On January 23, 2026, the People's Procuratorate of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, formally initiated a public prosecution against relevant responsible persons of the Dingyifeng system for crimes related to illegal fundraising, including fundraising fraud and illegal public deposit acceptance. This long-pending case has officially entered the judicial review stage. The defendants listed in the indictment include 30 individuals, including Sui Guangyi and Ma Xiaoqiu, with the entities involved pointing to Shenzhen Dingyifeng Asset Management Co., Ltd., Hong Kong Dingyifeng International Holdings Group Co., Ltd., and their affiliated companies. On the surface, the case is a comprehensive packaging of asset management, Zen culture, and traditional Chinese studies courses, but it is alleged to have implemented public fundraising by linking to the concept of digital assets and introducing so-called "digital options" products. This combination of traditional illegal fundraising methods and new digital asset rhetoric makes the Dingyifeng case likely to become a landmark example for observing the evolution path of "old wine in new bottles" scams, affecting the interests of middle-aged, elderly, and high-net-worth groups, while also prompting a re-examination of the blurred boundaries by the cryptocurrency market and regulatory authorities.
The Promise of Wealth for All Under the Cloak of Zen Courses
● The narrative often begins not with cold financial contracts, but with a soft entry into "spiritual growth." Dingyifeng has long built its brand image around themes of Zen culture, traditional Chinese studies courses, and the dissemination of traditional wisdom, attracting a large number of middle-aged, elderly, and high-net-worth individuals seeking spiritual solace and community recognition through offline courses, lectures, and community activities. In this process, phrases like "cultivating oneself" and "enhancing one's perspective" lay a foundation of trust for subsequent asset management products, allowing financial decisions to be quietly completed in an emotional atmosphere.
● On this foundation of trust, Dingyifeng further introduced concepts such as the so-called "Zen Easy Investment Method," binding traditional cultural symbols to investment returns, creating a narrative framework that suggests "those who understand the great way will surely gain wealth." In related rhetoric, keywords like long-term compound interest, stable appreciation, and controllable risk frequently appear, yet rarely accompanied by verifiable risk control models or transparent disclosures of underlying asset composition. For many non-professional investors, the so-called "unique insights" are more attractive than dry reports and are more easily understood as a guarantee of profit.
● This narrative model, which deeply binds spiritual growth to financial freedom, has a strong appeal in the long-standing soil of illegal fundraising in China. On one hand, it constructs a "spiritual authority" through traditional culture and personal charisma, making investment behavior seem like part of following a mentor and completing self-cultivation; on the other hand, it wraps greed and fear in positive energy rhetoric with slogans like "common prosperity" and "leading fans to success." Ultimately, the scrutiny of the product itself is replaced by worship of "people" and "the way," providing a psychological and community basis for large-scale fundraising.
The Upgraded Packaging from Zen Easy Investment Method to DDO Digital Options
● In Dingyifeng's external promotion, the "Zen Easy Investment Method" is described as a secret asset allocation technique that integrates the philosophy of the I Ching, Zen thinking, and modern financial theory, portrayed as a "top-level methodology" mastered by only a few. However, the real strategies, funding directions, and risk control logic surrounding this method have remained highly opaque, with investors often only able to access abstract rhetoric and historical return displays, while being unable to obtain verifiable trading records, risk exposure data, or third-party custody arrangements, thus solidifying information asymmetry.
● As the concept of digital assets continues to gain traction in public discourse, Dingyifeng has been accused of introducing the so-called "DDO Digital Options" concept, packaging it as a new type of digital asset or innovative financial product. Cryptocurrency media and some market commentators have repeatedly mentioned this name, believing it plays a key role in the project narrative. However, the legal classification of DDO Digital Options still awaits further verification from local financial regulatory documents and effective court rulings, and existing public materials are insufficient to directly categorize it as a financial instrument under any specific regulatory framework.
● Traditional illegal fundraising has consistently relied on promises of "high returns, low risk, and stable returns," while Dingyifeng has layered technical keywords like digital options, digital assets, and quantitative strategies on top of this, making the product's appearance closer to cutting-edge financial innovation. For the general public, complex terminology and technical barriers are often misinterpreted as symbols of "professional capability," thereby weakening their scrutiny of legality, compliance, and the authenticity of underlying assets. The combination of high return promises and high threshold rhetoric significantly enhances the project's persuasive power at the narrative level.
● It is important to emphasize that the technical implementation, contract structure, issuance scale, and real trading scenarios surrounding DDO Digital Options currently have very limited public information, and research briefs have listed related content as missing and needing verification. In the absence of authoritative disclosures, the outside world cannot accurately determine whether it is a financial instrument with real trading and pricing mechanisms or merely a "nomenclature packaging" for fundraising narratives. Any further interpretation of this concept must be approached with high caution to avoid making inferences beyond the existing evidence.
Cross-Border Funds and 30 Defendants: The Dual Identity from Shenzhen to Hong Kong
● From the perspective of the entity structure, this case is not an isolated operation of a single mainland company, but involves multiple entities such as Shenzhen Dingyifeng Asset Management Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Dingyifeng International Holdings Group Co., Ltd., presenting a dual identity layout of mainland and Hong Kong. For ordinary investors, a Hong Kong listing or offshore background is often interpreted as an endorsement of "internationalization" and "greater safety," objectively enhancing the project's credibility in promotional terms and reinforcing its professional image of "cross-border asset management."
● In terms of criminal procedure, the People's Procuratorate of Shenzhen City has publicly prosecuted 30 defendants, including Sui Guangyi and Ma Xiaoqiu, for crimes such as fundraising fraud and illegal public deposit acceptance, indicating that the evidence collection work during the investigation phase has been largely completed, and the case has entered the court review process. In terms of numbers, the 30 defendants constitute a considerable network of interests and execution, but according to research brief requirements, public information does not support further inferences about a larger gang structure, and related analysis can only be strictly limited to the entities confirmed in the indictment.
● The indictment also includes allegations of smuggling across national borders, indicating that there are cross-border dimensions in personnel movement, fund arrangements, or business operations in this case. This allegation itself shows that judicial authorities have noticed the project's connection to foreign elements, but there has not yet been sufficient public information to disclose specific paths and operational models. Without seeing a judgment document, it is inappropriate to make premature inferences about how funds flow across borders or whether they are routed through offshore accounts or structural arrangements.
● More broadly, under the expectation of regulatory arbitrage, cross-border shell companies, offshore registered entities, and foreign holding structures have been frequently used to package various quasi-financial products. On one hand, they provide "internationalized" narratives and capital operation space for projects; on the other hand, they create complexity in judicial accountability and regulatory collaboration. The cross-border elements of the Dingyifeng case once again expose the reality that when digital assets and quasi-option products are sold to mainland investors through offshore structures, the existing regulatory and judicial systems still face practical challenges in penetrating identification, evidence collection, and asset recovery.
The Halo of Digital Assets and the Amplifying Effect of Media Narratives
● In the realm of public opinion, cryptocurrency media such as panews and techflow generally discuss the Dingyifeng case within the context of "false digital asset issuance" and "pseudo-innovative finance," emphasizing its potential connection to fundraising under the guise of digital assets. Such reports highlight the role of concepts like DDO Digital Options in the fundraising narrative, helping to reveal the risk structure, but should still be viewed as media presentations of opinions based on limited information, rather than a complete reflection of the case's judicial classification. Ultimately, how to define the attributes of related products still needs to be based on regulatory authorities and court documents.
● For the vast number of retail investors, keywords like "digital assets, options, quantitative, arbitrage" have been repeatedly associated with high returns and financial freedom over the past few years, gradually forming an almost instinctive association: understanding new technologies and using new tools can lead to excess profits. Under this psychological preconception, investors are more willing to believe that the complex terminology hides "professional barriers" rather than "risk black boxes," significantly weakening their sensitivity to compliance scrutiny and legal boundaries. The Dingyifeng case has precisely exploited this connection, dressing the traditional high-interest fundraising story in a technological halo.
● In an environment where products lack complete information disclosure, community dissemination, word-of-mouth recommendations, and "expert-led trading" narratives have become catalysts for the rapid expansion of fundraising scales. Dingyifeng has shaped "mentor-disciple" and "co-practitioner" relationships through offline activities and online communities, packaging capital investment as a natural extension of shared practice and following experts' layouts. When a few early participants achieve paper profits in a bull market, related profit stories are continuously replicated and amplified through social media and investment groups, while the real risks remain buried behind vague product descriptions.
● Looking back at past cases of illegal fundraising and air coins in the cryptocurrency field, a clear evolutionary trajectory can be seen: from the initial simple "high interest + recruiting," to later "white papers + public chains + community mining," and then to complex narratives featuring algorithms, options, quantification, and cross-chain as selling points. The Dingyifeng case continues the tradition of "packaging old logic with new concepts," but has taken it a step further in its choice of narrative, layering Zen culture, traditional Chinese studies courses, and digital options, thus upgrading both the emotional penetration and technical confusion of the scam.
Gray Play in the Blurred Boundaries of Regulation
● In terms of judicial application, traditional illegal fundraising charges mainly target behaviors aimed at absorbing public funds, promising repayment of principal and interest or providing returns without permission. However, when this behavior is cloaked in the guise of digital assets, options, or complex derivatives, how to determine its legal nature and which regulatory rules apply often presents boundary disputes: should it be treated as illegal fundraising, or included in the categories of securities, futures, or other specific financial businesses, or does it involve multiple overlapping regulations? This is a practical challenge in the field.
● There has been considerable discussion in the market and media regarding whether "DDO Digital Options" should be classified as illegal financial activities, but the research brief has clearly listed it as content needing verification. In the absence of public documents from local financial regulatory authorities and effective judicial rulings, directly classifying such products as illegal financial activities neither aligns with prudent principles nor easily clarifies the true regulatory focus. A more prudent approach would be to respect the gradual revelation of procedures and facts while paying attention to risks.
● Like most major illegal fundraising cases, what truly stirs public emotions in the Dingyifeng case are key data such as the scale of seized assets, the final flow of funds, and the extent of investor losses. However, as of now, relevant details have not been fully disclosed through official channels, and the research brief has also listed the amounts involved and loss statistics as missing information. During this information vacuum period, the market is prone to oscillate between speculation and rumors, which is counterproductive to rationally assessing the extent of risk spillover and the possibilities for subsequent handling.
● Although details still await revelation through judicial processes, the Dingyifeng case is likely to become an important trigger for pushing local financial regulation and criminal justice to further delineate red lines regarding digital asset-related products. On one hand, regulatory authorities need to establish clearer identification standards between "technological innovation" and "illegal fundraising packaging," clarifying which business forms must be licensed, transparently disclosed, and appropriately managed; on the other hand, criminal justice also needs to adapt its rules of evidence and qualitative logic to the characteristics of digital asset scenarios, providing replicable judgment paradigms for future similar cases.
The Red Lines of the Next Round of Digital Asset Narratives from the Dingyifeng Sample
The Dingyifeng case provides a highly condensed sample: Zen culture and traditional Chinese studies courses construct emotional and trust entry points, the "Zen Easy Investment Method" cloaks financial freedom in metaphysics, and new concepts like DDO Digital Options provide technical and innovative packaging, with the three combining to form a highly deceptive fundraising story. In this narrative, investment is no longer a rational choice based on risk-reward trade-offs, but is rewritten as a comprehensive bet on mentors, on "the way," and on cutting-edge technology.
For ordinary investors, when faced with various products that claim to be digital assets, quantitative strategies, and cross-border arbitrage, the first step is not to understand complex terminology, but to calmly verify three basic elements: whether there is a corresponding business license, what the underlying assets actually are, and which level of regulatory authority is responsible for oversight and dispute resolution. When clear answers to these three points cannot be obtained, no matter how glamorous the return curves or how exquisite the cultural packaging, they should be regarded as high-risk signals rather than "tickets to expertise."
Looking ahead, the outcome of the Dingyifeng case and the potential supporting policies that local financial regulatory authorities may issue are expected to create a significant deterrent effect on similar digital asset financial products, cross-border capital channels, and quasi-private equity institutions. For the industry, this is a collective examination of boundaries: which practices will be clearly classified as illegal fundraising, and which businesses must enter licensed and transparent regulatory channels, will gradually become clear in this series of cases.
On a deeper level, if the cryptocurrency industry cannot make substantial improvements in self-discipline and information disclosure mechanisms, digital innovation will continue to be used by fringe players as a high-level packaging tool for illegal fundraising, harming not only the interests of retail investors but also the long-term credibility and survival space of the entire industry. In this sense, the Dingyifeng case is not only a pursuit of accountability for an individual company but also a mirror reflecting the world of digital assets—what determines the future image of the industry is not just the technology itself, but how it is used and under what institutional framework it operates.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
