Outdoor livestream host Sun Zixuan, known online as Dishi, has accused crypto entrepreneur Sun Zeyu of an alleged eight-year fraud involving digital assets that Dishi says were presented as Ethereum but existed only on a private blockchain. Dishi said the alleged losses total tens of millions of yuan, citing a figure of roughly 30 million yuan during a livestream.
The central allegation is that assets Dishi believed were ETH on Ethereum’s public mainnet were instead tokens issued on a forked network allegedly controlled by Sun Zeyu’s side. A blockchain fork is a separate version of a network that can resemble the original in appearance but does not automatically carry the original asset’s market value, liquidity, or security.
Dishi said “national-level” white-hat security personnel—an industry term commonly used for ethical hackers and security researchers—examined the holdings and found only seven addresses on the private chain. He alleged that six addresses were controlled by Sun Zeyu’s side, while Dishi controlled the remaining wallet.
No public police filing, criminal charge, or court ruling related to Dishi’s allegations had been disclosed in the account provided. Sun Zeyu has not been represented in the supplied material as responding publicly to the claims.
Alleged private-chain setup
Dishi said he had entrusted Sun Zeyu with buying Ethereum on his behalf and initially believed the holdings were genuine because he had previously withdrawn several million yuan through arrangements involving Sun Zeyu. Those withdrawals, Dishi said, led him to regard the remaining balance as real and accessible.
The alleged structure would have made independent verification difficult. A wallet balance on a private fork may look similar to a conventional blockchain holding in a wallet interface, but its value depends entirely on whether the token can be recognized and transferred on the real Ethereum network or exchanged through legitimate market venues.
Dishi’s description of a network with seven total addresses suggests a tightly controlled environment rather than an open public ledger with broad transaction activity. If accurate, such an arrangement could allow the party operating the chain to display balances and transactions while retaining control over the network’s rules, token supply, and validation.
He said the discovery came before he introduced another person to Sun Zeyu for a proposed crypto purchase. According to Dishi, that friend had considered committing at least 10 million yuan, although the transaction was never completed for unrelated reasons.
Dishi also speculated that his own losses could have reached hundreds of millions of yuan if cryptocurrency prices had risen and the issue remained undiscovered. That figure is a hypothetical estimate rather than an established loss calculation.
Separate claims over OTC and managed funds
The allegations aired by Dishi were followed by accounts from other people describing separate disputes involving Sun Zeyu. In a podcast recorded in February 2026 and released in April, William Lu said he paid about $300,000 in 2022 for an over-the-counter, or OTC, allocation connected to Celestia’s TIA token.
Lu said he did not receive the tokens after TIA launched. He said the agreement included a written contract bearing Sun Zeyu’s name, identification number, receiving address, and signature. Lu further alleged that communication later broke down and that Sun Zeyu became unreachable.
A second podcast participant, identified as Luzi and described as the founder of BitRing, said his team transferred approximately $1.5 million under a “wealth management” arrangement in early 2021. He said the total included $500,000 contributed earlier by a partner and an additional $1 million transferred later.
Luzi said he was told the funds had been fully lost through liquidation, but that no trading records, account statements, or liquidation evidence were provided. He said no money was returned.
The podcast participants estimated that social-media posts could identify three or four people alleging losses ranging from several hundred thousand dollars to more than $1 million. The account also referred to an industry participant known as “94,” who was said to have lost around $1 million. These accounts remain allegations described by the speakers and have not been established through court findings in the supplied material.
Sun Zeyu’s crypto background
Public records cited in the account describe Sun Zeyu as having entered the cryptocurrency sector in 2013. They say he became a partner in the CoolWallet hardware-wallet project in 2016 and co-founded Genesis Capital with Zhu Huaiyang in December 2017.
The claims place renewed scrutiny on private arrangements that remain common in parts of the digital-asset market: OTC purchases, informal custody, delegated trading, and personal “wealth management” agreements. These structures can offer access to early-stage token allocations or private liquidity, but they also reduce the buyer’s ability to independently verify custody and execution.
A signed agreement may establish contractual obligations, but it does not by itself prove that tokens were delivered to an address on the correct blockchain, that funds were traded as promised, or that a claimed liquidation occurred. In crypto transactions, the relevant evidence often includes verifiable wallet addresses, transaction hashes, network identifiers, smart-contract addresses, and records showing control of private keys.
Tax case remains part of Dishi’s public record
The allegations also return attention to Dishi’s own regulatory history. On June 9, 2022, Beijing’s municipal tax authority said Sun Zixuan had underpaid 1.9786 million yuan in individual income tax between 2019 and 2020.
The authority said he evaded a further 2.2012 million yuan in individual income tax by using intermediary companies to conceal livestream tipping income. It also found underpayments of 347,600 yuan in other taxes and fees.
Beijing’s tax authority said it recovered back taxes, late-payment fees, and penalties totaling 11.7145 million yuan. The case disrupted Dishi’s livestreaming work and became a major public turning point in his career.
Verification becomes central in private crypto deals
The dispute illustrates the practical risk of accepting wallet displays or intermediaries as proof of ownership. A token’s name alone does not establish that it is the recognized asset on the intended chain. ETH held on Ethereum mainnet can be checked through public blockchain explorers and transferred under Ethereum’s consensus rules; a privately issued token using the same label cannot necessarily be exchanged, withdrawn, or valued in the same way.
China’s earlier crypto-related criminal cases have shown the scale such schemes can reach. In 2020, police in Yancheng, Jiangsu, said the PlusToken pyramid scheme involved 310,000 Bitcoin and 9.17 million Ether, with a reported value exceeding 400 billion yuan at that time.
Dishi’s allegations, if substantiated, would fit a different but familiar risk pattern: personal trust replacing technical verification. Buyers in private transactions can reduce that exposure by confirming the blockchain network, checking the token’s official contract address, independently reviewing transaction hashes, and ensuring assets arrive in a wallet they control before releasing full payment.
For transactions involving delegated management, records of deposits, trades, withdrawals, custody arrangements, and any claimed liquidation can provide a clearer basis for resolving disputes than screenshots, balance displays, or personal assurances.
Worried about scams like these? Learn practical protections in safer and better trading tips to spot crypto scams before investing.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
