BITSTAMP exchange biased rule that chased users away

Anonylz

hero member

Activity: 2562

Merit: 577

They should change their board of advisors imo, such decision won't come to light without running it through the decision making bodies in that company and i wonder how the hell they ever thought this is the right way to make inactive accounts active! like seriously?
Has it not occur to them there is a reason so many accounts are inactive! the reasonable thing to do would have been finding out why and proffer an attractive incentives or something to make users want to be active again. No wonder i have never heard of them. Undecided

bitbollo

legendary

Activity: 3276

Merit: 3537

Nec Recisa Recedit

who knows which highly decorated executive came up with such a stupid idea Roll Eyes

for many, many reasons ....
holding crypto requires no effort.
outside is full of exchanges competing to attract new users.
forcing users to stake coins or transact is just a non-sense move.

I am not surprised they changed immediately idea Roll Eyes

noorman0

hero member

Activity: 1778

Merit: 709

[Nope]No hype delivers more than hope

Quote from: GreatArkansas on July 07, 2022, 10:54:50 PM

-snip-
I am also curious, what is the difference when they will just ignore the inactive users than charging them? It's not making any sense for me.

I think this rule is more demanding for inactive users with a certain amount of balance. When a user becomes inactive it is clear that their income will decrease, while they still have some company fees even if the user becomes inactive and only leaves their funds with the same insurance rights.

sunsilk

hero member

Activity: 3038

Merit: 634

It shouldn't really be this way. Although there's this vital role of these exchanges in the whole crypto market but to abuse that privilege that they have, they're just pushing away their customers. This isn't the first crash that bitstamp has and why is it that they're doing the same rule as the other exchanges just to make themselves alive?

Those rules are naive.

They've been in the business for quite a while and then making this set of rules would really push the customers away.

Quote from: Accardo on July 07, 2022, 07:27:28 AM

and some users may lose interest in cryptocurrency due to such an order.

Possible but I don't think that they'll come into that point because they'll just ship to another better exchange.

examplens

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 3507

Crypto Swap Exchange

I didn't really follow what happened with Bitstamp and their new rules, but I received email notifications where they abandon this stupid policy of charging fees for inactive accounts.

Quote

We will NOT be introducing the inactivity fee
A few days ago, you received an email from us regarding changes to our fee structure, specifically the introduction of an inactivity fee for accounts that met certain criteria. Please disregard this email, your account has not been charged and we will not be introducing the inactivity fee.
At Bitstamp, our customers and the security of your funds are our first priority. We strive to offer you the best crypto service and that also means listening to your feedback. After hearing from our community we understand your concerns and changed course.

Bitcoin_Arena

copper member

Activity: 2128

Merit: 1814

฿itcoin for all, All for ฿itcoin.

Quote from: franky1 on July 07, 2022, 08:02:28 AM

flip the mindset..

a $10 fee a month is a way to say "stop using bitstamp as a bank account long term", the advice is and should be to take your funds out and own your own crypto in your own wallet.

Or just don't create an account and use Bitstamp at all, there are lots of exchanges out there with no such rule.

From the way I look at the rule, they are instead forcing clients to use the exchange to store their crypto. More like "transact this number of times during this period and keep a minimum balance in our exchange or else we shall charge you an inactivity fee"

Saint-loup

legendary

Activity: 2604

Merit: 2353

Quote from: yhiaali3 on July 07, 2022, 05:37:37 PM

These new conditions may seem harsh, but in the end it is their exchange and they are free to set the conditions they want and the user is free to accept or not, but when you agree to the terms of service, you become obligated to implement all the laws of the exchange and you have no right to complain, from the point of view of the exchange if you do not want to trade so why keep your money there? If you keep it there you have to pay a fee for it.
Therefore, the best solution for those who do not wish to trade in this bear market is to withdraw those assets into a safe wallet instead of leaving them idle there without trading. I don't blame them frankly because the exchanges exist for trading and not for storing money. If the exchanges don't take trading fees how can they keep going?.

It's sad to still read in 2022 this kind of words. No, crypto users are not ships or cows ready to be milked by platforms. And exchanges are not free to do what they want with their customers, because scamming people is forbidden anywhere on earth.
As you said when an user registers into a platform he agrees the ToS, then if the platform doesn't want to respect them anymore and wants to change them they must offer a compensation for not respecting the initial contract anymore. Did Bitstamp at least offer to users to withdraw their funds without any withdrawal fees and KYC? I didn't hear that.
They've just tried to apply this new condition because they have the strictest KYC rules of all the exchanges afaik and many accounts are not accessible by their owners anymore because of that. But fortunately they've failed.

GreatArkansas

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1397

It seems they are working like the banks. I remember here in our country, there are some banks that will charge you some amount once your balance falls below the agreed maintaining balance. It really sucks.

I am also curious, what is the difference when they will just ignore the inactive users than charging them? It's not making any sense for me.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

bitstamp small print
"the fee will not result in a negative balance on your account. So, if your balance is zero. your account will not be affected by this change"

this means TAKE YOUR FUNDS OUT, but dont close the account.
then when you want to use it. do a deposit. but when you finished using it that day/week withdraw it again. and avoid the fee's

a zero balance = no fee

PX-Z

hero member

Activity: 1554

Merit: 880

Notify wallet transaction @txnNotifierBot

Haha. That's insane. How come an inactive user should be charge, if this a damn thing then there should be an option to delete the account.
Since they are giving an option people to avoid them when they come back from being inactive then there should an option for that.

Quote from: Oceat on July 07, 2022, 06:10:24 PM

But the question is...who does leave their funds on an exchange that would lead to inactivity?

You dont know? People like to leave funds on exchange now a days, disregarding the fact it can vanish when hack happens. Yeah, people should, but most of us are lazy to that.

Oceat

sr. member

Activity: 2506

Merit: 368

But the question is...who does leave their funds on an exchange that would lead to inactivity? They should take it out and put it to their own wallet and never use an exchange as a bank or wallet but anyway, if it's in their ToS then that's the fault most of the users didn't read. But if it's a new condition then that's a straight stealing though they put it as if it's the users fault but it's them and then they left the condition maybe after reading this topic or a lot of users already left after that tweet.

fiulpro

hero member

Activity: 1890

Merit: 831

This is honestly not just bitstamp but other companies as well for example when you consider Zebpay, they usually offer free services only when they see customers making at least one trade, but the fee is honestly 5€ approximately, therefore I do think that there are other companies as well that would be charging the same sooner or later, for them they are providing a platform and if they are charging as well, the customers would be able to ask for better services, I do not think that it is entirely wrong but they should decrease the fee considering they already take money on every trade made and withdrawals and deposits are also something you pay for in some platforms.

yhiaali3

legendary

Activity: 1848

Merit: 1982

Payment Gateway Allows Recurring Payments

These new conditions may seem harsh, but in the end it is their exchange and they are free to set the conditions they want and the user is free to accept or not, but when you agree to the terms of service, you become obligated to implement all the laws of the exchange and you have no right to complain, from the point of view of the exchange if you do not want to trade so why keep your money there? If you keep it there you have to pay a fee for it.
Therefore, the best solution for those who do not wish to trade in this bear market is to withdraw those assets into a safe wallet instead of leaving them idle there without trading. I don't blame them frankly because the exchanges exist for trading and not for storing money. If the exchanges don't take trading fees how can they keep going?.

jossiel

hero member

Activity: 3220

Merit: 636

DGbet.fun - Crypto Sportsbook

That's even more than a bank that charges in my accounts that do charge $5 for 2 years of being dormant.

That dormancy fee is like a suicide on their own, yeah, just push away those customers that they have and they only want the active ones to stay.

They shouldn't be surprised if the number of users goes low by the next month of audit. There will be sure those that will be charged $10 and it will totally make them dismay.

stompix

legendary

Activity: 2912

Merit: 6403

Blackjack.fun

Two years later and some are still surprised that some exchanges, even big ones have been charging this for years

And seems some have been improving their fees since I posted that, like Coindirect:

Quote from: DaveF on July 07, 2022, 09:15:18 AM

I can't comment for the rest of the world but here in the US many banks have an inactivity fee / minimum use requirements on certain types of accounts.
Many of the crypto debit cards out there also have inactivity fees as do some other services.

Most banks have such a thing, and the card providers have them too, even gambling sites will close your account and if the remaining sum is below the minimum deposit required the amount will be lost, I know that from a mail I've got from Betfair saying my precious 2.5$ will be lost if I don't log in and place a bet in the next 3 months. As for exchanges, there are far more with this practice than you imagine.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: NeuroticFish on July 07, 2022, 08:24:10 AM

Quote from: franky1 on July 07, 2022, 08:02:28 AM

flip the mindset..

a $10 fee a month is a way to say "stop using bitstamp as a bank account long term", the advice is and should be to take your funds out and own your own crypto in your own wallet.

Well, it also means that if one wants to buy or sell only every couple of months, he better closes the account, creates a new one and does KYC.. every time? I find it counter productive, nobody will do that.
So you either day trade (basically) on Bitstamp, either go and find another exchange (and yes, keep most of the funds on your own wallet, obviously). And with this move I think that day traders will also leave.

Hence instead of "stop using bitstamp as a bank account long term" this will easily translate into "stop using bitstamp"

if you leave funds in there.. you then have to top up extra each month just to avoid paying a fee if you not using it to trade

however.
if you take funds out..(an activity)
guess what, by putting funds back in a month later.. you are then depositing(an activity) to avoid the fee..

..
if you are not using bitstamp for 11 months and 28 days. then yea close the account completely and just use a different exchange..

but the point is to simply stop using an account as a bank

avikz

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1500

I think Bitstamp is facing some financial issues. Otherwise, in a highly competitive market like crypto exchange, no company would take such a suicidal decision. It is pretty easy to trade in any other exchange instead of Bitstamp which wouldn't have any such inactivity fees.

My suggestion would be to leave this exchange for good and immediately withdraw all assets whatever you are keeping with them. Otherwise things could go out of your control pretty quickly.

Ultegra134

hero member

Activity: 1778

Merit: 907

From my point of view, this exchange seems to be going downhill, it charges extravagant trading fees, 0.5% compared to 0.10% Binance's. It's the main reason I quit the exchange and never plan to return ever again. I received multiple emails to upload more documentation or they'd close my account, despite it being inactive for over a year.

DdmrDdmr

legendary

Activity: 2338

Merit: 10802

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. MTwain

Quote from: Accardo on July 07, 2022, 07:27:28 AM

<…>

Although now cancelled, and obviously they dipped their toes in the wrong direction, the conditions did not require a 200 € equivalent balance on a monthly basis to avoid being charged, but rather applied if you hadn’t made a platform TX over the last 12 months AND your account’s balance was less than the equivalent of 200 €.

The key to avoiding the inactivity fee would have been to either make at least one platform TX over the last 12 months, or have an account balance of over or equal to 200 €.

Customers of Bitstamp US were to be exempt from the inactivity fee. Praise be …

rhomelmabini

hero member

Activity: 2030

Merit: 578

No God or Kings, only BITCOIN.

I wonder what will those user's reaction when they found out that they have changed their T&C and they don't know about this. I think it's better if they close the account if for several months there's an inactivity on the account and post a note of the closing in the account.

Topic: BITSTAMP exchange biased rule that chased users away (Read 236 times)