In the U.S. judicial system, the principle is: whoever makes the claim bears the burden of proof. If WLFI claims that Sun sold or shorted WLFI, they need to provide evidence at the Binance account level, such as orders, trades, margin, positions, and the actual beneficiary, rather than asking Sun to prove he didn’t short. Of course, if the case enters the evidence chain stage, WLFI can request Sun, Blue Anthem, or relevant third parties to disclose trading records through evidence discovery, or attempt to subpoena Binance. But this falls under the evidence discovery process and does not equate to reversing the burden of proof. So far, simply relying on “transfers to Binance” and “subsequent increase in short OI” can at most form suspicion or inference, but it’s not sufficient to directly prove that Sun has sold or shorted WLFI. (Key point: This does not deny the possibility that Sun might sell and short, but there’s not enough evidence to prove it.)