FTX's new motion, which hopes to add the concept of "restricted jurisdictions" to divide creditors, may directly affect the return of 5% of creditors, including Chinese creditors. It's easy to lead people into the trap of proving the legitimacy of cryptocurrencies in a jurisdiction, and forget that FTX Recovery Trust is a non-profit organization that resolves debt-debt relationships and settles debts. Their main task is to complete the repayment of creditors' claims, and their performance of debt repayment has nothing to do with the transaction and payment of cryptocurrency, it is essentially a process of debt repayment through US dollars, so what does it have to do with the policies and regulations of cryptocurrencies in various countries? In terms of the regulation and regulations of cryptocurrencies in various countries, does FTX Recovery Trust have the ability to clarify the policies, laws and regulations of each country? Do you have the ability to ensure that the interpretation of policies and regulations is objective and impartial? Not to mention the important matter of wanting to interpret and decide whether the creditor's claim should be released. In China, for example, the motion passed the 2017 policy document on ICOs by various ministries in an attempt to illustrate the legal risks associated with repaying Chinese creditors. There is a glaring error here: 1. The 2017 ICO announcement is a policy document, not a law or regulation, and only represents the regulatory intent and direction of the administrative authority. 2. The original text is to restrict domestic banks and financial institutions from providing services for the issuance of virtual currency, but not to restrict Chinese creditors from legally obtaining their own creditor's compensation. This shows that FTX has neither the ability nor the legal basis to formulate a "restricted jurisdiction", and it is extremely irresponsible to use such subjective interpretations and policy documents to determine whether creditors can be compensated. On the other hand, if the interpretation of the policy document can be used as the basis for defining the "restricted jurisdiction", then it is also possible to interpret the "restricted jurisdiction" through the local regional administrative document in the country region where the claim has been issued before. Considering fairness and justice, since 49 countries are to be divided into "restricted jurisdictions", is it possible to ask FTX to provide policy interpretations of the countries that have been issued, and if there are contradictions in the policy interpretations, does the entire debt issuance need to be reversed? FTX cases account for only 5% in the United States and 95% overseas. According to the fairness requirements of the same kind of creditors in the United States, FTX should provide a judicial interpretation of the country or jurisdiction where all 95% of creditors are located, so as to slightly explain how to divide "restricted jurisdiction" and "non-restricted jurisdiction". However, encrypted digital currency is a new thing, the development of different countries is different, legal and regulatory development is also dynamic, more than 100 countries of judicial interpretation, policy interpretation, can the FTX team do it? Can objectivity and impartiality be ensured? Is there a guarantee that there is no bias? So the result of this subjective assumption of motion is: 1. It consumes a lot of legal resources, funds and time, which are borne by all creditors. 2. Unable to obtain objective and fair results, affecting bankruptcy liquidation and bankruptcy process. 3. Causing secondary harm to the affected creditors, causing an indelible impact Therefore, the judge should reject this motion, return to the debt-creditor relationship, and urge FTX to repay the creditors of various countries equally as soon as possible, so as to ensure the fairness and justice of the U.S. bankruptcy process. ps: The wifi editing on the plane cannot be precisely modified, and the overall meaning has been expressed