Jay Chou calls for help online to find someone! A friend has lost contact after managing 100 million Bitcoin, suspected to have been liquidated.

Jay Chou's recent behavior has raised concerns. The usually private “Chou Dong” who shares music creations and family life suddenly posted two updates seeking a person, with images pointing directly to his magician friend Cai Weize, with whom he has collaborated for many years. Jay Chou stated: “This friend has been missing for a while, giving a bunch of excuses that I believed. Please finish your performance properly. Do you think I am not a magician? If you don't show up soon, you're finished.” A few years ago, Jay Chou entrusted 100 million New Taiwan dollars to Cai Weize for management, and now the manager has gone missing.

Jay Chou publicly speaks out about the incident of his friend's disappearance

(Source: Instagram Stories)

In recent days, fans who follow Jay Chou have noticed the unusual behavior of Jay Chou's social media updates—usually sharing music creations and family life, the “Master Chou” suddenly shifted his tone and consecutively posted two updates looking for a “missing person,” with images directly pointing to his longtime magician friend, Cai Weize. In the second update, Jay Chou even directly called out to Cai Weize: “This friend has disappeared for a while, giving a bunch of excuses that I believed. Please perform well. Do you think I'm not a magician? If you don't show up soon, you're done.”

This kind of public statement is extremely rare in Jay Chou's social media history. As a king of the Mandarin music scene, Jay Chou usually maintains a low profile, avoiding public involvement in controversies or disputes. This time, the choice to apply public pressure indicates that private communication has completely failed, and the seriousness of the situation has exceeded what can be resolved privately. The wording “If you don't show up soon, you're finished” is particularly rare in its threatening tone, suggesting that Jay Chou may be considering legal or other means to seek redress.

According to media reports, there is another reason behind this “missing person” incident: It turns out that Jay Chou entrusted 100 million New Taiwan dollars (approximately 23 million yuan) to Cai Weize a few years ago to trade Bitcoin on his behalf. Now that the trader has gone missing, the whereabouts of this huge asset have also become a mystery. After multiple unsuccessful attempts to locate him, Jay Chou chose to publicly call out.

NT$100 million may not be all of Jay Chou's fortune, but it is certainly not a small amount. Jay Chou's net worth is estimated to exceed NT$5 billion, with NT$100 million accounting for about 2% of his wealth. However, what is more important is the betrayal of trust and the loss of control over assets. When you cannot contact the person who holds the private keys to your assets, that feeling of helplessness is the same, regardless of the amount.

Cai Weize, as a magician, has collaborated with Jay Chou for many years, and the two share a close relationship. Jay Chou has mentioned Cai Weize multiple times on social media and even invited him to participate in concerts and private events. This long-term friendship has allowed Jay Chou to entrust a large amount of assets to him, but now this trust seems to have been betrayed. “Gave a bunch of excuses, and I believed them all” is particularly heartbreaking; it reveals Jay Chou's tolerance and trust during the initial phase of losing contact, but ultimately these excuses turned out to be lies meant to buy time.

1 billion TWD meets the timing coincidence of 19 billion USD liquidation day

There are market speculations that Cai Weize's “missing him” is related to the “black swan” event in the cryptocurrency market on October 11. On that day, the cryptocurrency market experienced severe fluctuations, with the total liquidation amount across the network reaching as high as $19 billion, and the price of Bitcoin briefly falling below the $110,000 mark. Jay Chou's public call for help coincided with the aftermath of this market crash, leading industry insiders to speculate that “it is possible that Cai Weize used this capital to trade coins with high leverage, and after the liquidation, he could not explain himself, which is why he chose to disappear.”

In the past five years, the price of Bitcoin has experienced astonishing growth, skyrocketing by about ten times from its low at that time. In the past year (as of October 2025), the price of Bitcoin has also surged by 100%. Against the backdrop of substantial profits, the “disappearance” of Cai Weize appears even more suspicious. If he had been operating normally, the principal of 100 million NTD should have appreciated to several hundred million or even one billion NTD over the past few years, leaving no reason to flee. The only reasonable explanation is that this capital encountered liquidation during high leverage operations, resulting in not only the complete loss of the principal but also possibly owing debts to the exchange.

Some have raised questions about whether those with substantial principal will still engage in high-leverage operations. In response, another industry professional involved in blockchain applications and investment research candidly stated, “In the face of high returns, no one will think that having too much money is a bad thing.” He further explained in simple terms, “If you use 1 million as principal and leverage another 1 million, what could originally earn you 500,000 in the market now has the chance to earn you 1 million. When the market continues to rise, such operations seem to carry very low risk, but once faced with a 'black swan' event like that on October 11, it could lead to a complete loss of capital.”

This logic explains why Cai Weize might still take risks with high leverage even when there are already huge profits. When Bitcoin rises from tens of thousands of dollars to over a hundred thousand dollars, holding only spot could turn 100 million TWD into 500 million to 1 billion TWD. However, if using 10 times or more leverage, theoretically, the gains could be magnified to several billion or even over a hundred billion TWD. This temptation of wealth multiplication is hard for anyone to resist, especially when the market continues to rise, making high leverage appear to be a “sure-win” strategy.

However, leverage is a double-edged sword. The plunge on October 11 could clear all leveraged long positions within hours. If Cai Weize indeed used high leverage, then the principal of 100 million TWD plus leveraged borrowing could all be liquidated on that day. Faced with such a massive loss, he chose to go offline and evade rather than be honest, which, although unethical, is psychologically understandable.

The fatal risk of private keys is ownership

As a virtual asset, Bitcoin's core feature is “private key equals ownership.” Xiao Sa, a senior partner at Beijing Dacheng Law Offices, stated: “The decentralized design of cryptocurrencies aims to eliminate reliance on centralized intermediaries such as banks and brokers through the distributed ledger of blockchain and cryptographic verification, allowing value transfer to be completed directly between individuals. However, 'fren delegation' goes against this principle by concentrating asset control in the hands of acquaintances, thus forming a new 'center.'”

This design is technically the core advantage of Bitcoin, but in reality, it has become a fatal flaw of holding assets. In traditional financial systems, even if you delegate someone to manage assets, the records of banks and brokers still show you as the owner, and the trustee cannot unilaterally transfer the assets. However, in the Bitcoin system, whoever holds the private key is the actual owner, and the blockchain cannot distinguish between “legitimate operations” and “malicious misuse.”

When Jay Chou entrusted 100 million TWD worth of Bitcoin to Cai Weize, he was essentially handing over the private key to him. From that moment on, these Bitcoins technically belonged to Cai Weize. Jay Chou could only rely on his trust in Cai Weize and moral constraints, but such soft constraints often crumble in the face of huge profits. If Cai Weize chooses to transfer these Bitcoins and goes offline, Jay Chou would have virtually no means of recovery from a technical standpoint.

“The behavior of entrusting acquaintances to make investments is not uncommon in the crypto space, and the disputes arising from this are also frequently seen in judicial practice,” said Xiao Sa, a senior partner at Beijing Dacheng Law Firm, to reporters. “Generally, there is a certain professional threshold for ordinary investors wanting to enter the crypto space. On one hand, ordinary investors are not familiar with how to operate trading platforms and are unclear on how to purchase coins; on the other hand, some international platforms have technical restrictions on access and usage for certain users, which makes it difficult for ordinary investors to participate directly in trading, thus necessitating entrusted investments, and the objects of such entrusted investments are usually acquaintances or professional institutions.”

Three Major Legal Pitfalls of Proxy Investment by Acquaintances

In Xiao Sa's view, “fren delegation” also hides three major “danger zones.” First, the behavior of frens is uncontrollable. The immutability of the blockchain only guarantees the authenticity of “on-chain records,” but cannot constrain the actions of the trustee holding the private key. The other party can transfer assets at any time, after all, on-chain records cannot distinguish between “legitimate operations” and “malicious misappropriations.” This is a fundamental flaw at the technical level; unless a multi-signature wallet or smart contract custody is used, a single private key holder has absolute control.

Second, the commission agreement with acquaintances lacks legal protection. If both parties rely on verbal promises, the principal may find it difficult to prove the existence of a commission relationship, making it even harder to recover losses; if both parties use a written contract, many courts consider investment contracts involving cryptocurrency to be invalid, and the principal must bear the risk. This legal gray area means that even if Jay Chou chooses to sue, the chances of winning are not high. In the judicial practices of Mainland China and Taiwan, civil disputes involving cryptocurrency are often dismissed due to “illegal subject matter.”

Third, there is an information asymmetry with acquaintances. The reason clients choose to entrust acquaintances with investments often stems from factors such as “lack of technical understanding” and “not having time to operate,” which leads to a serious imbalance of information between the client and the trustee. The trustee may conceal key information, fabricate “high-return projects,” and hide actual losses to deceive the client; while investors, due to “emotional ties,” usually do not proactively check accounts or request operational records, only discovering issues when assets suffer significant losses or when contact cannot be made.

Three Major Fatal Risks of Using Acquaintances to Hold Bitcoin

Technical Risk: The private key is ownership; the holder can transfer assets at any time and they cannot be retrieved.

Legal Risk: Cryptocurrency investment contracts are often deemed invalid by courts, making it difficult to recover losses.

Information Risk: The client does not understand the technology, cannot supervise operations, and is prone to being deceived or misled about losses.

Many industry insiders have stated that the risks of entrusting acquaintances to invest on your behalf are extremely high. Not only is there a lack of legal protection, but the operators are often non-professionals who have not established corresponding risk hedging mechanisms. Once faced with a market black swan, it is easy to lose everything. Jay Chou's billion-dollar Bitcoin “Rashomon” is not just a personal case of a celebrity; it is a microcosm of the virtual asset investment market. Industry players told reporters that in the world of cryptocurrency, “brotherhood loyalty” and “trust in acquaintances” may seem to reduce risk, but in reality, they can become fatal traps—because human nature is often more uncontrollable than technology in the face of huge profits and risks. The magical realism of the cryptocurrency market far exceeds any magic performance.

Star Investment Cryptocurrency Risk Warning

Jay Chou's case serves as a profound warning for other celebrities and high-net-worth individuals. Even billionaires face the same risks in cryptocurrency investments. The correct approach is: personally learn the basics to master private keys, use professional and regulated custody services, never give private keys to anyone, including your closest frens, regularly check asset status and demand transparent operation records, and diversify risks by not entrusting all cryptocurrency assets to a single person or institution.

For ordinary investors, this case is a bloody lesson. If even a superstar like Jay Chou could encounter disputes over proxy holding, the risks for ordinary people will only be higher. The safest approach is to personally control the private keys, use a hardware wallet for storage, and take the time to learn basic security knowledge. The “decentralized” nature of blockchain requires users to take on the responsibility of self-custody; transferring this responsibility to others is equivalent to giving up the core advantage of decentralization.