Adam Jack

Okay, this is the part of the story I was waiting for. Quote-tweeting because there's actually new information here, not just PR. So let's recap what's being said: the user sent a lawyer's letter on October 29 — meaning this has been a legal matter for over two weeks — and LBank responded through legal channels instead of fighting it out on the timeline. Honestly? That alone matches how they've handled this from the start. Say what you want about them, they haven't been out here calling the guy names or mobilizing their followers. They made one factual statement, and now they're basically saying "see you in the proper venue, the law treats us both the same." That's... actually the grown-up way to handle a dispute like this. Shouting matches on X don't resolve anything; filings and evidence do. But the detail that genuinely stopped me scrolling is the KYC part. If I'm reading this correctly — and correct me if I'm not — the claim is that the KYC was done on a temporary device that was swapped in specifically for the verification, separate from the devices actually doing the trading. On top of the nearly 50 devices we already knew about. And then the fingerprint detail: every real phone has its own hardware fingerprint, but this setup reportedly used a spoofing tool to keep the fingerprint fixed so the devices would all look like one and slip past risk controls. I want to be careful here because these are allegations from one side of a legal dispute, and the user hasn't responded to them yet. But IF any of this holds up, we're not talking about a beginner who got confused by an app anymore. Fixed fingerprint spoofing across ~50 devices with a dedicated KYC decoy phone — that's a deliberate, engineered setup. That's someone who knew exactly what the controls were and built specifically to get around them. And to stay intellectually honest for a second: LBank is still the party with all the logs, and we're still seeing only what they choose to show us. "The KYC doesn't add up" is doing some heavy lifting and I'd love to see it substantiated in the legal process they say is already underway. The user deserves his day in the proper venue too — and apparently he agrees, since his side lawyered up first. That's fine. That's actually good. Both parties going legal means we'll eventually get findings that aren't filtered through anyone's PR team. Here's my bottom line as a neutral-ish observer: when a dispute moves from tweets to lawyers, the smart move is to stop litigating it in the replies. The platform gave its one public explanation, declined a shouting match, and said "the law treats us both the same" — which is a hard thing to spin as evasive. Meanwhile every new detail that surfaces — the pre-drama full withdrawal, the 50 devices, now the KYC decoy phone and fingerprint spoofing — has come from the side that's showing receipts, not from the side asking for sympathy. The user's version keeps having the most important facts missing from it. At some point that's a pattern, not a coincidence. He sent the lawyer's letter. Fine. Let the lawyers talk now. That's what it's for. @solyfw34 @LBank_Exchange