The focus of the dispute between the above two viewpoints is whether a member or customer who has not conducted futures trading is considered as an overdraft transaction (that is, a passive overdraft) because the margin balance cannot maintain his position due to changes in market conditions and fails to add the margin in time. In my opinion, the overdraft of positions is actually maintained by the self-owned funds of futures exchanges or futures brokerage companies or the funds of other members or customers managed by them when the maintenance margin of members or customers is insufficient. Through inaction, it is a passive overdraft behavior. Therefore, if the futures brokerage company or its customers have no or insufficient margin, and the futures exchange or futures brokerage company allows the futures brokerage company or its customers to open or continue to hold positions, it shall be deemed as an overdraft transaction. That is, overdraft transaction should include two forms: opening overdraft transaction (active overdraft) and position overdraft (passive overdraft). Moreover, the determination standard of overdraft trading should be based on whether it is lower than the margin ratio stipulated by the futures exchange, not whether it is lower than the margin ratio stipulated by the futures brokerage company. Article 31 of the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Futures Dispute Cases (hereinafter referred to as the Judicial Interpretation of Futures) recently issued by the Supreme People's Court stipulates: "If a futures exchange allows a futures company to open a position without margin or with insufficient margin, it shall be deemed as an overdraft transaction. Futures companies allow customers to open positions or continue to hold positions without margin or insufficient margin, which should be considered as overdraft transactions, that is, it should be clear that overdraft transactions should include position overdraft and opening overdraft.