Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
TradFi
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Pre-IPOs
Unlock full access to global stock IPOs
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
Promotions
AI
Gate AI
Your all-in-one conversational AI partner
Gate AI Bot
Use Gate AI directly in your social App
GateClaw
Gate Blue Lobster, ready to go
Gate for AI Agent
AI infrastructure, Gate MCP, Skills, and CLI
Gate Skills Hub
10K+ Skills
From office tasks to trading, the all-in-one skill hub makes AI even more useful.
GateRouter
Smartly choose from 30+ AI models, with 0% extra fees
Recently, I noticed a quite serious case from South Korea involving a dispute over crypto investments between business partners. It initially sounded like a typical business story, but ended with a murder accusation. This serves as an important reminder of how serious the risks are when people manage shared funds in a volatile market.
Here's the story: two partners who have been working together since 2022 experienced serious tension after suffering huge losses in their Bitcoin investment program. The loss amounted to 1.17 billion won, about 1.1 million AUD. The difference from traditional investments is that the crypto market operates 24/7, so psychological pressure can be much more intense. A 39-year-old investor in Seoul was eventually charged with attempted murder after an incident at a cafe. The prosecution stated he used illegal insecticide after losing control of the remaining investment funds.
If we think about how to invest in crypto safely, this case shows that the problem often isn't just about trading strategies, but about governance and asset security. When two people manage funds together without a clear legal framework, the situation can quickly worsen. Especially if one party has full control over the private keys—that's a high-risk setup.
From an investor's perspective, there are several important lessons to learn from this incident. First, never rely solely on verbal agreements, especially when large sums are at risk. Second, use multi-signature technology to prevent a single individual from having unilateral control over funds. With multi-sig, you need more than one key to authorize transactions, so no one can "lock" the funds without others' approval.
On the regulatory side, South Korea has already started to take the Virtual Asset User Protection Act seriously. This law requires crypto platforms to separate user funds from exchange assets and maintain high security standards. This is a positive step because many informal investment programs lack the oversight that registered financial institutions have.
For anyone looking to invest in crypto with partners or within an investment club, here’s an essential checklist: ensure there is a detailed written agreement, specify who is responsible for trading and bookkeeping, agree on loss thresholds where trading should stop, and most importantly, include an arbitration clause for dispute resolution through professional mediation rather than personal negotiations.
Protecting your interests begins with thorough planning before funds move. Don't underestimate the legal and technical aspects just because this is a crypto investment. On the contrary, due to its high volatility and 24/7 market operation, a solid structure is even more important than in traditional investments. As South Korea and other countries increase oversight of virtual asset service providers, investors also need to be more aware of the security standards they rely on. This "toxic coffee" case will set an important precedent for how regulators view the responsibility of fund managers toward their partners and clients.