Recently, friends have asked me about the progress of the Gate incident.
Let me clarify the current situation: The 1.7 million USDT has not been compensated, and the matter remains unresolved. I have not taken money to stay silent, nor have I given up pursuing accountability. Gate has largely stopped responding, which easily leads those unaware of the follow-up to assume the issue is over.
For Gate, it might just mean one less trending topic. For me, as long as the money hasn't returned, this matter isn't over.
First, a brief explanation of how the funds were stolen.
On July 2, I was logging into Gate normally. My account had always been active, and since adding a passkey last year, I consistently used Passkey login.
Subsequently, without my application or authorization, my security items—including phone number, email, login password, fund password, and Google Authenticator—were gradually unbound, changed, or reset. By July 8, 1.7 million USDT was transferred out.
What I have been pursuing is the account recovery and identity verification process during that period.
I never submitted those materials involving holding an ID card or facial video verifications, nor did I authorize anyone to reset my account. Whether the related materials were forged, whether the face was mine, and who conducted the review should all be verified against original records, and sent for appraisal if necessary.
I set up so many security verifications, yet someone managed to replace these verifications item by item through the platform's recovery review and take over my account. Gate must explain what it did in this process.
Even if investigating how personal information leaked, one cannot skip the platform's identity review and withdrawal release steps. Knowing my registration year and transaction records does not directly prove that person is me.
But after the incident, much of my time was spent dealing with insinuations like "self-theft" or "honeypot scams." While reporting to the police and organizing evidence, I also had to explain that I didn't stage it myself.
In its public announcement, Gate stated that it had organized teams from security, compliance, and legal to follow up, continuously tracking funds, assisting with police reports, and contacting lawyers.
I saw all these words, and I indeed hoped for a breakthrough.
Especially when Han Lin publicly stated that lawyers were fully involved, would cooperate with the police, and be responsible to the end, even proposing double compensation for parts officially recognized as Gate's responsibility. At that time, I thought someone was finally willing to handle it seriously.
According to my understanding, the lawyer arranged by Gate verified the case offline with public security authorities. A few days later, they returned and reported to Han Lin.
Whether my case is real or fake, what the police are investigating, and which review steps I questioned—Gate has every channel to verify this. Yet after the lawyer came, compensation did not advance.
What is even harder for me to accept is the feedback I received later: My previous public statements caused reputational pressure on Gate, and Han Lin was very dissatisfied; since the impact has already occurred, paying now won't reverse it, so they are unwilling to discuss compensation further.
I demanded Han Lin personally confirm or clarify this.
But if this is the reason for no longer discussing compensation, it is absurd.
Whether my 1.7 million USDT should be compensated depends on evidence, the review process, and liability. It cannot be ignored because I spoke out about my experience and upset the person in charge.
I was robbed, sought help publicly; seeking help attracted attention, which was then used as a reason not to compensate. Do I need to apologize for Gate's reputational loss first before being qualified to discuss my own losses?
In my view, putting face and emotions before facts, using non-compensation to punish someone publicly defending their rights, is petty behavior.
During this period, I still demand Gate submit complete original identity materials, facial videos, review records, and backend logs, and explain specific progress in cooperating with the police. What has been submitted, what hasn't, and what is missing can be clearly answered. Parts involving investigation that are inconvenient to disclose can be explained to the police and my lawyer.
What I waited for was never a complete explanation.
I cannot know what Gate does internally every day, but I can determine whether I received compensation, case progress, or continuous contact to resolve the issue. Leaving a statement of "being responsible to the end" there does not mean responsibility has been fulfilled.
Look at how other platforms handle such issues.
OKX publicly explained an account theft case from 2024: The platform advanced about half the loss, police later helped recover most funds; OKX also upgraded its account security system.
https://x.com/star_okx/status/2097716211010429014
https://x.com/DeFi8362/status/2097653504924057601
Regarding the recent MEXC incident involving approximately $340,000 theft, the victim publicly reported that after account recovery, APIs created by attackers remained, leading to asset transfer. Subsequently, he publicly stated the matter was properly resolved and acknowledged MEXC's handling efficiency.
https://x.com/MEXCZH/status/2104579591121817732
The details of these cases aren't identical, and I don't vouch for any exchange's security. But at least, some produced results, allowing victims to come forward and say it's resolved.
Here, from July until now, I am still repeating my initial demands.
Seeing others' issues resolved, I am naturally happy for them. But looking back at myself, it is harder to accept Gate's approach: high-profile promises upfront, silence afterwards, leaving me alone to constantly explain and question.
I don't require an exchange to never make mistakes. I require that if there are review issues, they be investigated clearly; if compensation is due, pay it; don't treat victims as nuisances to be endured.
What Gate showed me is another attitude: As long as they drag it out long enough, I will get tired, bystanders will forget, and new activities and promotions will cover up old issues.
Dragging me into silence does not equal resolving the matter.
Therefore, based on my own experience, I explicitly urge everyone: Do not continue using Gate, withdraw your funds from Gate.
Please seriously look at **how much time and energy a person needs to spend to get a response after suffering a 1.7 million USDT loss at Gate**. Don't wait until you encounter the same thing to realize how difficult it is to fulfill the safety, responsibility, and guarantees usually advertised.
I also hope those still promoting Gate read my story completely. You can certainly participate in events and accept hospitality, but hotels and gifts do not prove whether the platform will take responsibility after assets are compromised.
In my view, doing business on trust while ignoring victims and relying on time to erase problems is a tumor in the industry. Web3 talks about transparency and trust all day, yet tolerates this cold treatment, which is shameful.
Han Lin, my demands have never changed from start to finish: Clarify the review process, submit the evidence, and don't leave the victim hanging.
Gate让我看到的，却是另一种态度：只要拖得足够久，我会累，旁观的人会忘，新的活动和宣传会把旧事盖过去。
把我拖到没声音，不等于把事情解决了。
所以，基于我自己的经历，我明确呼吁大家：不要继续使用Gate，把放在Gate的资金转出来。
请认真看一看，**一个人在gate这里遭遇170万USDT的损失以后，需要付出多少时间和精力，才能换来一句回应**。不要等自己遇到同样的事情，才发现平时宣传的安全、担当和保障，兑现起来有多难。
我也希望还在替Gate宣传的人，至少把我这件事看完。你们当然可以参加活动、接受招待，但酒店和礼物证明不了平台在资产出事以后会不会负责。
在我看来，一边拿信任做生意，一边把受害者晾着、指望时间抹掉问题，这种做法就是行业的毒瘤。Web3整天讲透明、讲信任，却容忍这种冷处理，是一件很丢人的事。
韩林，我要求的事情从头到尾都没变：把审核经过讲清楚，把证据交清楚，该赔偿就赔偿，别把受害者当成需要熬过去的麻烦。
