Yearly $10M Loss in Revenue Triggers Governance Dispute, Aave Labs Accused of 'DAO Treachery'

By: blockbeats|2025/12/15 15:30:04
0
Share
copy
Original Article Title: Who Owns 'Aave': Aave Labs vs Aave DAO
Original Article Author: Ignas, Crypto KOL
Original Article Translation: Felix, PANews

Recently, Aave Labs and Aave DAO engaged in a heated debate surrounding the fee allocation issue stemming from the CoWSwap integration. This debate has also been seen by the community as a potential crisis in DeFi governance. The author of this article interprets this debate from a neutral perspective, and the following details the content.

On December 4th, the lending protocol Aave Labs switched the default exchange integration of its front-end interface aave.com from ParaSwap to CoWSwap. While this may seem like a minor product update, it actually exposed a deep-seated conflict within Aave.

This conflict is not about CowSwap, fees, or user experience, but about ownership. Specifically, it is about who controls Aave, who decides on allocation, and who captures the value created around the protocol.

In the previous setup, the exchange feature primarily served the purpose of user retention:

Users could rearrange or exchange assets without leaving the Aave interface. Importantly, all referral fees or positive slippage surplus fees were redistributed as revenue to the Aave DAO treasury.

CowSwap's integration changed this dynamic.

According to Aave's documentation, exchanges now incur a fee of approximately 15 to 25 basis points. Orbit on behalf of EzR3aL (Note: a senior governance participant of Aave DAO and an independent delegate) investigated the destination of these fees and concluded: these fees no longer flow into the DAO treasury but instead into an address controlled by Aave Labs.

"Assuming a mere 200,000 USD is transferred weekly, the DAO loses at least 10 million USD per year." — EzR3aL

Did Aave Labs unilaterally sever the DAO's revenue source and transfer it to a private company?

Aave has successfully operated over the years because despite the blurred lines of responsibilities, all parties' interests remained aligned.

· DAO Governance Protocol

· Aave Labs Building Frontend Interface

Funds mostly flowed in one direction, so nobody paid much attention to defining the issue.

But now, it seems this tacit coordination has been broken.

As Aave founder and CEO Stani.eth wrote:

· "At the time, Aave Labs decided to donate to the Aave DAO in those cases (funds that could also be returned to users)"

Aave Labs' response: "The protocol and the product are different concepts."

A response from Aave Labs on the forum:

· "The frontend interface is operated by Aave Labs, entirely independent from the protocol and DAO management."

· "The frontend interface is a product, not a protocol component."

From their perspective, this is normal. Running a frontend requires funds, security requires funds, and support also requires funds.

The surplus from Paraswap flowing to the DAO is not a permanent rule. There is no precedent to follow.

ACI (a service provider serving the Aave DAO) and its founder Marc Zeller believe this is an issue of trust.

"Every service provider on the Aave DAO payroll has a mandatory fiduciary obligation to the DAO, and thus to the best interest of AAVE token holders." —Marc Zeller in a forum comment.

He believes there was an understanding: the DAO lends its brand and intellectual property, so the frontend's profits should also belong to the DAO. "It seems we have been fooled for a long time, thinking this was a given."

Marc Zeller also claims that the DAO has lost income, and routing decisions could push volume to competitors, resulting in Aave DAO losing about 10% of potential income.

Protocol vs. Product

Aave Labs has drawn a clear line between protocol and product.

The DAO manages the protocol and its on-chain economy. Aave Labs operates the frontend interface as an independent product with its own vision.

Just as explained by the Aave founder in this tweet:

· Aave Labs' frontend interface is a product that fully embodies our own principles, which we have been developing for over 8 years, similar to other interfaces using the Aave protocol, such as DeFi Saver.

· It is completely reasonable for Aave Labs to profit from its product, especially since it does not touch the protocol itself, and given the ByBit security incident, this ensures secure access to the protocol.

The Aave DAO does not own intellectual property rights because a DAO is not a legal entity and cannot hold trademarks or enforce them in court.

Yearly src=

The DAO manages the smart contracts and on-chain parameters of the Aave protocol, but does not manage the brand itself.

However, the DAO has been granted a license to use the Aave brand and visual identity for protocol-related purposes. Past governance proposals have explicitly granted the DAO broad rights to use the visual identity for "the benefit of the Aave protocol, Aave ecosystem, and Aave DAO."

Source: Aave

As EzR3aL puts it:

"The reason why charging this fee is feasible is because the Aave brand is well-known and accepted in the ecosystem. This is the brand that the Aave DAO paid for."

The value of the Aave brand does not originate from a logo.

Its value comes from:

· The DAO prudently managing risk

· Token holders bearing protocol risk

· The DAO paying fees to service providers

· The DAO surviving multiple crises without collapsing

· The protocol earning a reputation for being secure and reliable

This is what EzR3aL refers to as the "brand that the DAO paid for."

It's not a legal sense of payment, but an economic sense of payment, involving funds, governance, risk, and time.

Does this sound familiar?

Once again, it came back to the issue of Uniswap Labs and the Foundation regarding a similar matter about Uniswap's front-end fee. Ultimately, Uniswap restructured the equity and tokenholder rights, completely eliminating the front-end fee.

This is why the Equity/DAO dynamic can be harmful (as I discovered from the Telegram group chat).

The content in the image is as follows:

“The Equity issued a token and distributed these tokens to themselves and others. If the DAO generates a profit, Equity can receive a share of the profit through the tokens it holds in the DAO.

· However, Equity does not bear the product's losses, which are borne by the DAO.

· Equity also does not manage risk; risk management is the responsibility of the DAO.

Users do not directly interact with the ‘contract’ but with a specific implementation version that has specific risk parameters and liquidity tied to that specific implementation.

If Equity wants to earn additional returns beyond the profit generated from the tokens it initially minted and distributed to itself, everyone agrees it is free to develop a standalone product to provide services to users, just like DeFi Saver is a standalone product that charges for its unique services.

Access to a product should not be restricted to a single front end.”

At the time of writing, Aave Labs only acknowledged the critics' viewpoint on communication.

· What is genuinely valid criticism here is the communication or rather lack thereof.

Things were complicated enough, and now they are even worse.

Aave Labs proposed Horizon as a dedicated RWA instance.

Initially, the proposal included something that immediately raised concerns within the DAO: a new token with a diminishing profit share.

Representatives of various factions strongly opposed this (including the author), believing that introducing a separate token would dilute AAVE's value proposition and disrupt consensus.

The DAO emerged victorious, and Aave Labs was forced to concede. The new token plan was scrapped.

But this has sparked even greater division.

Despite numerous concerns (one of which specifically points out the clear responsibilities of Aave Labs versus the DAO), Horizon still went live. This was the most controversial vote to win.

I voted against deployment, advocating for a friendly agreement to avoid future conflict escalation. And that is exactly the current situation. The economic issue rapidly became the focal point of the conflict.

According to data cited by Marc Zeller, so far, Horizon has generated about $100,000 in total revenue, while the Aave DAO has put in $500,000 of incentive funds, making its net assets approximately -$400,000.

And this is not even taking into account other factors.

Marc also points out that tens of millions of GHO tokens have been invested in Horizon, but the earnings are insufficient to cover the costs required to maintain the GHO pegged price.

If these opportunity costs are factored in, the DAO's true economic situation could be even worse.

This prompted ACI to raise an issue beyond Horizon itself:

If a project funded by a DAO has directly poor economic performance, is that the whole story?

Or, are there additional benefits, integration fees, or off-chain arrangements that token holders are not seeing?

Over the years, deployments and plans proposed by various Labs have ultimately led to the DAO's costs exceeding its returns.

A few days after Aave Labs proposed a DAO motion to deploy Aave V3 on MegaETH, discussions on the matter ensued.

In return, "Aave Labs will receive 30 million points from MegaETH."

Then, "These points may be distributed as incentives on the Aave V3 MegaETH market following Aave DAO's GTM strategy."

The issue lies in the transparency and ensuring that incentives are distributed as agreed upon when a product is operated by a private entity using DAO-backed assets.

Source: Aave

The surprising aspect of this proposal has another reason:

The Aave DAO has collaborated with multiple service providers, especially ACI, proposing deployment on MegaETH as early as March. Relevant discussions are still ongoing.

Source: Aave

As Marc commented on the forum:

“During the discussion, we were very surprised to find that Aave Labs decided to bypass all precedents, abandon all ongoing progress, and reach out directly to MegaETH. We only learned of this when the proposal was posted on the forum.”

Treasury

Another part of this debate concerns the Aave Treasury.

The Aave Treasury is an application-level product built and funded by Aave Labs. Technically, they are ERC-4626 Treasury Wrappers built on top of the Aave protocol to abstract position management for users.

Stani explained this very clearly:

“The Aave Treasury is just a 4626 Treasury Wrapper built and funded by Aave Labs.”

From the perspective of Aave Labs, this should not be controversial.

The Treasuries are not protocol components. They do not affect the protocol's revenue.

They are optional, and users can always interact directly with the Aave markets or use third-party Treasuries.

· “For Aave V4, this Treasury is not mandatory… Users can interact with Aave V4 directly through Hubs.”

And since Treasuries are products, Aave Labs believes they are entitled to profit from them.

· “Aave Labs profiting from their products is entirely fine, especially since they do not involve the protocol itself.”

So why was the Treasury involved in this dispute?

The reason lies in the distribution channel.

If the Treasury becomes the default user experience of Aave V4, then a Labs-owned, Aave-branded product could serve as a bridge between users and the protocol, leveraging the reputation, liquidity, and trust built on the DAO to collect transaction fees.

Despite the increasing adoption of Aave's products, the AAVE token would still be impacted.

Once again, the author believes this issue falls into the same category as the dispute between Uniswap Labs and the Foundation regarding front-end products.

In summary, CowSwap, Horizon, MegaETH, and Aave Vaults all face the same issue.

Aave Labs sees itself as an independent builder, operating a subjective product on a neutral protocol.

The DAO increasingly perceives that the protocol's value is being realized beyond its direct control.

The Aave DAO does not own intellectual property, but it is authorized to use the Aave brand and visual identity for protocol-related purposes.

This dispute is crucial because the upcoming Aave v4 release is explicitly aimed at shifting complexity from the user side to the abstraction layer.

More routes, more automation, and more products between users and the core protocol.

More abstraction means more control over user experience, and user experience control is crucial for value creation/extraction.

This article strives to remain neutral. However, it is hoped that consensus can be reached regarding value capture for $AAVE token holders.

The consensus the author hopes to achieve is not only beneficial for Aave itself but also because Aave has set an important precedent for how equity and tokens can coexist.

Uniswap Labs has already gone through this process, ultimately benefiting $UNI holders.

Aave should do the same.

Original Article Link

You may also like

Token Cannot Compound, Where Is the Real Investment Opportunity?

The next chapter in the crypto industry will undoubtedly be written by Crypto-empowered Stocks.

February 6th Market Key Intelligence, How Much Did You Miss?

1. On-chain Flows: $508.2M USD inflow to Ethereum today; $390.8M USD outflow from Arbitrum 2. Biggest Gainers/Losers: $HBTC, $AIO 3. Top News: Current Bitcoin weekly RSI oversold signal comparable to June 2022

China's Central Bank and Eight Other Departments' Latest Regulatory Focus: Key Attention to RWA Tokenized Asset Risk


Foreword: Today, the People's Bank of China's website published the "Notice of the People's Bank of China, National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Ministry of Public Security, State Administration for Market Regulation, China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, China Securities Regulatory Commission, State Administration of Foreign Exchange on Further Preventing and Dealing with Risks Related to Virtual Currency and Others (Yinfa [2026] No. 42)", the latest regulatory requirements from the eight departments including the central bank, which are basically consistent with the regulatory requirements of recent years. The main focus of the regulation is on speculative activities such as virtual currency trading, exchanges, ICOs, overseas platform services, and this time, regulatory oversight of RWA has been added, explicitly prohibiting RWA tokenization, stablecoins (especially those pegged to the RMB). The following is the full text:


To the people's governments of all provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government, the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps:


  Recently, there have been speculative activities related to virtual currency and Real-World Assets (RWA) tokenization, disrupting the economic and financial order and jeopardizing the property security of the people. In order to further prevent and address the risks related to virtual currency and Real-World Assets tokenization, effectively safeguard national security and social stability, in accordance with the "Law of the People's Republic of China on the People's Bank of China," "Law of the People's Republic of China on Commercial Banks," "Securities Law of the People's Republic of China," "Law of the People's Republic of China on Securities Investment Funds," "Law of the People's Republic of China on Futures and Derivatives," "Cybersecurity Law of the People's Republic of China," "Regulations of the People's Republic of China on the Administration of Renminbi," "Regulations on Prevention and Disposal of Illegal Fundraising," "Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Foreign Exchange Administration," "Telecommunications Regulations of the People's Republic of China," and other provisions, after reaching consensus with the Cyberspace Administration of China, the Supreme People's Court, and the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and with the approval of the State Council, the relevant matters are notified as follows:


  I. Clarify the essential attributes of virtual currency, Real-World Assets tokenization, and related business activities


  (I) Virtual currency does not possess the legal status equivalent to fiat currency. Virtual currencies such as Bitcoin, Ether, Tether, etc., have the main characteristics of being issued by non-monetary authorities, using encryption technology and distributed ledger or similar technology, existing in digital form, etc. They do not have legal tender status, should not and cannot be circulated and used as currency in the market.


  The business activities related to virtual currency are classified as illegal financial activities. The exchange of fiat currency and virtual currency within the territory, exchange of virtual currencies, acting as a central counterparty in buying and selling virtual currencies, providing information intermediary and pricing services for virtual currency transactions, token issuance financing, and trading of virtual currency-related financial products, etc., fall under illegal financial activities, such as suspected illegal issuance of token vouchers, unauthorized public issuance of securities, illegal operation of securities and futures business, illegal fundraising, etc., are strictly prohibited across the board and resolutely banned in accordance with the law. Overseas entities and individuals are not allowed to provide virtual currency-related services to domestic entities in any form.


  A stablecoin pegged to a fiat currency indirectly fulfills some functions of the fiat currency in circulation. Without the consent of relevant authorities in accordance with the law and regulations, any domestic or foreign entity or individual is not allowed to issue a RMB-pegged stablecoin overseas.


(II)Tokenization of Real-World Assets refers to the use of encryption technology and distributed ledger or similar technologies to transform ownership rights, income rights, etc., of assets into tokens (tokens) or other interests or bond certificates with token (token) characteristics, and carry out issuance and trading activities.


  Engaging in the tokenization of real-world assets domestically, as well as providing related intermediary, information technology services, etc., which are suspected of illegal issuance of token vouchers, unauthorized public offering of securities, illegal operation of securities and futures business, illegal fundraising, and other illegal financial activities, shall be prohibited; except for relevant business activities carried out with the approval of the competent authorities in accordance with the law and regulations and relying on specific financial infrastructures. Overseas entities and individuals are not allowed to illegally provide services related to the tokenization of real-world assets to domestic entities in any form.


  II. Sound Work Mechanism


  (III) Inter-agency Coordination. The People's Bank of China, together with the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Public Security, the State Administration for Market Regulation, the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange, and other departments, will improve the work mechanism, strengthen coordination with the Cyberspace Administration of China, the Supreme People's Court, and the Supreme People's Procuratorate, coordinate efforts, and overall guide regions to carry out risk prevention and disposal of virtual currency-related illegal financial activities.


  The China Securities Regulatory Commission, together with the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Public Security, the People's Bank of China, the State Administration for Market Regulation, the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange, and other departments, will improve the work mechanism, strengthen coordination with the Cyberspace Administration of China, the Supreme People's Court, and the Supreme People's Procuratorate, coordinate efforts, and overall guide regions to carry out risk prevention and disposal of illegal financial activities related to the tokenization of real-world assets.


  (IV) Strengthening Local Implementation. The people's governments at the provincial level are overall responsible for the prevention and disposal of risks related to virtual currencies and the tokenization of real-world assets in their respective administrative regions. The specific leading department is the local financial regulatory department, with participation from branches and dispatched institutions of the State Council's financial regulatory department, telecommunications regulators, public security, market supervision, and other departments, in coordination with cyberspace departments, courts, and procuratorates, to improve the normalization of the work mechanism, effectively connect with the relevant work mechanisms of central departments, form a cooperative and coordinated working pattern between central and local governments, effectively prevent and properly handle risks related to virtual currencies and the tokenization of real-world assets, and maintain economic and financial order and social stability.


  III. Strengthened Risk Monitoring, Prevention, and Disposal


  (5) Enhanced Risk Monitoring. The People's Bank of China, China Securities Regulatory Commission, National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Ministry of Public Security, State Administration of Foreign Exchange, Cyberspace Administration of China, and other departments continue to improve monitoring techniques and system support, enhance cross-departmental data analysis and sharing, establish sound information sharing and cross-validation mechanisms, promptly grasp the risk situation of activities related to virtual currency and real-world asset tokenization. Local governments at all levels give full play to the role of local monitoring and early warning mechanisms. Local financial regulatory authorities, together with branches and agencies of the State Council's financial regulatory authorities, as well as departments of cyberspace and public security, ensure effective connection between online monitoring, offline investigation, and fund tracking, efficiently and accurately identify activities related to virtual currency and real-world asset tokenization, promptly share risk information, improve early warning information dissemination, verification, and rapid response mechanisms.


  (6) Strengthened Oversight of Financial Institutions, Intermediaries, and Technology Service Providers. Financial institutions (including non-bank payment institutions) are prohibited from providing account opening, fund transfer, and clearing services for virtual currency-related business activities, issuing and selling financial products related to virtual currency, including virtual currency and related financial products in the scope of collateral, conducting insurance business related to virtual currency, or including virtual currency in the scope of insurance liability. Financial institutions (including non-bank payment institutions) are prohibited from providing custody, clearing, and settlement services for unauthorized real-world asset tokenization-related business and related financial products. Relevant intermediary institutions and information technology service providers are prohibited from providing intermediary, technical, or other services for unauthorized real-world asset tokenization-related businesses and related financial products.


  (7) Enhanced Management of Internet Information Content and Access. Internet enterprises are prohibited from providing online business venues, commercial displays, marketing, advertising, or paid traffic diversion services for virtual currency and real-world asset tokenization-related business activities. Upon discovering clues of illegal activities, they should promptly report to relevant departments and provide technical support and assistance for related investigations and inquiries. Based on the clues transferred by the financial regulatory authorities, the cyberspace administration, telecommunications authorities, and public security departments should promptly close and deal with websites, mobile applications (including mini-programs), and public accounts engaged in virtual currency and real-world asset tokenization-related business activities in accordance with the law.


  (8) Strengthened Entity Registration and Advertisement Management. Market supervision departments strengthen entity registration and management, and enterprise and individual business registrations must not contain terms such as "virtual currency," "virtual asset," "cryptocurrency," "crypto asset," "stablecoin," "real-world asset tokenization," or "RWA" in their names or business scopes. Market supervision departments, together with financial regulatory authorities, legally enhance the supervision of advertisements related to virtual currency and real-world asset tokenization, promptly investigating and handling relevant illegal advertisements.


  (IX) Continued Rectification of Virtual Currency Mining Activities. The National Development and Reform Commission, together with relevant departments, strictly controls virtual currency mining activities, continuously promotes the rectification of virtual currency mining activities. The people's governments of various provinces take overall responsibility for the rectification of "mining" within their respective administrative regions. In accordance with the requirements of the National Development and Reform Commission and other departments in the "Notice on the Rectification of Virtual Currency Mining Activities" (NDRC Energy-saving Building [2021] No. 1283) and the provisions of the "Guidance Catalog for Industrial Structure Adjustment (2024 Edition)," a comprehensive review, investigation, and closure of existing virtual currency mining projects are conducted, new mining projects are strictly prohibited, and mining machine production enterprises are strictly prohibited from providing mining machine sales and other services within the country.


  (X) Severe Crackdown on Related Illegal Financial Activities. Upon discovering clues to illegal financial activities related to virtual currency and the tokenization of real-world assets, local financial regulatory authorities, branches of the State Council's financial regulatory authorities, and other relevant departments promptly investigate, determine, and properly handle the issues in accordance with the law, and seriously hold the relevant entities and individuals legally responsible. Those suspected of crimes are transferred to the judicial authorities for processing according to the law.


 (XI) Severe Crackdown on Related Illegal and Criminal Activities. The Ministry of Public Security, the People's Bank of China, the State Administration for Market Regulation, the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, as well as judicial and procuratorial organs, in accordance with their respective responsibilities, rigorously crack down on illegal and criminal activities related to virtual currency, the tokenization of real-world assets, such as fraud, money laundering, illegal business operations, pyramid schemes, illegal fundraising, and other illegal and criminal activities carried out under the guise of virtual currency, the tokenization of real-world assets, etc.


  (XII) Strengthen Industry Self-discipline. Relevant industry associations should enhance membership management and policy advocacy, based on their own responsibilities, advocate and urge member units to resist illegal financial activities related to virtual currency and the tokenization of real-world assets. Member units that violate regulatory policies and industry self-discipline rules are to be disciplined in accordance with relevant self-regulatory management regulations. By leveraging various industry infrastructure, conduct risk monitoring related to virtual currency, the tokenization of real-world assets, and promptly transfer issue clues to relevant departments.


  IV. Strict Supervision of Domestic Entities Engaging in Overseas Business Activities


(XIII) Without the approval of relevant departments in accordance with the law and regulations, domestic entities and foreign entities controlled by them may not issue virtual currency overseas.


  (XIV) Domestic entities engaging directly or indirectly in overseas external debt-based tokenization of real-world assets, or conducting asset securitization activities abroad based on domestic ownership rights, income rights, etc. (hereinafter referred to as domestic equity), should be strictly regulated in accordance with the principles of "same business, same risk, same rules." The National Development and Reform Commission, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange, and other relevant departments regulate it according to their respective responsibilities. For other forms of overseas real-world asset tokenization activities based on domestic equity by domestic entities, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, together with relevant departments, supervise according to their division of responsibilities. Without the consent and filing of relevant departments, no unit or individual may engage in the above-mentioned business.


  (15) Overseas subsidiaries and branches of domestic financial institutions providing Real World Asset Tokenization-related services overseas shall do so legally and prudently. They shall have professional personnel and systems in place to effectively mitigate business risks, strictly implement customer onboarding, suitability management, anti-money laundering requirements, and incorporate them into the domestic financial institutions' compliance and risk management system. Intermediaries and information technology service providers offering Real World Asset Tokenization services abroad based on domestic equity or conducting Real World Asset Tokenization business in the form of overseas debt for domestic entities directly or indirectly venturing abroad must strictly comply with relevant laws and regulations. They should establish and improve relevant compliance and internal control systems in accordance with relevant normative requirements, strengthen business and risk control, and report the business developments to the relevant regulatory authorities for approval or filing.


  V. Strengthen Organizational Implementation


  (16) Strengthen organizational leadership and overall coordination. All departments and regions should attach great importance to the prevention of risks related to virtual currencies and Real World Asset Tokenization, strengthen organizational leadership, clarify work responsibilities, form a long-term effective working mechanism with centralized coordination, local implementation, and shared responsibilities, maintain high pressure, dynamically monitor risks, effectively prevent and mitigate risks in an orderly and efficient manner, legally protect the property security of the people, and make every effort to maintain economic and financial order and social stability.


  (17) Widely carry out publicity and education. All departments, regions, and industry associations should make full use of various media and other communication channels to disseminate information through legal and policy interpretation, analysis of typical cases, and education on investment risks, etc. They should promote the illegality and harm of virtual currencies and Real World Asset Tokenization-related businesses and their manifestations, fully alert to potential risks and hidden dangers, and enhance public awareness and identification capabilities for risk prevention.


  VI. Legal Responsibility


  (18) Engaging in illegal financial activities related to virtual currencies and Real World Asset Tokenization in violation of this notice, as well as providing services for virtual currencies and Real World Asset Tokenization-related businesses, shall be punished in accordance with relevant regulations. If it constitutes a crime, criminal liability shall be pursued according to the law. For domestic entities and individuals who knowingly or should have known that overseas entities illegally provided virtual currency or Real World Asset Tokenization-related services to domestic entities and still assisted them, relevant responsibilities shall be pursued according to the law. If it constitutes a crime, criminal liability shall be pursued according to the law.


  (19) If any unit or individual invests in virtual currencies, Real World Asset Tokens, and related financial products against public order and good customs, the relevant civil legal actions shall be invalid, and any resulting losses shall be borne by them. If there are suspicions of disrupting financial order and jeopardizing financial security, the relevant departments shall deal with them according to the law.


  This notice shall enter into force upon the date of its issuance. The People's Bank of China and ten other departments' "Notice on Further Preventing and Dealing with the Risks of Virtual Currency Trading Speculation" (Yinfa [2021] No. 237) is hereby repealed.


Former Partner's Perspective on Multicoin: Kyle's Exit, But the Game He Left Behind Just Getting Started

Kyle knew his game, so he decided to focus on playing the game he was good at and interested in.

Why Bitcoin Is Falling Now: The Real Reasons Behind BTC's Crash & WEEX's Smart Profit Playbook

Bitcoin's ongoing crash explained: Discover the 5 hidden triggers behind BTC's plunge & how WEEX's Auto Earn and Trade to Earn strategies help traders profit from crypto market volatility.

Wall Street's Hottest Trades See Exodus

This time there is no single triggering factor, but rather market anxiety about asset valuation, with many already skeptical of these valuations being too high, leading to investors choosing to retreat almost simultaneously.

Popular coins

Latest Crypto News

Read more