Adapted by: ChainThink

Original by: WuShuo

In the crypto community, Sun Zeyu is not an unfamiliar name.

He was a veteran investor in the blockchain space, founder of Genesis Capital, co-founder of Kushen Wallet, and founder of Lancer Group. Since 2013, he has been actively involved in blockchain, consistently recognized as an early-stage investor and OG figure in the industry.

It's precisely due to this background and reputation that during bear markets—when demand for primary-tier allocations, token placements, and fund custody arises—he was more easily trusted than the average individual. However, according to both interviewees, this very "veteran investor" identity ultimately became a source of risk.

In February 2026, WuShuo recorded an interview in which two respondents detailed two separate fund disputes involving Sun Zeyu: one concerning a TIA project placement worth approximately $300,000 USD; the other a prior "investment" in financial products amounting to roughly $1.5 million USD. While the pathways differed, the outcomes were similar—after funds were transferred, the counterparty either went silent or offered only a vague explanation of “liquidation,” with no actual return of capital.

$300K TIA Placement: Contract Signed, Tokens Missing

The first respondent, Qingtian William Lu, is an early practitioner in the crypto industry. He recalls entering the field in 2017 and having previously fallen victim to a placement scam in 2018, which left him in debt. This experience made him cautious about future placements. Nevertheless, during the bear market in 2022, he participated in a primary-tier placement for the TIA project through a former business partner.

At the time, Sun Zeyu claimed he had primary allocation rights available for transfer. Qingtian secured a portion of approximately $300,000 USD and signed a contract. The contract included Sun Zeyu’s full name, ID number, signature, and receiving address—appearing complete on paper. Communication remained normal until just before token issuance. However, after TIA completed its TGE (Token Generation Event), Sun Zeyu abruptly vanished—no replies on WeChat, and no tokens delivered.

To Qingtian, this was not ordinary investment loss but rather a deliberate breach of contract. He noted that at its peak, the nominal unrealized profit on this $300,000 investment approached $10 million USD. Even accounting for current market prices, the asset still holds value in the tens of thousands of dollars. Yet his decision to go public was not solely driven by recovery of gains—but because he later discovered that others may have suffered identical fates.

“Investment loss” and “being scammed” are fundamentally different, a point Qingtian emphasized repeatedly in the interview.

$1.5M “Liquidated” Investment: No Contract, No Evidence

The second respondent, Luxi, described an earlier incident involving a $1.5 million dispute.

This occurred around 2021. At the time, he and his partner were preparing to launch an exchange and had ongoing collaboration with Sun Zeyu on cloud-based exchange system development. Based on their friendship and professional ties, trust between them ran high. Previously, Luxi’s partner had invested approximately $500,000 USD with Sun Zeyu under the guise of financial management or project investment. Later, they added another $1 million USD, bringing the total to about $1.5 million USD.

After transferring the funds, Sun Zeyu claimed the money had been “liquidated.” The issue? There was no supporting evidence—no transaction records, no liquidation statements, no third-party verification. According to Luxi, the claim was made verbally, accompanied by repeated promises of “just give us a little more time,” yet the funds were never returned. Communication via WeChat gradually ceased altogether.

Even more critical: no formal contract was ever signed. The reason was simple—mutual trust was so strong that most discussions were conducted via voice calls, including explicit promises of principal protection, but none were documented in writing. This lack of formal proof rendered subsequent legal recourse extremely difficult. Luxi now suspects that Sun Zeyu never actually deployed the funds into any purported investment—“liquidation” was merely a convenient excuse.

Not an Isolated Case—A Microcosm of Primary Placement Gray Zones

These two incidents merit attention not only due to their scale, but also because they expose systemic risks inherent in primary-tier investing and placement models within the crypto industry.

First, personal reputation and familiarity substitute for due diligence. Whether it was Qingtian’s $300K TIA placement or Luxi’s $1.5M financial investment, neither party initiated the transaction after reviewing a comprehensive risk assessment. Instead, trust stemmed from “he’s well-known,” “he’s been in the industry since the beginning,” or “someone introduced him and vouched for him.” While such trust dynamics exist in traditional finance, in crypto—where cross-border transactions, pseudonymity, on-chain transfers, and missing smart contracts prevail—failure to verify leads to drastically amplified difficulty in accountability.

Second, weak contractual enforcement and prohibitively high legal costs. Although Qingtian did sign a contract, he still faced challenges with the counterparty’s disappearance and cross-border jurisdiction issues. Luxi’s case was even more illustrative—no contract at all, only fragmented transaction records and verbal communications. These cases underscore that primary placements, token staking, and allocation resales often remain in the realm of “gentleman’s agreements.” When obligations aren’t fulfilled, victims are left with limited options: public exposure or arduous, uncertain legal battles.

Finally, fraudsters exploit bull markets and pre-existing relationships to replicate the same schemes repeatedly. Qingtian mentioned he was scammed via a placement back in 2018, leading to personal debt. Luxi also revealed his team had encountered other scams previously. In short, this is not an isolated act of dishonesty—it reflects a structural risk embedded in the crypto ecosystem: high-barrier, high-return gray-area services like allocation access, primary opportunities, and managed investment portfolios are often the most reliant on trust and least protected.

Both respondents stated that going public was not merely about recovering funds, but about warning the industry: fame, track record, and personal referrals never equate to safety. The greatest danger lies precisely with those who appear most like “one of us.”