I just read Gate's announcement regarding the account freeze, and I think everyone should avoid blindly following the crowd and focus more on the development of the events and the chain of evidence. First, I believe there's one principle at play: If the funds are indeed involved in fraud, and law enforcement agencies are legally required to freeze, recover, and return them to the victims, there's no problem. For any exchange to operate in mainstream society, cooperating with law enforcement is a must. However, users' assets should also be fully protected. If users' legally held assets are frozen simply because of a connection to the funds, they also need full procedural protection. So, shouldn't both parties strengthen communication? There are some commendable aspects to this matter, or perhaps there's some misunderstanding? Firstly, Gate didn't directly transfer assets and continued to request supplementary evidence and bring in local lawyers. These actions are commendable and, to some extent, demonstrate consideration for users—the attitude an exchange should have. However, I think the platform should also further explain: What was the initial basis for the freeze? What verifiable connection exists between the funds involved and the user's assets? Why was it necessary to restrict the entire account? Did the user receive sufficient opportunities to appeal? What is the amount of money involved for the user? If the amount involved is far less than the frozen funds, could most of the funds be unfrozen first? If this could be done clearly, I believe everyone would have no objections, and might even applaud GATE. Compliance is a responsibility that exchanges must bear, and I completely agree with that. However, judicial investigations must be respected, and legitimate property rights must also be respected. I hope that the final answer will be given by evidence and legal procedures, rather than by the volume of public opinion from any one party.