The wind of rights protection has finally reached the cryptocurrency circle
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
The wind of rights protection has finally reached the cryptocurrency circle
From NFTs to cryptocurrencies, users'维权思路 (awareness of rights protection) hasn't changed, but the market environment has undergone significant changes.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: Liu Honglin
There was a time when, in China, running an NFT digital collectibles business wasn't primarily challenged by compliance, fundraising, or traffic—what troubled founders most was user-driven claims for compensation.
Buyers who just spent thousands of yuan on a "digital artwork" would come knocking as soon as prices dropped, demanding refunds. If the platform failed, they expected their money back at full price. If refused, they’d report the project to local market regulators, petition offices, or police stations, accusing it of violating national policies by using blockchain or conducting illegal fundraising through “little pictures.” This made life extremely difficult for many NFT and digital collectible platforms.
But times change. Crypto project teams that once watched from afar, believing they were safe behind a formula of “token issuance + offshore operations,” are now finding this wave of “user claims” reaching them too. On social media, incidents of users demanding recourse have become increasingly common. The logic is nearly identical: if the price goes up, it's the user’s skill; if it crashes, it’s the project team pulling a rug.
The reality, however, is that due to the unique nature of cryptocurrency and the difficulty of cross-border legal action, achieving justice is far from easy.
Why Is Cryptocurrency Recovery So Difficult?
To pursue legal recourse, three basic conditions must be met: a case that can be filed, someone to hold accountable, and recoverable assets. In traditional financial markets, investors facing unfair treatment can at least seek redress through lawsuits or regulatory complaints. But in the cryptocurrency space, nearly every step involves legal uncertainty, making user recovery efforts exceptionally challenging.
First, cross-border litigation is costly—often unaffordable for individual users.
The majority of crypto projects register in offshore jurisdictions such as the British Virgin Islands (BVI), Cayman Islands, Seychelles, or Singapore. These locations offer streamlined company registration and light regulation—ideal for Web3 startups—but pose major hurdles for users seeking legal recourse. Filing a lawsuit means navigating unfamiliar legal systems and complex international procedures.
Take BVI as an example: suing a BVI-registered company requires hiring local counsel and paying substantial upfront fees—typically tens of thousands, sometimes over $100,000 USD. Even if users win the case after investing time and money, enforcement remains a serious issue. If the project’s assets aren’t held in BVI but instead in blockchain wallets or moved overseas, court rulings may be impossible to enforce. Cross-border litigation thus becomes a high-stakes gamble—winning doesn’t guarantee getting your money back.
Second, the decentralized nature of digital assets makes asset recovery extremely difficult.
In traditional finance, bank and securities accounts are real-name registered, allowing courts to freeze assets and enforce judgments. But in crypto, project teams only need a decentralized wallet address to move funds anywhere instantly—even into unregulated DeFi protocols. Worse, some projects lack any formal corporate entity, and team members remain anonymous, leaving users unsure who to sue.
DeFi and DAO projects exemplify this problem. Users invest in DeFi protocols, suffer losses from hacks or malicious actions, yet find no legal path forward. Smart contracts are open-source, and users typically accept all risks upon usage. Disclaimers often state explicitly: “We assume no liability for any losses.” As for DAO-governed projects, users might vote in governance forums to demand compensation, but such requests usually go nowhere.
Third, unclear legal boundaries mean many cases lack solid legal grounds.
Different countries classify cryptocurrencies differently. In the U.S., the SEC tends to treat most tokens as securities, subjecting them to securities laws. In contrast, Singapore’s MAS takes a more open approach toward compliant token offerings. In China, authorities outright deny crypto’s legal status, meaning courts may dismiss lawsuits on the grounds that “the matter violates policy and falls outside legal protection.”
This forces many Chinese users to turn to lawyers in Hong Kong or Singapore, hoping to use foreign legal systems to recover losses. However, even where local laws support claims, proceedings can drag on for years—by which time project teams may have rebranded or laundered funds, leaving users stuck with sunk costs and lost time.
Project Teams’ Compliance Strategies: Proactive Measures to Reduce Disputes
Facing this rising tide of claims, more project teams are adjusting strategies to reduce legal risks and minimize user disputes. Based on cases over the past year, key approaches include:
First, registering traceable legal entities to provide a “legal exit.” Many early Web3 projects operated anonymously without formal companies, thinking this shielded them from liability. Now, an increasing number are incorporating in places like Hong Kong, Singapore, or Dubai—and some even pursuing basic financial licenses. This isn’t just about compliance; it gives users a clear party to complain to, preventing public backlash that could destroy brand reputation.
Second, improving project structure and transparency to reduce “rug pull” suspicions. Early emphasis on “decentralization” often led to chaotic operations and unclear accountability. More mature projects now bring in legal advisors and build clearer governance frameworks—using foundation models, locking funds via smart contracts, or introducing vesting schedules to demonstrate long-term commitment. Some leading DeFi protocols have even launched “insurance mechanisms,” offering partial compensation during protocol failures to reduce conflict.
Finally, embedding legal defenses in documentation to limit users’ ability to sue. Many projects now include mandatory arbitration clauses in user agreements and whitepapers, requiring disputes to go through specific international arbitration bodies rather than regular courts. While seemingly minor, this tactic heavily disadvantages users. Arbitration is often more expensive than litigation, and rulings may not be enforceable globally—effectively blocking users from meaningful legal recourse.
ManQin Law Firm Summary
From NFTs to cryptocurrency, users’ desire for recourse hasn’t changed—but the landscape has. In China, NFT platforms usually have identifiable operators, allowing users to file complaints with regulators or courts. But the decentralized, cross-border nature of crypto makes such actions far harder.
For now, retail investors in crypto face a tough reality: high costs, low success rates, and poor enforcement. Stronger regulation may one day bring a more robust legal framework. But in the short term, recovery will only get harder. Savvy project teams are already adapting—proactively mitigating legal risks. For users, the most practical advice remains: do thorough due diligence before investing. Prioritize projects with transparent governance and compliance awareness—rather than waiting until after losses occur to seek justice.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
