The founder responded three times. Why is the Gate coin theft case getting more and more dark?
Author: Maher, Foresight News Original title: The founder responded several times, why didn't Gate's “PR” community buy it? On August 3, Gate's official Chinese-language Twitter account posted a screenshot of an external database query after coding to try to prove that user @jheioff's personal information had already been seriously leaked from outside the platform, rather than causing security issues due to its own reasons. However, some users in the comments section responded that user privacy was unboxed by Gate, and the impression was too poor. This move quickly escalated the dispute over account security and accountability into a privacy and PR crisis, and became the latest tipping point after the incident continued for nearly a month. This case, which began on July 8, has evolved into a typical centralized exchange trust storm. Users claim that about $1.7 million worth of assets have been stolen, while Gate insists that there are no systemic security breaches. The evidence chains between the two sides are in sharp conflict, and the community continues to raise questions. From breaking the news to the confrontation, the two sides held each other's arguments. On July 8, X user @jheioff publicly posted that he hadn't logged in to his Gate account for a few days, and when he checked again, he found that about $1.7 million in assets had been emptied. This includes 49.96 ETH, 746,475 HSK, and 1565,982 USDT. The user stressed that the account has enabled mobile verification, Google Authenticator, and email verification. The phone did not receive any verification codes during this period, and he never provided a video, handheld ID, or login screen recording. Foresight News previously wrote in “1.7 Million Gate Users Stolen, Has Face Recognition Been Hacked?” The cause and circumstances of the incident are described in detail in the article. One day after the incident unraveled, Gate had a net outflow of about $200 million, according to DeFilLama data. On July 11, in an announcement, Gate apologized for the initial communication attitude, admitting that it “did not put users' feelings first”, and expressed understanding of users' anxiety and acceptance of criticism. At the same time, it continued to assist the police and provide legal resource support, but insisted that there were no platform security risks. Around July 17, the stolen user officially filed a case with the public security authorities. Since then, the two sides have blamed each other over the submission of evidence and the degree of lawyers' involvement and cooperation. The stolen user claimed that Gate repeatedly requested the format of judicial investigation materials, identity verification, etc., causing delays. Gate, on the other hand, said that users have repeatedly refused the intervention of the lawyers' team, focusing on putting pressure on public opinion rather than tracking down hackers, so they decided to directly arrange for lawyers to cooperate with the police. The core controversy, however, is whether authentication and manual review actually fail. The stolen user insisted that the mobile phone verification, Google Authenticator, and email address originally tied to the account were not leaked, that he had never submitted a handheld ID video or live experience, and that the device model did not match Gate's back-office records. Users disclosed surveillance videos in an attempt to prove that they had not operated some of the alleged face recognition periods. The user questioned Gate, saying that the attackers were able to completely reset security items and withdraw 1.7 million US dollars using only forged handheld ID data, live video of someone other than their own, and an inactive Alipay account with no strong binding relationship with Gate. This in itself indicates a problem with the platform's review chain. Gate, on the other hand, presents a completely different chain of evidence. The platform emphasizes that the materials submitted by the applicant are highly consistent, including real-name information, transaction flow, and recordings of key Alipay historical transactions. The Gate technical team believes that Alipay has extremely strict real-time risk control. Changing the device to log in will force multiple verifications. This screen recording can only be recorded by yourself or someone who can access the Alipay account. Combined with multiple notifications and withdrawal delay protection windows within 4 days, Gate concluded that the attackers had deep control over users' external information and device permissions. This was the result of serious information leaks or device control on the user side, rather than a systemic vulnerability in the platform. On August 3, Gate posted a screenshot of a third-party data breach database query, saying that it had obtained evidence of serious external leaks from users (including IMEI), and the lawyer would hand it over directly to the police. After community users responded “out of the box,” Gate clarified that the entire screenshot was coded to prove that it was not an internal leak. Subsequent sensitive materials were only submitted through formal judicial channels. On the same day, Han Lin, founder of Gate, wrote that lawyers have stepped in throughout the process and resolutely cooperated with the police. As long as the government determines that Gate is responsible, double compensation will never be avoided, and 3.4 million US dollars will be linked to the chain...
