A Dual Remedial System for Disputes over Unilateral Livestreaming Tipping of Community Property—A Categorical Approach Based on the Purpose of Performance

网络直播打赏已成为数字经济背景下的重要消费形态，由此引发的夫妻单方处分共同财产纠纷亦日益增多。围绕对外救济，司法实践中将打赏整体定性为赠与或网络服务合同的分歧，实为规则适用之争而非定性之争。应放弃整体性定性的预设，以行为目的为基准对打赏作类型化处理：以维系违背公序良俗关系为目的者构成背俗赠与；以获取表演或互动服务为目的者成立网络服务合同；既无不正当关系亦无违法服务、呈现非理性沉浸消费特征者，仅可在对内救济层面被评价。“挥霍”规则因不以行为违法或背俗为前提，覆盖了对外救济无法触及的规范场域。对外救济与对内救济在请求权层面属并行机制，无程序顺位关系；其协调仅发生于损害计算层面，体现为对已回收金额的折抵。Disputes arising from unilateral livestreaming tipping with community property have become increasingly common. The longstanding debate over whether tipping should be characterized as a gift or as an online service contract is, in substance, a dispute over applicable rules rather than legal characterization. This article abandons holistic characterization and proposes, based on the purpose of performance, a tripartite typology: tipping aimed at maintaining a relationship contrary to public order and good morals constitutes a void gift; tipping aimed at obtaining a performance or interactive service establishes an online service contract; tipping that involves neither an illicit relationship nor an unlawful service but exhibits irrational, immersive consumption can only be addressed through internal remedies. The “dissipation” rule, which does not require the underlying act to be illegal or contrary to good morals, covers a normative space beyond the reach of external remedies. External and internal remedies are parallel mechanisms with no procedural hierarchy; their coordination is confined to the calculation of damages, manifested as the offset of amounts already recovered.