This dispute is not just an isolated case; it has thoroughly exposed the potential risks of 'holding on behalf of' in cryptocurrency.
First, let's sort out the core context of the events. In the first half of 2024, Jay Chou entrusted his deep friendship with magician Cai Weize to manage his Bitcoin investment, involving an amount as high as over 100 million New Taiwan Dollars, approximately 30 to 50 million US Dollars. By early 2025, Cai Weize informed Jay Chou that he could not withdraw the funds, citing the reason that the investment account was 'locked for some reason,' and mentioned his own financial difficulties, promising to resolve the issue. Jay Chou, out of trust, gave him time. However, nearly a year has passed, and the problem has not been resolved. Cai Weize gradually ceased communication, stopped updating his social media, and ultimately went missing, with rumors suggesting he may have gone to Southeast Asia. On October 15, 2025, Jay Chou publicly sought Cai Weize on Instagram with strong language such as 'If you don't show up, you're finished,' and subsequently unfollowed Cai Weize, publicly breaking their relationship. The latest development is that Jay Chou has initiated legal proceedings through his lawyer. Although the posts seeking Cai Weize have been deleted, the unfollow status has not been restored. Additionally, Cai Weize has been quite active in the blockchain investment circle, with reports suggesting he previously leveraged his relationship with Jay Chou to attract investments.
Jay Chou's encounter highlights the three core risks of the cryptocurrency 'custodial' model.
The first risk is the loss of control. There is a saying in the cryptocurrency field: 'Not your private key, not your coins.' The private key is the only proof of asset control, and in a custodial relationship, the actual control of the asset is completely transferred to the custodian. In judicial practice, the core of determining ownership of virtual currency lies in private key control, rather than traditional real-name verification. Once the custodian defaults or goes missing, the asset owner can hardly utilize the asset by their own means, which is also the core dilemma faced by Jay Chou.
The second risk is the lack of legal protection. According to reports, there is only a verbal agreement between Jay Chou and Cai Weize, without a signed formal legal document, which leads to a lack of clear basis for rights protection when disputes arise. More critically, in different judicial jurisdictions, virtual currency transactions and related contracts may be deemed invalid or unprotected by law. Even if legal proceedings are initiated, multiple electronic data evidences such as exchange records, smart contracts, and IP address tracking need to be collected, relying on expert testimony to assist the court in determining ownership and value, further increasing the difficulty of recovery.
The third risk is the difficulty in asset tracking. Cryptocurrencies are characterized by anonymity and cross-border circulation, making fund transfers irreversible and tracing extremely difficult. Once the asset is transferred by the custodian, even if responsibility is clarified, there will be significant technical obstacles and cross-border enforcement issues during the actual investigation and recovery process.
From this incident, all cryptocurrency participants should learn a lesson, prioritizing asset security and mastering the core methods of safe holding.
The core principle is to insist on self-custody. The safest way is to control the private key yourself, using hardware wallets (cold wallets) or trusted self-custody software wallets to ensure asset control remains firmly in your hands. 'Handing over money to others' essentially means relinquishing core control, and one must remain highly vigilant.
Secondly, we must eliminate blind trust and introduce legal constraints. Even with a close relationship with the custodian, operations cannot rely solely on emotional trust. Any asset entrustment must be accompanied by a clearly defined legal document outlining investment strategies, operational permissions, risk-bearing scope, and consequences of breach, preserving a legal basis for potential disputes.
Finally, if one lacks the professional ability and needs to delegate management, it is advisable to choose compliant professional asset management institutions or funds licensed by local financial regulatory authorities. Such institutions have more comprehensive mechanisms in compliance, operational transparency, and risk control. Although risks cannot be completely eliminated, they provide more reliable protection compared to individual custodians.
The logic of asset security in cryptocurrency is fundamentally different from traditional finance, as the ownership of control directly determines asset ownership. This incident again reminds us that in this field, any trust based on emotion must be built on clear rules and boundaries of control.
