The Lee Teacher Coin Issuance Controversy: Truth, Misunderstandings, and Observations on Human Nature

The public opinion attacks in the past few days have vividly demonstrated the tradition of deification and de-deification in the Chinese-speaking world. Public figures, especially political figures, have very low tolerance for acceptance and error, which often leads them to become cold-blooded when dealing with opposing forces and the public. The soil of autocracy is actually shaped by everyone.

Let us try to use common sense to make a fair summary of Teacher Li’s coin issuance, and consider it a conclusion.

The first point worth pondering is the suddenness of this incident. Logically, Teacher Li’s move has strong public attributes and influence. At least, he could have made some preparations and solicited everyone’s opinions in advance, but he did not. What made Teacher Li, who previously publicly regarded the coin circle as a scam, suddenly turn 180 degrees? Relying on his own cognitive mutation? I’m afraid not, it’s more likely that his cognition was changed by others.

Secrecy until the coin issuance, of course, can be justified with reasons, such as preventing people from preparing to speculate in coins in advance. Is it possible that the reason for such suddenness was precisely to prevent outsiders from being prepared? To prevent someone from snatching the meat? Such suspicions may be reasonable. If so, was the person in charge Teacher Li himself? From general common sense, it is unlikely, but it is not excluded that he knew or was aware of this, but remained silent. Should we be harsh about this? In some matters, people often tacitly agree to certain actions of stakeholders, which is a very common human nature.

This leads to the second point: did Teacher Li intend to cut the leeks? Or to reduce it a bit, did he intend to increase his wealth?

To say that this young man had decided to cut a wave of leeks from the beginning might be a bit too conspiratorial. The reason why Teacher Li became Teacher Li and embarked on this path, although there were passive factors, we are probably hard to deny that Teacher Li is a person with a simple sense of justice in his heart, and a bit of idealism. People can change, of course, but a person who is exposed to materials of suffering every day, and in a short period of time becomes a Machiavellian who raises a sickle to cut his fans? Or a Machiavellian who cuts so miserably that he becomes the target of public criticism? Being a bad person has an IQ threshold. You can say he is not smart enough to be a bad person, but is it possible that the whole story is actually a somewhat naive young man who was planted with an obsession, thinking that issuing coins could quickly realize his grand vision like winning the lottery, and in extreme excitement, he even couldn’t wait to announce the preliminary victory and the arrival of a new era, only to be hit by the Waterloo reality within 24 hours, directly hitting him a bit stunned? Which plot is more in line with common sense?

I want to remind everyone of a fact: there are not so many conspiracies in reality. Bad people who are willing to spend their minds to design conspiracies are actually a minority, and their success rate is generally not low. Most people are just sleepwalking on a makeshift stage, and only become a little clearer when they fall into a pit. You can laugh at these people, but when these people fall and drag many people into the pit, it is a bit too malicious to suspect them of being conspirators.

However, from the perspective of human nature, did Li have the intention to increase his wealth and cash out at a suitable time in the future? It is probably hard to say no. Judging intentions generally lacks evidence, but inferring from common sense, having such an intention is more in line with human nature, and not having it is rather abnormal. But at this point, probably anyone would think of these things to some extent, it's human nature, what's there to say.

So, the third point, are the public purposes and grand visions that Li mentioned purely a guise for cutting leeks, or does he really have this wish?

I tend to believe that he has a public spirit to do something. The reason is simple: even bad people, deep down, want to do something big and good. If this can be achieved without harming themselves, why not?

Public and private interests are sometimes contradictory, but they are not impossible to coexist. In fact, most of the time, people have both private and public interests. It is normal for a person to consider his own interests while considering the public interest, and vice versa.

Fourth, his stammering and even self-contradictory remarks during the program connection, does it mean he is hiding something, or even hiding unspeakable dealings?

First of all, let alone him, who is usually not good at showing his face, even public figures who often speak in public, including politicians, when facing questioning in front of the camera, turn red, sweat profusely, answer irrelevant questions, and stammer, which is not uncommon. If you were in his shoes, facing public questioning and self-defense, how many people could answer fluently and brilliantly?

Secondly, is there any concealment, beautification, or lack of honesty? Probably to some extent. Many of us have seen or even done something ourselves, which is to conceal certain things and beautify certain things. For example, if you change your city or even your nationality, but you are embarrassed to mention your place of origin, you may instinctively want to gloss over it when asked by others. Is this honest? Not honest, but evil? It's probably not evil.

Since the issuance of coins involves interests, there may be some hidden agendas that are not easy to disclose. Moreover, it involves third parties, partners, and even real friends. It is natural to instinctively want to avoid them when facing questioning and fail to respond calmly, leading to an awkward situation where one cannot take care of both ends. We can suspect that there is a third party with malicious intent to cut leeks, and we can suspect that Teacher Li deliberately concealed some issues for personal gain. But can this be used to conclude that there must be unspeakable evil dealings and that Teacher Li is a link in this evil chain or even the leader? It is probably not enough to draw such a conclusion. Even in court, Li’s poor performance and even deliberate concealment would not be considered evidence for conviction.

In summary, many people curse him for cutting leeks. Did he cut leeks? Maybe he did. Did he cut leeks intentionally or maliciously? It was probably not his intention. He originally, probably, really thought that issuing coins was a shortcut to realizing his grand vision, and perhaps he also had a glimmer of hope for wealth creation and cashing out. But is he really intentionally defrauding? This needs a big question mark. Real scammers are mostly experienced and intelligent, growing from small to large. Such a traffic star, with many smart choices, suddenly staged a clumsy scam that led to public condemnation?

Finally, give cat lovers some confidence, those who love cats, can't be too bad.