1. Core evidence: The flow of funds is directed to official accounts; you cannot deny the validity of the transaction based solely on a platform’s statement;



2. Contract amendment rules: Any new clause must be mutually negotiated and confirmed in writing by both parties; unilateral additions have no legal effect;

3. Legal logic: If the counterpart conducts business in the platform’s name and the funds are deposited into the platform’s accounts, we have sufficient reason to believe the other party is authorized to act on behalf of the platform. Internal management loopholes within the platform cannot be used to stand against an external cooperation partner.
View Original
post-image
post-image
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.
  • Reward
  • 5
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
Add a comment
Add a comment
RoyaltyRebel
· 1h ago
This analysis is very clear—both the flow of funds and the contract rules have been fully explained, so the platform can’t shift blame.
View OriginalReply0
NightmareForPhishers
· 2h ago
An internal management vulnerability can’t be used to counter an external counterparty—this sentence is the core, and many platforms rely on this loophole to scam people.
View OriginalReply0
RecedingTideReflection
· 3h ago
Unilaterally changing the terms is indeed invalid, but in practice it can be difficult to gather evidence, so it’s advisable to keep all written communication records.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pinned