Sun Yuchen chose to bring the long-standing public opinion war in the cryptocurrency circle back to the compliance track of real-name systems. On September 1, Red Star News reported that he recently filed a concentrated real-name complaint against a number of self-media accounts that have continuously published critical content, citing infringement on his rights to reputation, commercial reputation, privacy, and image. The known entities named include at least "Luke Wen Studio" and "Luo Serious". The complaint materials particularly emphasized pejorative terms such as "cutting leeks", arguing that this kind of language carries evident derogatory connotations in the Chinese cryptocurrency community. Once tied to his name, image, and business, it would solidify a negative persona of "harvesting retail investors" in platform dissemination. To shift the controversy from emotional retaliation to procedural rights protection, he has entrusted lawyers to secure evidence regarding relevant content and has requested that the involved articles and dissemination chains be processed through existing real-name complaint mechanisms on various platforms. However, after this apparently standard rights remedy pathway was initiated, an unavoidable core issue surfaced: as the cryptocurrency industry enters a period of stricter regulation, how should a party that is both a project leader and a public figure draw a legally compliant line that does not stifle the criticism space while protecting their own reputation?

Real-name Complaints against Self-media: Platforms Become the First Arbiter

According to the existing public information, this round of actions remains within the framework of "bulk real-name complaints" on platforms and has not yet entered the formal judicial litigation stage, nor is there any indication of legal documents such as lawsuits or case notifications. Sun Yuchen has chosen to first complete a "preemptive rights protection" using the platform's content review and reporting mechanisms: lawyers secure evidence, and then through real-name channels, request the platform to take down, block, or label the involved articles, rather than directly bringing the dispute to court for a public confrontation. For the parties involved, this is a lower-cost, faster-reacting path that directly impacts the public opinion field, but it also means that the first to make a value judgment is not a judge, but the review team of the content platform.

For platforms, these real-name reputation complaints are not "dispensable" user feedback but are part of a compliance procedure embedded in their regulations. Major internet platforms in China generally set up complaint channels for rights such as reputation and privacy rights, requiring complainants to use their real names and submit materials, which the platform reviews according to its community standards and relevant laws. The issue, however, lies in the fact that this review inevitably falls between two red lines: on one side are Sun Yuchen's claims for reputation, commercial reputation, privacy rights, and rights to image; on the other side is the commentary space for self-media on cryptocurrency projects and public figures, especially using terms like "cutting leeks," which are strongly derogatory and already normalized within the community. The platform must first make a judgment: is this a malicious distortion of facts or a value judgment expressed in a heated manner? Since the names of the involved platforms and specific results have not yet been disclosed, the outside world currently cannot see how this "first arbitration" will unfold. However, a concentrated rights protection initiative from a high-profile project party is bound to have a demonstration effect on other project issuers and cryptocurrency opinion leaders, prompting more entities to use platform compliance channels to "digest" public opinion disputes, thus placing the platform in a position of taking on primary responsibility in drawing lines between industry public opinion and rights protection.

"Cutting Leeks" Shifts from Industry Jargon to Legal Risk

In the Chinese cryptocurrency circle, "cutting leeks" was initially jargon, a self-deprecating term used by retail investors to accuse project parties or opinion leaders of leveraging information asymmetry and discourse advantages to repeatedly "harvest" ordinary investors. This term has been widely used within the industry for a long time, carrying evident derogatory implications but more as an emotional label within the community to summarize a perceived "unfair" and "predatory" interest distribution model, without necessarily corresponding to specific legal facts of a single event.

Once this jargon is written into complaint materials, it transitions from an emotional label to the legal discourse. In this real-name complaint, Sun Yuchen's emphasis on terms such as "cutting leeks" as a qualitative, negative characterization becomes one of the focal points of the controversy, effectively throwing the question to the platform and potentially involved judicial authorities: are such terms derogatory evaluations of personality, or do they imply or even assert the existence of some specific illegal or improper behavior? In China's civil legal practice, whether similar derogatory terms constitute a reputational infringement often requires a comprehensive assessment of whether they point to verifiable specific facts, and whether they significantly harm social evaluations. Currently, there is no public information indicating that any court has reached a conclusive judgment on the term "cutting leeks" as an insult or reputation infringement in this case. However, for self-media, when such label-expressing terms directly target easily identifiable individuals or organizations, every written word edges closer to the boundaries of reputation rights, and the line between criticism and insult is gradually tightening through the platform's complaint mechanisms and potential future case rulings.

Bulk Complaints Signal to Cryptocurrency Content Creators

When real-name complaints extend beyond theoretical risks to impact specific accounts in the form of "bulk complaints," the message for Chinese cryptocurrency self-media becomes very clear: when criticism surrounds identifiable individuals, labels with strong derogatory connotations could be seen by the other party as an entry point for infringements on reputation rights, commercial reputation, or even privacy rights and rights to image. In this incident, at least two accounts, including Luke Wen Studio and "Luo Serious," were named, and the complaint materials explicitly pointed out terms like "cutting leeks" as one of the focal points of the controversy. In the context of widespread real-name complaint mechanisms regarding reputation on Chinese platforms, this means that once the other party initiates procedures, common platform responses such as "removal, traffic limitation, deletion, or requests for additional evidence" will directly affect specific works. Even if no public information currently shows whether these accounts have adjusted, deleted relevant content, or issued compliance statements, the mere uncertainty of being "subject to possibly being handled at any time" is enough to cause creators to instinctively retract in terms of topic choice and wording, shifting from "daring to write" to "is it worth the risk of being complained against or limited in reach?" The chilling effect will first manifest in the self-avoidance of sensitive figures and controversial topics.

Under this pressure, the defenses of self-media can only shift toward a more "compliant operation": on one hand, strengthening references to publicly available information, basing facts on announcements, official statements, and authoritative media reports, clearly separating verifiable facts from personal judgments; on the other hand, deliberately downplaying personalized labels and absolute classifications in writing style, replacing direct judgments with expressions like "there may be information asymmetry risks" or "some investors believe there are harvesting suspicions." For many cryptocurrency content creators who have long relied on emotional output and positioning, this represents both a constraint and a passive stylistic reconstruction. In the increasing strictness of global cryptocurrency asset regulations and China's stringent restrictions on related promotional and token issuance activities, such rights protection and complaint incidents are likely to push the Chinese cryptocurrency public opinion field away from reckless accusations and emotional attacks toward a writing logic that emphasizes the integrity of evidence chains and control of legal risks. Whether creators can continue to produce critical content within this narrower space will directly determine the boundaries and levels of Chinese cryptocurrency narratives in the coming years.

Compliance and Public Relations Choices Behind Sun Yuchen's Controversy

As the founder of TRON, Sun Yuchen has long occupied public attention through high-profile marketing, cross-border auctions, and intensive social media speeches, with his personal image almost overlapping with the project brand. The frequency of controversial discussions surrounding himself and related businesses has always been far higher than that of ordinary practitioners, meaning that any labeling language or viral commentary articles can quickly form a transmission chain between market sentiment and project reputation. This high level of binding means that every move he makes in the public opinion field will be interpreted as a "declaration of position" from the project party regarding risk management.

Compared to past reliance on public statements and opinion countering, this time, he has directly entrusted lawyers to secure evidence, and through the real-name complaint mechanism, pointed to infringements of reputation rights, commercial reputation, privacy rights, and rights to image, effectively pulling keywords that would originally be used in community squabbles back into the framework of platform rules and civil rights. For a leading figure in cryptocurrency, this is a typical operation of combining compliance, legal, and public relations tools in the regulatory gray area: on one hand, leveraging the existing real-name complaint mechanisms on platforms to shift the confrontation from an emotional battle to a procedural game of "rights claims vs. content boundaries"; on the other hand, by actually initiating complaints rather than just stopping at the posture of "I want to sue", establishing a clear signal for the industry—when negative labels are seen as touching the red lines of reputation and commercial reputation, project parties can completely redraw lines using compliance tools. This approach not only provides replicable treatment templates for other projects but also reminds self-media that when criticizing leading figures and projects in the future, they must more carefully delineate their safety boundaries between freedom of expression and potential rights infringements.

The Industry Boundary Between Reputation Rights and the Right to Critique

This batch of real-name complaints has pushed platforms from being "content managers" to becoming the prior arbitrators of conflicts between reputation rights and the right to critique: which article gets limited traffic or taken down often first depends on the judgments of the platform's complaint mechanism, rather than a court's final ruling. In the reality where major internet platforms in China generally have real-name complaint channels for rights such as reputation and privacy, the friction between cryptocurrency practitioners and self-media is rapidly guided into a set of procedural rights remedy paths, with platform rules quietly rewriting the industry's "discourse boundaries." For project parties, the compliance signal released from this action is that rather than letting labeling attacks fester, it is better to use lawyer-secured evidence and formal complaints to force discussions back to verifiable facts and information disclosure; for self-media and ordinary users, during a phase of dual high pressure from regulation and public opinion, criticisms can still be sharp, but the expression must be based on verifiable fact chains as much as possible, avoiding the use of strong personalized and derogatory labels like "cutting leeks" as substitutes for arguments, in order to mitigate the risk of crossing reputation and commercial reputation red lines. It is important to emphasize that as of now, there is no public information indicating that related complaints have entered judicial procedures, nor has any platform disclosed final handling results. What the industry can do is to await the following objective nodes: whether the media has follow-up reports, whether the parties publicly respond, and whether platforms further refine complaint and content governance rules. In the context of tightening global regulations and China's strict limitations on related promotional behaviors, this incident is likely to serve as a reference for other project parties and self-media to adjust content strategies and compliance practices, ultimately highlighting that it is not just a matter of victory or defeat for an individual, but a long-term behavioral constraint in the cryptocurrency industry redefined between reputation rights and the right to critique.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin On-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata

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。