Refuting OneKey's Public Statement: Evading Facts, Ignoring Responsibility On June 29, OneKey officially released a statement titled "A Serious Statement on Recent False Accusations Against OneKey," attempting to sever the connection between its founder, Mr. Yishi, and the Resupply incident, while labeling the Chinese community's questions about its responsibilities as "malicious distortions" and "false accusations." We believe this statement not only lacks logical coherence but also exposes OneKey's disregard for community voices and its evasion of user rights. We hereby respond as follows: ⸻ 1. Yishi is the founder of OneKey; this is not a "normal personal behavior" OneKey attempts to characterize Yishi's statements as "personal investor rights protection," but the facts are: • Yishi is the actual controller of the OneKey brand and its external image representative; • He used his real-name social media identity during the Resupply incident and mobilized multiple supporters to voice for him; • His personal identity is inseparable from the OneKey brand, and the community's questioning of the brand's associated responsibilities due to his statements is reasonable and justified. If a founder can represent a project while leveraging the brand's reputation to gain resources, but then revert to being a "normal user" when risks arise, this selective use of dual identities is an insult to the community. ⸻ 2. "OneKey has never organized public opinion attacks" cannot prove innocence The statement emphasizes that OneKey has never "organized or manipulated any KOLs or users," but: • OneKey claims to have established a "listing mechanism" early on to incentivize KOL community participation, yet there is a lack of disclosure regarding whether actual control and discourse power lie in the hands of the official; • In discussions related to the Resupply incident, some accounts that participated in OneKey's listing plan indeed engaged in public opinion offensives; • If OneKey truly had no intention to guide, it should promptly clarify that these actions are unrelated to the project, rather than selectively remaining silent. When a project builds public opinion influence through a listing mechanism, it must bear corresponding public opinion responsibilities, rather than shirking them when public sentiment turns against it. ⸻ 3. "OneKey has no resource connection with Resupply"? The logic does not hold Did Yishi, as an early leading investor in Resupply, gain advantages through OneKey's resources, connections, and brand influence? Did he continue to use OneKey's resources to maintain his interests during the project's crisis? If there is no connection: • Did OneKey investigate and clearly delineate the boundaries of resources? • Can it prove that the company had no involvement in Yishi's investment and subsequent public opinion response? The statement avoids these questions, merely reiterating that "the company account did not invest," which does not address the community's concerns but rather evades real issues. ⸻ 4. What the community cares about most is not emotions, but responsibilities OneKey repeatedly uses labels like "malicious distortion" and "false accusations" to evade a fundamental question: When the founder openly uses brand resources for external public opinion mobilization, was OneKey aware? Did it acquiesce? Should it bear joint responsibility? The core questions raised by the Chinese community have never been personal attacks but rather the following three points: 1. The Resupply team operated the insurance pool immediately after the incident instead of attempting to contact the attackers or set up a bounty; 2. Resupply's response pace and public communication were extremely delayed; 3. Yishi misled non-factual statements by dragging Curve into the mud on social media. If OneKey truly respects transparency and verifiability as it claims, it should not evade the main issues but should conduct an open investigation and clarification, rather than using "legal means" to intimidate questioners. ⸻ 5. A truly responsible attitude is to face reality, not to issue statements to clear oneself The Resupply issue has evolved into a community trust crisis; determining who should be responsible is not about whether there are financial relationships on the books, but about who led the influence, who guided public opinion, and who instigated opposition. If OneKey truly welcomes criticism as it claims, then it should confront the community's core issues and provide facts, rather than labels. ⸻ Conclusion: What we hope to see is open investigations, transparent information, and rational responses, rather than verbal promises, brand severance, and attacks on doubts. If a so-called "open-source, transparent" wallet project reacts to social scrutiny with whitewashing, intimidation, and silencing, can it still represent the "Web3 spirit"? The community is watching; we will not remain silent.