🚀 #GateNewbieVillageEpisode4 ✖️ @比特一哥 
📈 Follow the trend, pick your points, wait for the signal 
💬 Share your trading journey | Discuss strategies | Grow with the Gate Family 
⏰ Event Date: Oct 25 04:00 – Nov 2 16:00 UTC 
How to Join: 
1️⃣ Follow Gate_Square + @比特一哥 
2️⃣ Post on Gate Square with the hashtag #GateNewbieVillageEpisode4  
3️⃣ Share your trading growth, insights, or experience 
— The more genuine and insightful your post, the higher your chance to win! 
🎁 Rewards 
3 lucky participants → Gate X RedBull Cap + $20 Position Voucher 
If delivery is unavailable, replaced with a $30 Position V
A spokesperson from Guangfeng Technology responded to the progress of the GDC Hong Kong arbitration case: malicious litigation disrupts operations.
Jin10 data reported on August 8, that on August 8, 2025, Guangfeng Technology announced that it had received an updated arbitration application from ESPEDEO, with the claim amount raised to $31.0235 million. The announcement clarified that the products involved were customized and developed by Hong Kong Guangfeng for ESPEDEO, and there is a clear provision for limitation of liability in the contract between both parties. In response to this matter, Guangfeng Technology stated that this arbitration would not have a significant adverse impact on the company’s continued operations, nor would it interfere with the current business development. The company has formed a professional legal team to actively respond, and will resolutely safeguard its own and all shareholders’ legal rights through legal means. Since the case has not yet entered the formal trial stage, the final impact will be based on the arbitration ruling or the results of negotiations between both parties. “This is a typical malicious lawsuit,” emphasized a relevant person from Guangfeng Technology. “ESPEDEO suddenly raised the claim amount tenfold a year after the arbitration application was submitted, and its purpose is obviously to trigger the company’s disclosure obligation, thereby disrupting normal business operations. Such behavior severely wastes judicial resources.”