Written by: Wu Talks Blockchain

This interview was recorded in February 2026, focusing on funding disputes in the primary market and agency investment models within the cryptocurrency industry, involving well-known investor Sun Zeyu. Sun Zeyu was a veteran investor in the blockchain field, founder of Genesis Capital, co-founder of KuShen Wallet, and founder of Lancer Group. He entered the blockchain space in 2013 and is well-regarded in the industry.

The first interviewee, Sunny William Lu, revisited his experience of participating in the TIA (Celestia) project through an intermediary in 2022, and disclosed that approximately $300,000 invested in the project was not compensated with corresponding tokens after its issuance, and the funding party, Sun Zeyu, went missing.

Another interviewee, Luzi, described an earlier case of a funding dispute, where his team transferred around $1.5 million to Sun Zeyu under the guise of "financial investment" around 2021, only to be informed later that the funds had "collapsed," without any trading proof received or funds refunded.

Through the experiences of both interviewees, the interview showcases common trust chains and structural risks in the first-level agency investment and fund custody models in the cryptocurrency industry, including issues like project quota resale, personal endorsements, insufficient contractual constraints, and difficulties in cross-border rights protection. The interviewees stated that the main purpose of disclosing these events was to expose the associated risks and remind participants in the cryptocurrency industry to raise their vigilance in first-level investments and agency cooperation.

Guest statements do not represent Wu Talks' views and do not constitute any investment advice. Please strictly follow local laws and regulations.

Audio transcription was completed by GPT, and there may be errors. Please listen to the full podcast on Xiaoyuzhou, YT, etc.

Part 1: From Personal Endorsements to Financial Pitfalls: The TIA Incident Chronicles

Wu Talks: This time, we are interviewing an early industry participant who encountered some losses in transactions related to the TIA project. Before delving into specific experiences, let's briefly introduce the public background of Sun Zeyu, who will be mentioned later. He was engaged in the industry as an early blockchain practitioner and investor and has had connections with hardware wallets, investment institutions, and other projects, being frequently mentioned by the media. Due to this background and external image, he was easier to gain others' trust during the primary quota and agency investment trades in a bear market. First, let's have Sunny introduce himself.

Sunny: I entered the cryptocurrency industry in 2017. I made some money in that 2017 wave but went bankrupt between 2018 and 2020. I have previously written about this experience on Weibo and Zhihu. Later, due to these public records, I gained recognition from some people and received funding support, and resumed my work after 2020.

In these years, from bankruptcy to earning money again, the state I presented in the media has always been quite real, regardless of whether it was during the lows or the highs, reflecting my true character and condition. For those who know me and are aware of my experiences, this should be fairly clear.

Wu Talks: Before the TIA incident, had you participated in first-level project agency investments? You entered the industry in 2017; I remember there were quite a few instances of agency investment during that time?

Sunny: My experience of going bankrupt and falling into debt in 2018 was primarily due to participation in someone else's agency investment project, putting all the borrowed money into it, only for the agency party to run away. I experienced this firsthand, so I have been very cautious about "agency investment" ever since.

Over the years, I have actually participated in very few projects through agency investments, around seven or eight. After the bull market in 2020, I did invest in some projects, but the individual amounts were not large, generally in tens of thousands to over a hundred thousand USDT, some of which were also through the company entity. Overall, the number of agency investment projects and risk exposure I participated in later were all strictly controlled.

Wu Talks: Some listeners may have entered this industry relatively late and might not understand what "agency investment" entails. Could you briefly explain the general process of agency investment for everyone? Additionally, you mentioned earlier that the risks are quite high, yet you still participated later. Was it because there действительно was a chance to earn money?

Sunny: The essence of agency investment is to solve the problem of individuals not being able to access first-level quotas. As a personal investor like me, the primary resources are limited, and the amount I can invest at a time is not large; whereas some large institutions or top KOLs often can obtain larger quotas, like hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. Individuals cannot gather that much money on their own, so they participate through agency investment.

The specific logic is that the agency gathers funds, secures the project quota, and then splits the quota with a service fee to retail investors. The risk mainly lies in the lack of effective constraints in this process. Once the agency runs away, it is actually hard to hold them accountable under the domestic legal framework.

The reason I later participated in agency investment is partly because I made some money after 2020 and the intermediaries I encountered seemed relatively reliable; on the other hand, there were indeed cases where some agency investment projects could be profitable. However, even so, I participated cautiously. In the past two years, the number of agency investment projects I engaged in was not many; in 2022, I only invested in around three or four, keeping the overall scale and risk relatively small.

Wu Talks: How did you get to know Sun Zeyu? What was your perception of his identity and reputation in the industry at that time? Do you think he falls into the category of the "relatively reliable intermediaries" that you mentioned earlier?

Sunny: I got to know him through a former partner at our company. Strictly speaking, I never met him offline, and all contacts were made through intermediaries. In my understanding at that time, Sun Zeyu was introduced as a person who did first-level investments early in the industry, possessing strong first-level resources, and had associations with some well-known institutions. My judgment was mainly based on trusting that company partner — he knew Sun Zeyu, and relatively recognized him, which is why I chose to participate.

From my perspective, investing in first-level projects inherently involves a great deal of uncertainty; often, it is not solely about looking at the project itself but also making judgments based on the cycle. At that time, I believed we were in the late stage of a bear market, with project valuations relatively low. If token issuance followed smoothly, the risk-to-reward ratio might still be acceptable, which was my main logic back then. Thus, my evaluations regarding his identity and reputation were largely derived from my partner's endorsement.

Wu Talks: So how did your agency investment cooperation regarding TIA come about? Could you outline the entire process? Also, did that company partner you mentioned suffer losses in this process?

Sunny: That former partner only introduced me and did not participate in the actual investment or put in any money, so he did not incur any direct losses. The entire process was actually quite simple. Sun Zeyu indicated externally that he had first-level quotas to transfer, and the partner relayed this information to me. I also had friends and colleagues briefly look at the project, and they felt it was relatively okay overall. At that time, he said he had around $500,000 to $600,000 in quota; I didn’t take it all but just took a $300,000 share and participated in this agency investment. The decision-making process was not complex; I did not conduct particularly thorough assessments. On one hand, I wasn't very familiar with first-level projects, and on the other hand, I had been more focused on the secondary market, so I mostly relied on the so-called "professional intermediary's" selection results in this regard.

Wu Talks: After you invested $300,000, did you sign a contract? After TIA went online, did the other party normally unlock your tokens? Could you briefly share the background for everyone, as some listeners may not have seen your previous tweets.

Sunny: At that time, we did sign a contract, which included Sun Zeyu's name, ID number, and payment address, all clearly written. There was also his signature. After signing, there was basically no communication until just before the token issuance. Before the issuance, he would occasionally reply to a message or two, but after the actual TGE, he completely disappeared; I couldn't find him on WeChat, and others couldn't contact him either.

Not until I was preparing to publicly expose this matter recently, possibly through word of mouth from mutual friends, did he briefly show up again, saying it was an economic dispute or a debt problem to try to shift the focus. However, I believe he originally intended to default on the debt. Moreover, I later learned that I wasn't the only one he operated this way with.

Wu Talks: Did the contract you signed get reviewed by a lawyer? Did you consider what countermeasures or accountability measures you might have if the other party didn’t give you the tokens?

Sunny: The lawyer did review the contract, but the reality is that this type of agency investment contract, under the domestic legal environment, practically resembles more of a gentlemen's agreement. If the agency runs away, it is then challenging to truly hold them accountable. If they are still in the country, in theory, they could be held liable for contract fraud or other types of fraud; but if they are outside the country, the practical enforceability becomes substantially difficult.

Wu Talks: You mentioned earlier that you have never met Sun Zeyu offline, so how do you confirm that the person who signed the contract and received your money is indeed him?

Sunny: The WeChat is his WeChat, and the contract was sent to me through this WeChat. Even now that I mention wanting to expose this matter, the response also comes from this account. I can only say that the process definitely was not cautious enough at the time; in retrospect, this is one of my own issues.

Wu Talks: In other words, before you transferred the $300,000, he would communicate normally; but after the money was sent, he basically went silent?

Sunny: Yes, that's right.

Wu Talks: When did this investment occur approximately?

Sunny: It was in 2022. I later checked the records, and the contract signing date was November 9, 2022; his signature and payment address are on it, and I have publicly shared this material on Twitter already.

Wu Talks: TIA completed its TGE around October 2023, and it has been over two years since then. From the information you disclosed, this agency investment could have had a peak unrealized profit of about 30 times, equivalent to $300,000 turning into $9 million. During that period, did you attempt other methods, like coordinating through intermediaries or pursuing legal action?

Sunny: To be honest, at the beginning, I did consider holding him accountable, but I felt the actual operational difficulties were immense, plus the intermediaries also informed me that this person was essentially unreachable. I hadn't publicly disclosed this matter earlier because I still harbored a sliver of hope that maybe, if the matter didn’t escalate, he might release the tokens, or under the pressure of exposure, choose to resolve it. However, I later realized that he likely prepared to run away from the moment he signed the agreement; this hope was unrealistic.

The reason I chose to stand up now is that I have personally experienced some things recently that made me realize that being excessively tolerant towards those who default and breach trust is not a good thing. So, I decided to lay everything bare, including this agency investment incident and other similar situations I encountered in the past. I don't want these individuals to breach agreements and embezzle funds without any cost.

Wu Talks: Have you looked into Sun Zeyu's background? Some early industry practitioners speak well of him, he claims to have participated in Bitcoin in 2013 and holds a four-digit amount of BTC, appearing to be quite an OG figure. Why did problems arise with agency investments by 2022? When did you realize that he might have had deceptive intentions from the beginning?

Sunny: I believe that making money and personal character are not necessarily related. Many people who made money early on did so because they entered the market early and had advanced understanding, rather than due to particularly good character. When things go smoothly, there is no need to risk doing illegal or shady things; but when the market is bad or personal circumstances are poor, some individuals will reveal their底线.

The agency investment cases of people running away that I've seen share some commonalities: these individuals do not adhere to rules and only avoid problems when the market is good, even some early operations may carry grey elements that were never exposed. When the environment worsens, the issues erupt all at once. In my view, the behavior behind this is more about personal bottom lines rather than merely market fluctuations.

Wu Talks: Have you specifically looked into some of his earlier experiences?

Sunny: I just skimmed through some information in the past couple of days, such as the projects he has participated in and his capital background, but overall my understanding isn't extensive. I look at this from a human perspective. If a person chooses to default or run away at critical junctures, it often indicates that their bottom line isn't high to begin with. Now, when I participate in many projects, I rely more on friends' endorsements and public information. Due to limited personal energy, it is impossible to conduct very in-depth due diligence on every project or person. Much of the time, you participate in a project because you trust a particular person.

Additionally, in the primary market, while the project itself is important, the person in charge is equally crucial. Even if the project's conditions are average, if the person in charge is reliable, there’s still room for adjustment and transformation later; conversely, even if a project seems good, if the person isn't trustworthy, the outcome could still be poor.

Wu Talks: At its peak, the potential return was close to 30 times. If you receive the tokens now, what would they roughly be worth?

Sunny: At its highest, the nominal market value of $300,000 was close to $10 million (estimated from the issued and unissued portions, not a one-time unlock). But today, when I recalculated, if I now received the corresponding number of tokens, they would only be worth about $170,000.

My decision to expose this isn't for that $170,000, nor am I fixated on the original $10 million. I believe this behavior may involve multiple victims; if not disclosed, more people could be deceived. In the past few days, as I've communicated with some victims, I found that the messages he sent to different people were almost identical, indicating that there was premeditation from the very start of this alleged "agency investment."

Wu Talks: Have you currently tracked the number of victims and the amounts involved?

Sunny: Currently, we can confirm around 3-4 people on Twitter, with individual amounts varying from several hundred thousand dollars, totaling a considerable scale. There may be more people not publicly disclosed. I hope to use this program to encourage more victims to stand up and protect their rights.

Wu Talks: Besides exposure, have you considered pursuing legal avenues?

Sunny: We have that intention. However, I learned that he may no longer be in the country, which would make enforcement difficult. Reporting to the police is in the plan.

Wu Talks: What is your core demand? To recover the tokens or to hold them legally accountable?

Sunny: Recovering the principal amount or corresponding assets is of course important, but on a personal level, what I hope for more is to hold him accountable. Investment itself can go to zero, which I am mentally prepared for; but "investment loss" and "fraud" are two different matters. Project failure is a risk, while fraud is a fundamental issue; these two cannot be conflated.

Wu Talks: Do you currently have any progress in communication with the other party?

Sunny: There has been communication through WeChat and intermediaries, but from the other party's attitude, it seems they want to default. He might be afraid of being exposed, but I suspect he never intended to fulfill the agreement from the start. Such communication is hard to achieve substantive results. Rather than pulling back and forth privately, I prefer to make things public, encouraging more victims to come forward to prevent such behavior from continuing in the industry. The issue is not just my personal loss but rather about preventing bad money from driving out good.

Wu Talks: If similar agency investments or primary opportunities arise in the future, would you participate? After going through the TIA incident, what changes would you make?

Sunny: From 2024 onwards, I have basically not participated in any primary or agency investment projects. The risks involved are just too uncontrollable to bear. More importantly, I had previously been defrauded in an agency investment back in 2018, leading to over a million in debt, so I have always been very averse to this behavior. If I have the ability, I am willing to pay the price to expose these scammers.

Wu Talks: Were you borrowing money to participate in agency investments back then, which was subsequently swindled?

Sunny: At that time, I found the private placement prices to be higher than public offerings, which was clearly an issue; I requested a refund, but they directly blacklisted me and disappeared, along with not providing any currency. Due to legal environment restrictions, the constraints were very weak. I did report to the police afterwards, but many of the agreements were verbal, and there wasn’t sufficient evidence, so the case didn’t progress substantively.

Wu Talks: Is this the most serious incident in your experience so far with Sun Zeyu?

Sunny: In terms of the amount, it is quite larger than previous experiences, fundamentally no different from other scammers, just at a higher scale.

Wu Talks: This time, it was mainly based on trust in the company partner. Has he communicated with you regarding this issue?

Sunny: He has. When he introduced this project, it was also because I had previously helped him; he wanted to repay me accordingly, and no intermediary fee was involved. But the issue arose nonetheless.

Wu Talks: Why didn’t he invest himself?

Sunny: It was in the bear market of 2022, and his financial situation was not very good; he was rather tight on funds. However, we are still good friends now; the relationship has not been torn apart because of this.

Also, to add a point: after I tweeted, someone claimed they could help me locate Sun Zeyu, and I almost got phished again. He asked for several thousand USDT, saying I should first send the money to "the intermediary," even creating a group chat for a long time. I later felt something was off and checked on WeChat to verify, only to find that it wasn’t the real person at all; it truly is hard to guard against. There are too many scammers in this industry; encountering issues requires much more caution.

Wu Talks: This reminds me of when FTX crashed, and some people were in a hurry to withdraw funds and ended up sending to the wrong address. When such incidents occur, everyone must remain calm and verify slowly, otherwise it is easy to fall into traps.

Sunny: Yes, it’s best to confirm the address and identity via voice message again. Caution is key.

Part 2: The Sun Zeyu Financial Incident Dispute: Doubts About the $1.5 Million "Collapse"?

Wu Talks: First, let’s have Luzi briefly introduce this situation.

Luzi: Hello everyone, I am Luzi. This is what happened. We got to know Sun Zeyu because of my partner — Wang Yiming, the founder of JDI. At that time, we were preparing to establish an exchange, so we were introduced to Zeyu through him. The amount of approximately $1.5 million involved later was also due to business dealings with him. At that time, Zeyu was engaging in DOEX-related业务, and we were also using his "cloud exchange" (cloud trading system).

Wu Talks: When did these events occur approximately?

Luzi: It was around early 2021. My partner first contacted him, and my partner had always trusted him, having previously invested about $500,000 for financial management or to invest in some token projects.

Later, as we were working on exchange business related to the Russian market, my judgment at that time was that if the situation between Russia and Ukraine changed, many international exchanges might exit the Russian market, creating opportunities for local user resources and assets. So I was responsible for the Russian direction and initiated a project called Yanbit.

In this process, since we were using the cloud trading system provided by Zeyu, we trusted him quite a bit. At that time, we had about $2 million in funds for the exchange project. Later, he called me and suggested we put some of the funds into his financial management, promising an annual return of around a dozen percent. Based on our cooperative relationship and trust, we then transferred $1 million to him. Then, he ultimately claimed that this money had collapsed, and that’s about it.

Wu Talks: I want to confirm whether you were just referring to the TIA issue or this financial management project?

Luzi: They are not the same issue. On his end, he has both the TIA matter and financial management project. Within the $500,000 that my partner invested with him, there was also a small portion participating in the TIA project.

Wu Talks: So, this incident probably occurred in 2021. He, under the guise of financial management, asked you to transfer $1.5 million, only to later tell you that this money had collapsed?

Luzi: Yes, he said it had collapsed, and then the money was gone. But personally, I believe there was actually no real collapse.

Wu Talks: When you transferred the money to him at that time, did you sign any contracts or related documents?

Luzi: There was no contract, we just directly transferred the money. At that time, everyone had mutual trust. My partner had relatively abundant funds, so he felt the amount was not too large. Additionally, we were still using his cloud trading system, which enhanced our trust. The entire communication was primarily verbal.

Wu Talks: What exactly do you mean by "cloud exchange"? Many listeners might not be familiar with this early model.

Luzi: A cloud exchange is essentially a technical solution provider for exchanges, including trading systems, matching systems, and liquidity access. It can be understood as a service provider similar to ChainUp.

Wu Talks: So, at that time, your partner and Sun Zeyu were essentially partners in running a cloud exchange business?

Luzi: More like a friendship; they had a fairly good relationship at that time.

Wu Talks: How did you first get to know Sun Zeyu? He is one of the earlier practitioners in the industry.

Luzi: We considered ourselves among the earlier individuals in the coin circle; we met him around 2017.

Wu Talks: So, before this $1.5 million incident happened, your impression of him was actually quite good?

Luzi: Yes, to be honest, my impression of him at that time was quite positive.

Wu Talks: So it was precisely due to this trust that when he later asked for the $1.5 million, you all agreed?

Luzi: Yes. I believe that most people who invested money at that time did so because they trusted this person. There were no issues initially, but for some reason, things took a turn afterward. We transferred the money to him around the World Cup late in 2021 or the beginning of 2022, and then he said it had collapsed, claiming he would find a way to return our money, but there were no further updates, and he became unreachable.

Wu Talks: Has he never returned any portion of the funds?

Luzi: No, he doesn't even reply on WeChat.

Wu Talks: We previously interviewed another victim, Sunny, and his issues arose in 2022. In other words, after taking your $1.5 million, he continued to engage with other investors. When he claimed this $1.5 million collapsed, did he provide you with any evidence? Because if it truly collapsed, a trading platform would generally have relevant records or alerts.

Luzi: No, he just verbally claimed it collapsed, without providing any evidence.

Wu Talks: Did you all accept this explanation at that time? Did you not pursue it further?

Luzi: We actually did try to ask him, but he kept dodging us with varying excuses, saying he was figuring it out and asking us for a little more time.

Wu Talks: Did you take any measures, such as pursuing accountability or other actions?

Luzi: Not at that time. We mainly trusted him; we felt that if it really collapsed, with his capabilities, he should be able to recover it. Plus, he had promised to ensure the capital was retained.

Wu Talks: You did not have a contract at that time, just a verbal promise of capital retention?

Luzi: That's correct; there was no contract, just a verbal assurance.

Wu Talks: Have you since wondered whether this money genuinely collapsed or if he never even engaged in any purported financial investment?

Luzi: Our current assessment is that he most likely did not do any financial investment at all.

Wu Talks: You’ve known him for a while, dating back to 2017 when he was making wallets and projects, making quite a bit of money in the process. He has mentioned having a four-digit amount of Bitcoin in some public interviews. Why did he move to take other people's funds in 2021 or 2022?

Luzi: I don't know the answer to that question; you would have to ask Sun Zeyu himself. I can only speculate that it’s due to reasons such as gambling. In any case, it appears that he and a few others have now turned into similar cons.

Wu Talks: Do you still have the records of the transfers made to Sun Zeyu or the chat logs? If available, could you provide them to us?

Luzi: We have transfer records, but the chat logs might not exist anymore since I changed phones. A lot of the communication was done via voice calls. My partner might still have some records, but it would depend on whether he is willing to provide them. At least I have the transfer records because the funds were transferred out from Binance, meaning the blockchain can trace them to the address.

Wu Talks: From 2021 until now, you haven't taken too many measures. Why did you decide to make this matter public in 2026? What has been your mindset journey?

Luzi: Primarily, the market condition has been poor lately, allowing everyone time to address these issues. Also, seeing related individuals come forward to continue deceiving people, we felt it was necessary to make this public.

In fact, we ourselves had been scammed by Zhu Pan for about $9 million, where he used varying identities to connect with people, and now we see some individuals continuing to operate similar schemes. We believe these matters need to be disclosed.

Wu Talks: This interview primarily revolves around the incident with Sun Zeyu. You mentioned that it seems he is still partaking in new projects. How did you learn about his current status? Although he does not respond to you, you seem to know some information.

Luzi: We later conducted our own investigation and learned about some situations. We heard he is currently in Cambodia, being controlled by locals. The general claim is that he had previously promised some people that he would develop projects, but ended up losing their money. Subsequently, those people controlled him. We learned about these claims from other victims as well; for instance, someone named "94," who knows these conditions quite well and reportedly has losses of around $1 million.

In our case, it’s relatively straightforward; he took the money under the guise of financial management, with a small portion presented as a TIA investment. Overall, he took the money and provided no follow-up, and the other party basically became unreachable. The money was transferred to a wallet controlled by his assistant, and he was quite cautious in his actions.

According to the People's Bank and other departments' announcements regarding "Furthers Prevention and Management of Risks Associated with Speculative Activities in Virtual Currency Trading," Wu Talks' WeChat public account, app, and other platform content are solely for information sharing and do not promote or endorse any business or investment activities. Readers must strictly comply with the laws and regulations in their regions and refrain from engaging in any illegal financial activities. This public account does not provide access, guidance, or channels for any issuance, trading, or financing related to virtual currencies or digital collectibles. Content from Wu Talks is prohibited from being reproduced or copied without permission; violators will face legal responsibility.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。