Q: I have also heard that the supervision of virtual currencies has been strengthened, such as the 2.6 Notice and other documents released this year. So, what are the legal risks in my current business model? How can we be more compliant?

Answer: According to your description of the business model, it has indeed entered a range where there are obvious legal risks.

In practice, this type of KOL who produces content and leads communities is not treated in a one-size-fits-all manner. It can be roughly divided into three levels. The corresponding risk differences at different levels are relatively obvious:

The first type is a type of pure content.

What they mainly do is historical trend analysis and basic knowledge explanation. They do not provide real-time market analysis, nor do they make instant judgments on specific market trends; even if some charge a fee, they only sell recorded courses. The overall risk of this category is relatively low, but it does not mean that there is no risk at all. The key depends on whether the content will be understood as having the nature of operational guidance.

The second type is the semi-guided type in the middle zone.

Paid communities are usually established to provide daily market analysis, market analysis, and Q&A. Although the expression does not directly give clear buying and selling points, there will be judgments such as "you can pay attention to this position" and "there are opportunities here." In practice, this category is most easily identified as "providing investment advice", and risks often begin to accumulate gradually at this stage.

The third type is a more typical strong band monotype.

The buying and selling points and operating ranges will be clearly given, and even form a certain binding relationship with the user's trading results and income. Once a dispute arises or is reported, this category is more likely to be directly included in the scope of criminal evaluation, and the handling methods will be significantly different.

Specifically for your business, the core risk point is that the content you share within the community is not just pure knowledge teaching, but also includes your real-time analysis and judgment of market conditions (for example, marking "Here may be a good long opportunity" on the chart). This kind of content is likely to be deemed to have the nature of "guiding transactions" and will affect members' decision-making behavior. Even if you emphasize trading logic rather than direct orders, you are still essentially providing investment analysis advice.

Provide investment consulting services such as interpretation for a fee, and provide daily market analysis and Q&A. These services can easily be regarded as "guiding transactions".

Q: What specific legal risks will I face if my content is deemed to be "guiding transactions"? Is it civil liability or criminal liability?

Answer: Risks are mainly divided into two categories:

1. Civil Risk: If your advice causes a user to suffer investment losses, the user may file a civil lawsuit against you and claim compensation for the loss. Although you are not promised benefits and the risks are relatively controllable, the litigation itself consumes time and energy.

2. Criminal risk: This is more worthy of attention. If a user reports the case to the public security organs after losing money, or is maliciously reported, the public security organs may open a case for investigation. Possible crimes include fraud, fund-raising fraud, etc.. The logic is: users invest based on their trust in your advice, and after suffering losses, they may claim that your behavior constitutes fraud.

Q: What content might be considered “investment advice” (or “trading guidance”)?

Answer:Lawyer Shao had previously come into contact with a KOL who was a paid-for-knowledge community. He started out as a “teacher,” and then gradually turned into analyzing market trends in the group every day. Occasionally he would say, “You can pay attention to this position.” He himself has always believed that there is no "call for orders". But after a user reports a loss, the core question ultimately determined by the public security organs is: Did the user make the transaction based on his judgment?

Therefore, combined with relevant judicial practice, policy spirit, and our experience in handling a large number of Web3 and virtual currency cases, the following behaviors may be deemed as "investment advice" with the nature of "guiding transactions" in practice, thus creating legal risks:

1. Provide specific buying and selling points

This is the most direct "order calling" behavior - clearly telling users when to buy and when to sell. For example, directly point out in the community or video that "Bitcoin can be entered at this position", "Ethereum is bought at the current price, the target is XX", "This is the stop loss point".

2. Provide market analysis and trend prediction

Even if you don't directly say "buy", if you provide an analysis of the current market and a prediction of future trends, it is still a high-risk behavior. For example, in the interpretation video, the K-line pattern is analyzed, the short-term trend of Bitcoin or a certain currency is predicted, the market hot spots are interpreted and opportunities are coming, and the market outlook or operating range is given.

3. Teaching methodology

This is a situation that many consultants tend to misunderstand - just talking about methodology, shouldn’t this be considered investment guidance?

In judicial practice, if the methodology in a paid course essentially teaches currency selection or trading skills with clear operational guidelines and implies that customers can implement them accordingly, this will tend to be regarded as disguised "investment advice."

The reason is that this is no longer about pure K-line basic knowledge or trading history, but a strong operation guidance. Users pay to learn how to make money. The reason why users pay to join the community is because they believe that your "logic" can help them make profits in the market.