What happened to Bitmain yesterday Series 9 (Seeing the essence through the phenomenon)

In response to the statement made by Zhan on the 21st that attacked Wu Jihan personally, Wu Jihan responded one by one yesterday, and the official Weibo account of Hong Kong Bit also released a statement.

1: Zhan said that no shareholder was aware of Cayman Bit’s waiver of voting rights.

Wu Jihan said that it had been confirmed by professional external lawyers; that the steps and procedures were strictly followed; and that it was known from the documents submitted by Zhan’s Cayman lawyer that some investors and shareholders had indeed been notified; and that they would consider pursuing legal liability against those who published false and defamatory information.

2: Wu Jihan is still the chairman of Cayman Bit and is clearly reflected on the board of directors of Cayman Bit.

Here, the lawyer's statement from Zhan's side does have some flaws and does not sound like it was written by a professional legal person. For example, it states that "Mr. Zhan Ketuan has filed a lawsuit with the Cayman Court, requesting that the charter amendment be declared invalid. The consequence will be that Zhan Ketuan's 59.6% voting rights will be restored, and Wu Jihan and others have not been directors of Cayman Bit since December."

The lawsuit has been filed, but the court has not yet made a ruling. How can we predict and determine the inevitable outcome?

For example, they claim that the other party does not understand the law, does not abide by the law, and is illegal. But the standard for judging the law should be the court's judgment. Zhan did win in two administrative reconsiderations, but these were not court decisions. At present, both parties should have filed multiple lawsuits in Cayman and Beijing, but no court has given a judgment. The final judgment can only show who is legal or illegal.

As for one party emptying the company and the other party selling the factory, they both have their own stories. The key is whether they enrich themselves, such as transferring funds to a company controlled by individuals. As for cutting off the chip supply, just like Zhan stopping shipments, they are both normal actions of using the power controlled by both parties. They should be expected and cannot be used as concrete evidence to attack the other party.

In response to the countless statements from both sides, some people always say that one side is finished and will go to jail, which is basically a mindless mob. We need to understand the relatively more real problems behind the phenomenon.

1: Regarding Bitmain's Cayman Articles of Association, we can only see the version of the prospectus when it went public in 2018, and it is unknown whether it has been modified later. The outside world also makes analysis based on the prospectus in 2018. Therefore, in the final analysis, whether the cancellation of voting rights is legal or not still depends on the judgment of Cayman. Since there is a dispute, before the judgment comes out, neither party has the right to say that the other party is illegal.

2: There are four possibilities as to why Zhan would issue a severe personal attack statement at this time. First, to gain bargaining chips. The negotiations between the two sides have never stopped, but there is still a long way to go before the deal is concluded. Second, to influence the employees. The employees’ will is also a bargaining chip. Third, it is possible that Zhan himself suddenly became furious, and even Buddha could not stop him. Fourth, some specific action had a greater impact.

In addition, on the 22nd, Zhan appointed the previously dismissed head of BitDeer R&D as the head of corporate IT and application software (including Ant Mining Pool and BTC.com Mining Pool). Before Wu Jihan returned, Zhan planned to use this person to recruit the mining pool department originally managed by Wu Jihan.

Wu Jihan's explanation and response