Refutation of OneKey's public statements: evading the facts and ignoring responsibility On June 29, OneKey officially released a "Solemn Statement on Recent False Accusations against OneKey", attempting to cut the voice of its founder, Mr. Yishi, in the Resupply incident with the OneKey brand, and classifying the Chinese community's doubts about its responsibility as "malicious distortion" and "false accusations". We believe that this statement not only lacks logical self-consistency, but also exposes OneKey's contempt for community voices and avoidance of user rights. The response is as follows: ⸻ 1. Yishi is the founder of OneKey, which is not an "ordinary personal act" OneKey tried to characterize Yishi's voice as "individual investor activism", but the truth is: •Yishi is the actual controller and external image representative of the OneKey brand; •He used his real-name social media identity in the Resupply incident and mobilized multiple supporters to speak for him; •His personal identity is inseparable from the OneKey brand, and the community questioned the reasonableness and legitimacy of the brand that brought about his speech. If the founders can represent the project when they use their brand reputation to obtain resources, but retreat to "ordinary users" when risks arise, the selective use of this dual identity is in itself an insult to the community. ⸻ 2. "OneKey has never organized a public opinion attack" cannot prove its innocence The statement emphasized that OneKey has never "organized or manipulated any KOLs or users", but: •OneKey claims to have set up a "listing mechanism" to incentivize the KOL community to participate in the early days, but there is no disclosure of whether the actual control and discourse power is in the hands of the government; •In the topics related to the Resupply incident, some accounts that have participated in the OneKey listing plan have participated in the public opinion attack and defense; •If OneKey does not intend to lead, it should be clarified that these behaviors are not related to the project and not selectively lose their voice. When the project builds public opinion influence through licensing, it must bear the corresponding public opinion responsibility, rather than pushing it off when public opinion backfires. ⸻ 3. "OneKey does not have any resource association with Resupply"? Logic doesn't hold water Yishi became a leading investor in Resupply in the early days, did he gain convenience through OneKey's resources, connections, and brand influence? Do you continue to use OneKey's resources to help protect your interests during a project crisis? If there is no association: • Has OneKey investigated and clearly delineated resource boundaries? •Can it be proved that the company was not involved in the Yishi investment and the subsequent public opinion response? The statement avoided mentioning this, and only repeatedly emphasized that "the company's account was not invested", which is not a response to the community's doubts, but an avoidance of real problems. ⸻ Fourth, the community is most concerned about not emotions, but responsibility OneKey repeatedly uses labels such as "maliciously distorted" and "false accusations" to avoid a most basic question: When the founder openly used brand resources to mobilize external public opinion, did OneKey know about it? Acquiescence? Should there be joint and several liability? The core questions raised by the Chinese community are never personal attacks, but the following three points: 1. The Resupply team operates the vault as soon as possible after the incident, rather than trying to contact the attacker or set up a bounty; 2. Resupply's response rhythm and open communication are extremely lagging behind; 3. Yishi dragged Curve into the water on social media, misleading non-factual statements. If OneKey is true to its claim to respect transparency and verifiability, it should not avoid the most important things, but should investigate and clarify publicly, rather than using "legal means" to intimidate doubters. ⸻ Fifth, the truly responsible attitude is to face the reality, not to make a statement to make it clear The problem of Resupply has evolved into a crisis of trust in the community, and who is to blame for it is not to see whether there is a financial relationship on the books, but to see who is leading the influence, who is guiding public opinion, and who is provoking confrontation. If OneKey really says "criticism is welcome", then please face the core problems of the community and give facts, not labels. ⸻ Epilogue: What we want to see is an open investigation, transparent information, and a rational response, rather than verbal promises, brand cutting, and attacks on skepticism. If a purported "open-source, transparent" wallet project is faced with social scrutiny, intimidation, and muzzle-grooming, can it still represent the "spirit of Web3"? The community is watching, and we will not be silent.