Is it a crime to simply forcibly close the points mall and cancel the collection points?

Source: Mankiw Blockchain Law

Recently took on a case and acted as the victim’s attorney for a Shuzang platform player to file a criminal complaint on behalf of the victim.

First of all, I would like to thank these players for their trust in our law firm. When I wrote "A strange phenomenon in the NFT digital collection industry, can you defend your rights if you lose money?" "In this article, people questioned whether we would be approached to defend our rights after being bribed by the platform. However, this also proves in disguise that we are not bribed by the platform. I really only got emotional when I saw some players defending their rights inexplicably.

Getting back to the subject, as I mentioned above, I recently took on a rights protection case on the Shuzang platform. It just so happened that our classmate Azhen also recommended an article to me about the Shuzang platform in the past two days. Official account, you want me to talk about this. I took a look and thought, isn't this just right? Not only can I write an article, but it can also be combined with the case I am currently handling. It can be said to kill two birds with one stone.

This article mentioned that a certain Shuzang platform has launched several digital collections. After players hold these collections, they can generate different points every day based on the price of the collections and other factors. The players’ points After accumulating to a certain level, you can exchange it for goods, which come in many categories, including luxury watches, luxury cars, etc. But suddenly one day, the platform issued an announcement, notifying all players that within a limited time, the platform would close the points mall, cancel collection points, and require all users to forcibly exchange their collections for other new collections without points, etc. .

How about it? This routine looks familiar. Isn’t it true that many Tibetan players have been tricked in this way, so that in the end they were so overwhelmed that they didn’t get any goods, but the collection in their hands was still good. A worthless bunch of 0s and 1s. The platform rights protection I recently took on and the situation written by this public account are quite similar in terms of forced redemption of collections. If it weren’t for the different names, I would have doubted whether the same big boss had built two platforms by himself (of course) , the same big boss can also open two stations or even several stations at the same time).

Then the question arises, Does it constitute a crime to simply force the closure of the points mall and cancel the collection points?

That is definitely not enough. It depends on the platform’s forced cancellation of the points mall. Whether any user has successfully redeemed the product before, and whether the user who redeemed the product is a large user of the platform and relied on unfair means. It is a very important point that ordinary players really rely on their hard-earned points to redeem successfully.

Why do you say that? If the platform can exchange normally at the beginning, but during the subsequent operation process, it is found that the previous gameplay platform is unsustainable, or there are other ideas about platform development, then it can only be regarded as a strategic change in the direction of platform development. This is completely normal market behavior. But if the platform has never redeemed goods for any players at the beginning, or the people who can redeem goods are large players related to the platform, or the platform staff pretends to be users to redeem, this kind of left-hand and right-hand situation, with the help of our public account reading Based on the author’s simple sense of legal justice, do you think this platform is a fraud?

So again, everyone can understand my previous article a little bit. It depends on whether the platform party constitutes a crime of fraud or other crimes. It depends on whether the platform party's behavior in the entire business process complies with the provisions of the law and whether it conforms to the behavioral logic of everyone's daily life experience to infer whether the platform has criminal intent ( In human terms, it means whether you have the intention to commit a crime). If there is the intention and the behavior, it constitutes a corresponding crime. If there is no criminal intent, but there are some inappropriate behaviors, then we can only understand that the platform does not have a correct business strategy, everything is a civil dispute, and the invisible hand of the market economy is slapped hard.

So, does it constitute a crime if the points mall is closed and the collection is forced to be redeemed? There is no right answer, it all depends on the platform.