Recently, I looked at two major rulings in the cryptocurrency field, and the numbers are quite shocking.

Do Kwon was sentenced to 15 years for the $40 billion Terra-Luna collapse, while SBF was sentenced to 25 years for the $11 billion FTX fraud. Interestingly, the economic loss caused by Do Kwon is nearly four times that of SBF, yet he received 10 years less. The judges said this was a super big case, with hundreds of thousands of victims worldwide and heavy losses. So the question is, why is there such a big difference in sentencing?

The key still lies in attitude. Do Kwon pleaded guilty in August and took responsibility directly. He wrote to the court saying he was responsible for everyone's pain, admitting that his arrogance had misled the community. He even apologized directly after hearing the victims' statements—this proactive remorse was noticed by the judge.

As for SBF, it was the complete opposite. He insisted on fighting in court, claiming he was innocent, and argued that FTX was just a liquidity issue, not a scam. As a result, the jury took only four hours to convict him. Judge Kaplan also pointed out during sentencing that SBF lied multiple times on the stand, calling it one of the most cunning testimonies he had seen. Even more outrageous, he tried to contact FTX's former general counsel before the trial to influence witnesses' testimonies.

Another detail that affected the sentencing was that Do Kwon, after serving time in the U.S., would have to serve more time in South Korea, potentially adding another 40 years. That means he will pay an even higher price for this. SBF's case is different; he has no other cases in other countries waiting for him, so these 25 years are basically the final result.

Comparing the two cases, the judges' attitudes are quite clear: admitting guilt and showing remorse can earn lighter sentences, but refusing to admit guilt and trying to manipulate the judicial process will lead to more severe consequences. This is also a warning for the crypto industry.