2026-01-19 15:31:05

There's a pretty extreme case— the company directly pays salaries in USDT, and employees receive equivalent digital assets. However, during labor arbitration, the court still rules that the company must pay again in RMB.

In other words, although employees actually received the equivalent amount in USDT, because it violated salary payment regulations, the company is still deemed to have violated the law. The court's logic is very strict: equivalent value ≠ legal payment.

This incident highlights an issue— even though cryptocurrencies are very active in trading markets, in formal employment relationships, the law still requires wages to be paid in the legal tender (RMB). No matter how stable USDT is, it’s not acceptable.

This serves as a reminder for both businesses and employees: either honestly use legal currency or don’t expect to gain an advantage in arbitration. Cases like this may become more common.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

16 Likes

Reward
16
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ContractExplorer

· 01-22 06:02

The court's ruling is indeed impressive; the principle that "equivalence ≠ legality" couldn't be simpler. --- Holding USDT doesn't mean you can use it as salary, brother. --- Want to exploit the system but not follow the rules? Serves you right. --- Now it's all good; crypto companies trying to overtake on the bend got hit head-on. --- To put it simply, the wall of legal currency can't be torn down in the short term. --- Employees profit, companies lose; the arbitration committee really isn't joking. --- Stablecoins are just stable? In front of the law, they are illegal fiat currency. --- I just want to know how regretful that company is now for paying wages in USDT. --- This precedent will become a noose around enterprises' necks in the future.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHunter9000

· 01-20 14:56

This court is too ruthless, the equivalent value doesn't count, and I have to pay again. This is really cheating.

View OriginalReply0

MoneyBurner

· 01-20 13:26

Haha, this is the most heartbreaking arbitrage lesson. USDT, no matter how stable, is still a stablecoin, and in the eyes of the law, it's "wild finance." The company's recent double losses mean employees didn't benefit either; after arbitration, they get paid in RMB + USDT, pushing the company to the brink of bankruptcy. The legal system is so rigid—equivalence ≠ compliance, and no one can bypass these rules. No matter how much liquidity premium Web3 has, it's all in vain; labor relations still fall under fiat currency. Well, don't think you can cut corners with stablecoins.

View OriginalReply0

DAOdreamer

· 01-19 16:01

This wave, purely a legal slap in the face. Even if it's equivalent, it really has to be in RMB.

View OriginalReply0

OnChainDetective

· 01-19 15:57

lol this is actually hilarious... company thought they found a loophole but the blockchain evidence doesn't matter when fiat law shows up. transaction data proves they paid, but legal framework says nah, doesn't count. classic case of "technically correct but legally wrong"

Reply0

MetaEggplant

· 01-19 15:53

This court is playing tough; equivalence does not equal legality. The Web3 dream is shattered in the face of labor law, haha.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketBuilder

· 01-19 15:51

The court's move is truly impeccable; equivalence isn't enough, only fiat currency counts. --- No matter how stable USDT is, it's useless in the face of regulations. Everyone is equal before the law. --- Now it's all good, the company has to pay both USDT and RMB, a huge loss. --- Want to pay salaries with crypto? The law says no thanks. --- A classic case of being too clever by half; financial compliance is no joke. --- It seems many Web3 companies are about to fall into this trap. Take note, everyone. --- Equivalence ≠ Legality; this logic is sound, gotta accept it.

View OriginalReply0