🎉【Gate Singapore Flagship Event · Square Fun Quiz Challenge Day 1】
#TOKEN2049# is just around the corner, and Gate is bringing the heat to Singapore!
Token of Love Music Festival, Gate x Oracle Red Bull Racing Reception, and the F1 Race Viewing are all set to roll out!
Join Square Fun Quiz Challenge now, test how much you know about the events and share $100 BTC in rewards!
To join: Comment your answers (format: 1B 2A 3B 4C)
🎁 Rewards: 3 lucky winners each day → $10 BTC each
👑 Bonus: Answer all questions correctly for 3 days → Extra $10 BTC for Super Quiz King!
📖 Day 1 · Quiz (Single Choic
The Wuxi Court in China disclosed the "virtual dollar" investment case: an investment of 80,000 yuan only converted to 0.1 yuan for withdrawal.
On September 7, the Intermediate People's Court of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province, China, disclosed a rejected case involving "virtual dollars" investments. The A forex platform advertised "around 7% monthly returns," claiming that users could check their earnings in their platform accounts and withdraw at any time. Consequently, Zhou Ming entrusted Wang Hao to purchase forex assets on the A platform and transferred 84,350 yuan to him. On the same day, Wang Hao transferred the 13,000 yuan worth of platform dollars that Zhou Ming exchanged into Zhou Ming's platform account. However, the A platform suddenly crashed, and the 13,000 dollars in Zhou Ming's account could only be converted to 0.1 yuan for withdrawal. To recover his losses, Zhou Ming filed a lawsuit in court, requesting Wang Hao to return his principal of 84,350 yuan and pay the corresponding fund occupation fee. After hearing the case, the court concluded that Zhou Ming's entrustment of Wang Hao to exchange virtual dollars on the A platform was an investment decision made by himself, and there was no fiduciary relationship between Zhou Ming and Wang Hao. The loss of funds in Zhou Ming's account on the A platform was due to his own investment actions. In this case, Zhou Ming did not complete the necessary registration procedures when investing in the overseas platform, and this investment behavior is not protected by Chinese law. The corresponding investment risk is borne by Zhou Ming himself, and the court rejected Zhou Ming's lawsuit.