2025-12-26 23:26:40

This controversy indeed has its reasons on both sides.

One side claims: We are the ones who made you, and your success cannot be achieved without our infrastructure and support. Now, this ingratitude is truly disheartening.

The other side counters: We revived a nearly dead brand, and the revival from zero to one was due to our efforts and operations. However, we never reached an agreement on the preliminary terms of equity or revenue sharing.

Frankly, this is a bad situation where all parties have misjudged. The cooperation framework is unclear, the distribution mechanism is vague, and in the end, no one benefits.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

16 Likes

Reward
16
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

AirdropHermit

· 12-27 06:43

Basically, it's just that the contract wasn't written clearly. This kind of thing has been happening all along in Web3.

View OriginalReply0

TradFiRefugee

· 12-26 23:54

Basically, this is a classic case of "no written agreement" causing trouble. At first, someone thought as long as the relationship was good, it would be fine, but when it came time to split the cake, everything exploded, and everyone could make up stories. --- Both parties are overly confident, each thinking they contributed more. This is ridiculous. Not addressing the ugly truth upfront means that no matter how much they argue later, it's all pointless. --- Well, the core issue here is the lack of a contractual spirit. No matter how good the relationship is, it can't withstand the absence of written black and white. --- Looking at this situation, it seems both sides are sulking. In fact, they should reflect on why they didn't clarify things. Who's to blame? --- I told you, in the crypto world, I've dealt with this many times. Trust? Trust can't pay the bills; you still need terms and conditions to speak for you. --- The conclusion that all parties misjudged is a bit too broad. Some people had it figured out long ago, they were just pretending not to know.

View OriginalReply0

ColdWalletGuardian

· 12-26 23:53

Basically, it's because no proper rules were established from the start, and a mine was laid early on. This kind of thing happens too often in Web3, and verbal agreements are the most harmful.

View OriginalReply0

DefiPlaybook

· 12-26 23:48

Based on on-chain data and historical case analysis, the fundamental cause of such collaboration disputes lies in the ambiguity of smart contract terms—approximately 69.4% of Web3 protocol conflicts stem from initial terms not being explicitly written into code. In other words, the failure of verbal agreements. It is recommended that all collaborations use multi-signature wallets + escrow mechanisms to avoid repeating such basic mistakes.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeLover

· 12-26 23:48

There were no agreed-upon terms from the start, and later they still had the nerve to pass the buck to each other—typical of the unruly growth of crypto.

View OriginalReply0

QuietlyStaking

· 12-26 23:34

Basically, there were no rules set from the beginning. What Web3 fears most is this kind of situation—full of verbal promises, with blank contract clauses, and only blaming each other when things escalate. Everyone has a reason, but no one truly has the right.

View OriginalReply0