2026-01-15 13:37:21

We really need to discuss this issue:

When a crypto asset (like MANTA) gets involved in a legal dispute and suddenly rebounds to its all-time high during the litigation process, how should investor losses be calculated in this situation?

Should it be based on the price at the time of the transaction, or determined by the final outcome after the legal proceedings are concluded?

This not only involves the calculation of investment returns but also relates to the logic of legal liability. If the asset price fluctuates dramatically during the lawsuit, the standard for loss assessment will be completely different. Someone might incur losses at the low point but end up making a profit due to the price rebound—who should be legally responsible in this case?

MANTA-8.36%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

8 Likes

Reward
8
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

OnchainDetective

· 01-17 07:06

Wait a minute, this timing is very interesting... According to on-chain data, the trading pattern of MANTA from its legal dispute low point to the rebound is abnormal. We need to dig into who quietly accumulated at the low point. Through multiple address tracking, I have already identified several suspicious wallets. The transaction sequence doesn't match at all. Could this be a typical wash trading method? The price has pulled back from the bottom to a historical high... Obvious fund connections suggest we need to see if there is any insider linkage between legal procedures and the coin price rebound. This logic has flaws. Who set the loss standard? Why not base it on the lawsuit outcome? Someone might be trying to harvest profits during this opportunity.

View OriginalReply0

blockBoy

· 01-17 04:18

Legal responsibility is really a trap; basically, everyone wants to pass the buck. Speaking of which, MANTA's recent move is quite outrageous; those who bought the dip at a low point made a big profit. But this is a good question—there should be a thorough review of the legal vacuum in the crypto world. Wait, a rebound to a new all-time high? Then what's the point of losing money? Compliance costs are too high; retail investors are always eaten up by the system.

View OriginalReply0

PerennialLeek

· 01-16 13:01

This is outrageous. How does the law determine compensation standards? The coin price just changes at will. --- The joy of buying low, and then getting caught at the high and having to pay? Who came up with this logic? --- Basically, the law hasn't kept up with the speed of the crypto world. No matter how it's judged now, it's a trap. --- Getting cut based on the trading price, then turning around after the lawsuit ends—this move is absolutely brilliant. --- It seems this issue isn't even clear in traditional finance, let alone in the crypto space. --- MANTA's rebound this time is really impressive. The problem is, no one cares whether you profit or not when claiming compensation. --- So, you have to think carefully about the worst-case scenario before entering the market. Don't expect the law to save you. --- How will it be judged? Haha, everyone is saying different things now, just waiting to be repeatedly proven wrong by case rulings. --- The craziest thing is that someone can buy at a low price and still apply for compensation. No one really understands the rules of this game.

View OriginalReply0

MidnightGenesis

· 01-15 14:07

On-chain data shows that MANTA's recent rebound is a bit strange... It is worth noting that price fluctuations during litigation are essentially the market's re-pricing of risk premiums, and there is no standard for loss recognition points.

View OriginalReply0

SleepTrader

· 01-15 14:06

This question is really sharp; the law can't keep up with the speed of the crypto world, so no one can really clarify it. MANTA's situation has completely confused me. How can they both be awarded damages and look at the final price? Rebounding to a new high during litigation? Damn, what's the difference from harvesting the leek? The ones who buy at the low point suffer the most, but in the end, they make money. Who should compensate? Honestly, there's no legal framework for this kind of situation; it's all explorers figuring things out afterward.

View OriginalReply0

LayerZeroJunkie

· 01-15 14:04

Hey, this issue is giving me a headache... Who ends up losing and who gains in this MANTA situation? --- Law is really just the same old thing from the fiat world. How do you calculate when the crypto prices change daily? --- Honestly, if the price rebounds to ATH but still results in a loss... then it's purely a matter of timing. Who's responsible for that? --- Wait, if you got caught at a low point and now you've broken even, you're actually losing money? Isn't that logic backwards? --- The MANTA case is truly exceptional. The problem is that the legal world hasn't kept up with the pace of the crypto industry. --- I'm a bit confused. During the lawsuit, the price went back up. Isn't that considered investors' self-rescue? --- That's why I keep saying that public chain governance is more reliable than law. At least smart contracts are transparent. --- The most ridiculous part is that some people want it both ways: calling for compensation when prices are low, but remaining silent when prices rebound... Have you seen anyone like that?

View OriginalReply0

CommunityJanitor

· 01-15 13:47

That's a good question. Basically, it's a deadlock between law and the market. Who the hell can explain it clearly? Rebounding to a high during legal disputes? That's just like a casino—win or lose all depends on luck. Brothers who cut losses at the low point are probably wanting to smash their keyboards now seeing the price rebound. Why should I take the blame for this? In my opinion, the transaction price should be the benchmark. Otherwise, how can legal responsibility be determined? It's all nonsense. Litigation and compensation in such cases can drive people crazy. One cryptocurrency, one ruling? The most disgusting thing is that some people use price fluctuations to wash their hands of responsibility. The legal system really can't keep up with the speed of the crypto world.

View OriginalReply0

WealthCoffee

· 01-15 13:47

This is outrageous. How does the law handle this? Even the legal teams in the crypto circle can't figure it out, haha. By the way, MANTA's move this time is really clever. After trapping people, it can still rebound to a new high? That's ruthless. There should have been clear standards for legal accountability long ago; otherwise, defending rights will always be a joke. Rebounding to a new historical high and making a profit? Then I want to ask how the court determines the amount of loss. That is indeed a problem. This issue hits the nail on the head. The legal framework in the crypto world is a tangled mess.

View OriginalReply0