Author: Lawyer Shao Shiwei
In daily work, Lawyer Shao often encounters many crypto KOLs and individuals engaged in knowledge payment sector, primarily offering teaching or sharing related to "how to invest and trade in virtual currencies."
These clients often have similar questions:
On one hand, they always feel that such business may carry certain risks;
On the other hand, they see many peers continuously conducting related businesses.
Thus, they are confused—can this business be done? Are there real legal risks?
Based on these high-frequency questions that repeatedly appear in past consultations, this article sorts out related issues and provides a thematic summary in a Q&A format to systematically address these common doubts (to protect client privacy, relevant information has been anonymized, and only general and representative questions are selected for organization).
Q: Hello Lawyer Shao, I am a KOL in the crypto circle, mainly posting cryptocurrency analysis videos on domestic and international social media platforms (such as Bilibili, Xiaohongshu, YouTube, etc.), directing traffic to WeChat through videos, and then establishing paid communities, charging community members in USDT or fiat currency.
Community services include providing my recorded trading courses, daily market analysis, and Q&A sessions.
My question is, what I do is not traditional stock business but cryptocurrencies. The country itself does not recognize this area, and there are no relevant business licenses. Will this make a difference? Could the lack of clear regulation actually mean lower risks?
A: This is precisely where the complexity of the risk lies. Because there is no clear licensing system, it is difficult to directly apply the "crime of illegal business operations." However, when handling such cases, judicial authorities often refer to the domestic policy spirit regarding virtual currencies as the basis for case handling.
Q: I have also heard that regulation of virtual currencies has strengthened recently, such as the 2.6 notice and other documents issued this year. So, what legal risks exist in my current business model? How can I make it more compliant?
A: Based on the business model you described, it indeed falls into an area with obvious legal risks.
In practice, such content-creating, community-leading KOLs are not viewed in a one-size-fits-all manner. They can roughly be divided into three levels, with corresponding risks varying significantly:
First, the purely content-oriented type.
Mainly engaged in historical trend analysis and basic knowledge explanation, without real-time analysis or immediate judgments on specific market conditions; even if they charge, it is only for selling recorded courses. This category overall has relatively low risk, but that does not mean there is no risk at all. The key is whether the content could be interpreted as having operational guidance nature.
Second, the semi-guidance type in the middle ground.
Usually, they establish paid communities, provide daily market analysis, real-time analysis, and Q&A. Although their expressions may not directly give clear buying and selling points, they might make judgments like "this position is worth watching" or "there is an opportunity here." This group is most easily identified as "providing investment advice" in practice, and risks often begin to accumulate at this stage.
Third, the more typical strong guidance type.
They explicitly give buying and selling points, operation intervals, and even form some binding relationship with users' trading results and收益情况. Once disputes arise or they are reported, this group is more likely to be directly纳入刑事评价的范围, and the handling methods will be significantly different.
Specifically for your business, the core risk point is that the content you share within the community is not merely pure knowledge teaching but includes your immediate analysis and judgments on market conditions (for example, marking on charts that "this might be a good long opportunity"). Such content is likely to be identified as having a "guiding trading" nature, influencing members' decision-making behaviors. Even if you emphasize trading logic rather than direct calls, it still belongs to providing investment analysis advice in essence.
Charging for investment consulting services such as real-time analysis, providing daily market analysis and Q&A, these service contents are easily regarded as "guiding trading."
Q: If my content is identified as "guiding trading," what specific legal risks might I face? Civil liability or criminal liability?
A: Risks are mainly divided into two categories:
1. Civil risks: If your advice leads to user investment losses, users may file civil lawsuits against you, claiming compensation for losses. Although you do not promise returns, and the risk is relatively controllable, the litigation itself will consume time and energy.
2. Criminal risks: This is more值得关注. If users report to the public security organs after losses, or if you are maliciously reported, the public security organs may initiate an investigation. Possible charges include fraud, fund-raising fraud, etc.. The logic is: users invest based on trust in your advice, and after incurring losses, they may claim that your behavior constitutes fraud.
Q: What content might be regarded as "investment advice" (or "guiding trading")?
A: Lawyer Shao previously encountered a KOL running a knowledge-paid community. He started with "teaching" but gradually evolved into analyzing the market daily in the group, occasionally saying "this position is worth watching." He himself always believed he was not "calling orders." But after users suffered losses and reported the case, the core issue ultimately identified by the public security organs was: did users make trades based on his judgment?
Therefore, based on relevant judicial practice, policy spirit, and our experience handling a large number of Web3 and virtual currency cases, the following behaviors may be identified as "investment advice" with a "guiding trading" nature in practice, thus generating legal risks:
1. Providing specific buying and selling points
This is the most direct "call order" behavior—explicitly telling users when to buy and when to sell. For example, directly pointing out in the community or video "Bitcoin can enter at this position," "buy Ethereum at the current price, target XX," "this is the stop-loss point."
2. Providing market analysis and trend predictions
Even if you don't directly say "buy," if you provide analysis of the current market and predictions of future trends, it同样属于高风险行为. For example, analyzing candlestick patterns in analysis videos, predicting the short-term trend of Bitcoin or a certain token, interpreting market hotspots and暗示机会来临, giving outlooks or operation intervals for the latter market.
3. Teaching methodology
This is a situation many咨询者 easily misunderstand—only talking about methodology, shouldn't this count as guiding investment?
In judicial practice, if the methodology in paid courses essentially teaches coin selection or trading techniques with clear operational guidance and implies that customers can execute accordingly, this tends to be identified as a disguised form of "investment advice."
The reason is that this is no longer about pure basic candlestick knowledge or trading history but has a strong operational guidance性. Users pay precisely to learn how to make money. The reason users pay to join the community is that they believe your set of "logic" can help them profit in the market.
4. Using "teaching" as a name, but actually "guiding trading"
For courses and teaching communities, as long as their core is to provide real-time, targeted market analysis and operational advice, risks still exist.
Q: So, for my current service content, as long as I do not predict the future, only talk about historical trends and trading methods, can I achieve zero risk?
A: The core criterion is whether the content constitutes "investment advice." The key to judgment does not lie in how you define your service (teaching or sharing experience) but rather, from the perspective of an ordinary user (paying student), whether your course content实质上构成了 "investment advice" or "guiding trading."
Q: I mainly share mainstream coins like Bitcoin and do not recommend small altcoins. Moreover, I usually emphasize that investment carries risks and advise cautious trading. Does this mean my actual risk is relatively low?
A: Your practice of sharing mainstream coins, emphasizing risks, and not promising returns reduces risk to some extent. But it still depends on your overall style and content positioning within the community. This determines whether you will attract a relatively rational user group or one focused on speculation. The latter group has a relatively higher probability of taking extreme measures (such as reporting to the police, filing complaints) when losses occur.
Q: If I clearly state "for reference only, does not constitute investment advice" or "for teaching purposes only, does not constitute investment advice" when users pay, can I avoid criminal risk?
A: No. Criminal case identification follows the principle of "substance over form" and穿透式审查. Judicial authorities will not stop reviewing the substance of your business just because you stated "does not constitute investment advice" in the contract. The key to judgment lies in what you actually do and deliver, not what you claim externally.
Final Notes
Many咨询者 are actually most concerned about a few practical questions:
Am I already crossing the line in my current situation? If I stop now, is it still来得及? Will the money earned before be追溯?
There is no single answer to these questions. It needs to be analyzed based on the specific business. It usually depends on several key factors:
-
Whether your content presentation method can be understood as having operational guidance nature
-
Whether users' trading behaviors can correspond to your content
-
Whether the business charging model is associated with users' trading behaviors
These issues often directly affect the final outcome in specific cases.
If you are in a similar business stage and are unsure about your risk boundaries, it is recommended not to judge solely based on self-perceptions like teaching and sharing. If you have begun to realize the risks but cannot clearly identify the specific risk points, then you need to deconstruct and judge the key facts again.
Some questions only have truly meaningful answers when combined with the specific business structure.
Special Disclaimer: This article is an original work by Lawyer Shao Shiwei, representing only the personal views of the author of this article and does not constitute legal consultation or legal advice on specific matters.
