I looked it up, and it’s actually true... OneKey’s English version includes compensation, but the Chinese version doesn’t even mention it. Section 9, Clause 8 (Liability Cap): "In any case, the total liability for Company under this Agreement shall not exceed the greater of: a) the market value of 0.1 ETH; or b) 100 Singapore Dollars." This clause is unique to the English version and has no equivalent in the Chinese version. That means the theoretical upper limit amounts to roughly a few hundred U.S. dollars. Section 9, Clause 3 aligns with the Chinese version and explicitly lists typical theft scenarios as exempt from liability: token loss resulting from user disclosure of wallet passwords, private keys, seed phrases, or Keystore files; lending or transferring wallets; authorizing others to use devices; or downloading the app from non-official sources. Losses due to lost devices, deleted apps without backups, or forgotten passwords are similarly excluded. Overall, the service is still provided on an “AS IS” and “WITH ALL FAULTS” basis, with no security reserve or commitment to compensate for theft. Thus, when considering both versions together, the conclusion is clearer: neither version specifies any compensation amount for theft. The Chinese version’s logic is “reserves the right to refuse compensation,” while the English version adds a fallback: even if the loss results from platform-side issues—not user key exposure—the maximum payout is capped at either 0.1 ETH or 100 SGD, whichever is higher. For users holding substantial assets, this cap holds virtually no practical significance.