in your hands now, you may not be able to receive it all immediately? You can choose to wait, right?

Will: That's not the case. They pay in installments. Now they are only paying part of it first, and the subsequent compensation may take a long time, but no matter how long it takes, they promise to compensate you with an annualized interest rate of 9%.

Therefore, for traditional financial institutions or debt acquisition companies, this asset package is very attractive. It not only has stable returns, but also has room for growth in time value.

Colin: You just said that the compensation this time is 70%, right?

Will: 70% or 78%. But the 90% they mentioned is an estimate from the overall recycling perspective.

Creditor differentiation and institutional fairness doubts, stablecoin compensation legal disputes escalate

Colin: What about the creditors around you? I see you have a group with hundreds of people. Have most of them chosen not to sell, or have they already sold their claims?

Will: Now it can be divided into several categories. In my group, the active ones are basically those who have not sold. Everyone is actively writing letters, speaking out, and resisting. These people have chosen to continue holding their debts. However, there are also some people, especially after the release of this motion, who have chosen to sell. They originally held, but after this motion came out, many people were obviously forced to start selling their debts.

Colin: Do you suspect that there is some internal communication or special relationship between these debt collection agencies and FTX officials?

Will: Of course I doubt it, and I also mentioned this clearly in the letter I wrote to the judge. Because I think this phenomenon is very unreasonable. You see, my claim is 5A level. According to the US bankruptcy law, claims of the same category, regardless of the nationality or jurisdiction of the holder, should theoretically enjoy the same compensation rights.

But now it has become that after I sell the debt to the creditor company, they can get compensation, but I can't if I hold it myself. Is this reasonable? That's why I firmly stand up to oppose this motion.

I read the original text of the motion, and the arguments in it are totally untenable. First of all, we must make it clear that the current debt is essentially US dollar debt, not calculated using the currency standard.

Colin: The final compensation to you was actually in US dollars, right?

Will: Yes, it was also in US dollars. But FTX proposed during the process that because its business coverage is so wide, using stablecoins for compensation is a more "convenient" way. The court also approved this at the time. In fact, the SEC also questioned the use of stablecoins for payment, but in the end, most people, including our Chinese creditors, expressed understanding and acceptance. After all, it is very convenient for cryptocurrency users to use stablecoins.

The problem is that FTX suddenly reversed its stance and said that it cannot compensate Chinese users due to the regulation of virtual currencies. This does not make sense to me. First of all, you are a US dollar debt. Secondly, there are so many trade exchanges between China and the United States, and there have been many cross-border bankruptcies. No company has ever refused to compensate Chinese creditors because of the so-called "foreign exchange control". Only FTX has made such a motion this time.

Colin: Well, but if we are to be realistic, China’s legal definitions of stablecoins and cryptocurrencies are indeed vague, and there may be some obstacles.

Will: I agree with this. But I want to emphasize that the legal basis cited by FTX in their motion is actually very far-fetched. They cited an announcement jointly issued by relevant Chinese regulatory authorities when ICOs were popular in 2017. The original text only said that financial institutions, payment institutions, and banks are not allowed to participate in token issuance and related services.

However, FTX, through the Macau version, extended this content to mean that "China does not support virtual currencies" and used this as the legal basis for not providing compensation. I think this way of quoting itself has serious problems.

Analysis on the rationality of foreign exchange control disputes and alternative paths for overseas accounts

Colin: But to be honest, China did introduce some new regulations later, which do not allow Chinese institutions to participate in virtual currency-related activities. If he wants to strictly interpret these provisions, he may be able to find some legal basis.

Will: Yes, I agree. But I think that, overall, those legal provisions are mostly restrictive to trading activities, such as prohibiting private fundraising and private placement, but they do not clearly stipulate that it is illegal for Chinese citizens to hold virtual currency assets. I have read all these provisions carefully.

Colin: But what about the payment process? He may think that the payment path is restricted, making it impossible to pay the compensation.

Will: If the problem is that the payment path is inoperable, why not use a US dollar wire transfer? You can't deprive me of my right to property just because the payment method is inconvenient.

Colin: Does China still have foreign exchange controls? Could this also be a problem?

Will: I don't think this question is valid. Other countries also have foreign exchange controls, such as South Korea, and their creditors still received compensation. And foreign exchange controls only occur when funds enter mainland China and need to be converted into RMB. If I have a bank account in Hong Kong or Singapore and receive US dollar wire transfers through these accounts, this does not involve foreign exchange issues at all.

Colin: Yes, it seems feasible if it is operated by a compliant organization like HashKey or OSL.

Will: Yes, and we don’t need to go through an exchange at all. We can just use traditional bank wire transfers. As long as I provide a bank account, even if it is not in mainland China, there will be no foreign exchange restrictions. If there is a problem, I can also file taxes normally according to Chinese law. This is completely different from the generally understood "foreign exchange control".

Colin: But the reality is that China is indeed more complicated in terms of procedures. For example, when it comes to paying taxes, who do you have to pay to? This is very troublesome in itself.

Will: But if you look at the same series of cases as FTX, there is another similar case, which eventually compensated Chinese creditors, and it was completed through US dollar wire transfer. That was a US company, heard by the Southern District Court, and it belongs to the same series of cases as FTX.

Colin: Then this may serve as a basis for rebuttal or reference.

Will: In addition, there is also the Mt. Gox compensation case, which also involved Chinese users. And they compensated in Bitcoin. Of course, that case was decided by a Japanese court.

Colin: Different judicial systems may have different views. Especially in China, this aspect is indeed quite vague.

Will: So I think that there are serious problems with FTX’s motion. Even if the compensation path is a little more complicated, it cannot deprive us of our legal assets.

Will：In fact, I don’t think it needs to be that complicated. Let’s go back to the core point - this is a US dollar bond, and stablecoins are just one of the payment methods. They can pay with traditional bank wire transfers. As long as I have a Hong Kong bank account, I can receive the money without going through an exchange. So the direction of the whole motion is wrong, and its original intention and possible consequences are both out of common sense.

As the motion hearing approaches, creditors step up their opposition

Colin: I think we have already discussed the whole process very clearly. The next step is that he has formally submitted the motion, and the next step is for the judge to hear the case, right? When will this be?

Will: July 22nd.

Colin: That is to say, the judge will decide whether to approve the motion at that time. If approved, they will then go to relevant lawyers, such as local Chinese lawyers, to confirm the relevant legal issues.

Will: Yes. After finding a lawyer, we will have 45 days to find a lawyer and submit an objection. For example, if I want to oppose this motion now, I can prepare the materials and put forward my legal opinion within these 45 days.

Colin: So it will still be a long and arduous process.

Will: Yes, I am not afraid of the length of time. What really makes me feel urgent is now - because the time is very tight. We must submit objections before July 15, otherwise we will not even be eligible to object.

Most of our Chinese creditors do not have lawyers. I have a lawyer, but most people in the group do not have lawyers. It is very difficult to submit documents through the US electronic system in such a short time. You also need to find a lawyer, sign a contract, and prepare materials. These processes are very time-consuming.

So our main strategy at the moment is to send letters. But a letter sent from mainland China will take three or four days or even longer to be received in the United States, plus we have to send copies to four institutions, so time is very tight. So I have recently started to do some intensive output, sharing the information I have sorted out with everyone so that they can refer to it and take action.