After the account-ban controversy in *Delta Force*, Wuyueshiwu donated all of his earnings in May.

What is most worth discussing this time is not emotional venting, but a very clear value choice: turning controversial traffic into traceable, actionable public welfare efforts. From a design perspective, this is equivalent to reconnecting an out-of-control incident back into a more stable narrative loop.

On March 19, 2026, @五月食伍, the account owner who drew massive attention from players because of the Delta Force “streamer account destruction” incident, posted a video responding to how much income he had actually received from this wave of attention. According to the figures he disclosed, recent support funds included 11,110 yuan from charging rewards and 3,141 yuan in after-tax livestream income. After deducting necessary expenses, the total amount he actually received was 14,251 yuan.

The key point is not the amount, but how it is handled. He made it clear that, aside from necessary travel expenses, this money would be used for direct point-to-point donations. All subsequent “charging” income, as well as livestream income after covering expenses, would also continue to be put into charitable causes. This decision is highly professional, because it directly cuts off the public opinion channel of “cashing in on the incident,” and also rejects the path dependence of turning netizens’ goodwill into personal equipment upgrades or rights-protection costs.

From a technical perspective, what the public fears most is unclear accounting and information loss after institutional transfers. But 五月食伍 chose to personally search for and screen aid recipients, ultimately directing the donations to Shanghai Ronald McDonald House. This organization mainly provides free accommodation for impoverished families from outside Shanghai who come to the city seeking medical treatment for critically ill children, covering illnesses such as blood disorders and tumors. His follow-up plan is to make unified purchases of daily necessities, food ingredients, and urgently needed equipment for the children, and then personally deliver them. Although this method requires more effort, it offers much greater transparency and persuasiveness.

I quite agree with one thing he said: “For these families, even a stable place to stay is a luxury. They need this goodwill more than I do.” This is not grandstanding, but rather pulling his personal experience out of a “victim narrative” and redefining the use of the donations. In other words, he did not treat the support as a compensation package, but as a user trust that had to be handled with great care.

From a business logic perspective, this incident is also a wake-up call for the streamer ecosystem: traffic does not naturally equate to justified monetization. What players are willing to support are attitude, a sense of boundaries, and follow-through. In fact, there have always been two voices in the community: one believes this money should be kept for defending rights, while the other thinks public donation is a better response to that trust. My own judgment is that the former is more like immediate damage control, while the latter is about repairing the public-relations rift caused by the incident, which carries greater long-term value.

Of course, this does not mean the controversy itself is now over. If rights protection needs to be pursued, it still has to be pursued, and the boundary issues among platforms, streamers, and players will not automatically be erased by a single donation. But at least at this step, 五月食伍 did not take the easiest path or the one most likely to be misunderstood. Instead, he gave a response that was genuinely thoughtful. For onlooking players, what is truly worth continuing to watch is not how moving the statement sounds, but whether this set of public welfare commitments can continue to be fulfilled.