Should Xiong Haizi reward the anchor for coming back?

I think it should be returned, because children are not conscious of money and subjectively don't spend it completely (not to say that the anchor induces rewards and so on, don't spray it). Secondly, according to common sense, the ownership of this money should belong to parents, and how to spend it should be subjectively consumed by parents. Besides, I think it is better to return the money that I have worked so hard to support my family. I am not a saint, but sometimes this money may really save a person. I think there is such a situation, parents' supervision is not strict, and the main responsibility is not to educate children about the safety of money, and the information on this platform is not perfect. Children can still pay if they are protected by minors. I think it's a problem and it's worth studying in this respect. There is also the anchor. Some parents ask for money to find an anchor and even abuse it. I think this is wrong. If the anchor does not induce consumer behavior, the anchor is actually not responsible. On the contrary, parents broke the law. The rational situation should be that the anchor and parents negotiate gently, negotiate with the platform, or seek legal assistance. On the network platform, the anchor should also remind the underage audience to spend moderately, for nothing else, just less trouble. What's more, this incident can also reflect that children's education on money consumption is really lacking. We should attach importance to children's learning and strengthen their understanding of other aspects. I have also found that some children treat five dollars as fifty cents, and the kind boss will teach them to pay back the money, or turn a blind eye if it is not good. It's not easy to make money. You get what you pay for.