Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
TradFi
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Launchpad
Be early to the next big token project
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
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.