Topic: BITSTAMP exchange biased rule that chased users away - page 2. (Read 227 times)

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.
No exchanges that I can think of have fees for non use, but there are some that will close your account and take your funds if you don't log in / use it for a certain period of time.

-Dave

If we treat all the people into cryptocurrency as pros the market may end up not hitting a global adoption. Most users stumble upon crypto for what may seem to be a different reason; for-profits, trading, investing, etc. Many don't read or are not readers or not interested in reading about the ecosystem. Like you said lazy investors that see the exchange as a bank account. It's like a bank account to them, they can withdraw their funds since nobody or they have not enlightened themselves about the main cryptocurrency wallets that can be used to save their funds. In this thread, I emphasized that such decisions may chase noob users away from using cryptocurrency. So if the goal is to reach mass adoption I think everyone into cryptocurrency should not be considered a pro in the market.

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"

They treat exchange accounts as bank accounts now with that minimum requirement. Are they not earning enough from the fees they charge to cover the fees from maintaining inactive accounts? That's probably the case here. They must be feeling the effect of the bear market hehe. Poor way to milk more money from their users.

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.

if people want to stupidly leave funds in an exchange for over a month. then sure they should be charged..
.. ofcourse this $10 sum should go towards some custodian insurance reserve. but atleast it could/should teach people to stop holding value in exchanges when not actually actively using the exchange.

by now changing to a min holding to have free bank account is just playing into the lazy investors who want to treat bitstamp as a bank account

..
no one should think or advertise or treat an exchange as a bank account service to store funds for over a month without any activity

if your not using funds for a few weeks, TAKE THEM OUT of the exchange.

It is their exchanges, their lands and they have their own rules. I believe that none of us spend time to read all points in ToS (Terms of Service) of any platform. That means you will be trapped by their ToS sooner or later. Don't say it as biased strategy or decision.

It is still good. If you know exchanges have rules to close account of user if it is inactively after a very long time, 2 year or longer ie. I remembered I read it on Poloniex's ToS in 2017 or 2018.

Exchange can update their ToS and you will have to accept it. A good exchange will give you a window time to withdraw if you don't accept with their new policy. Scam exchange will take advantage of new policy to steal your fund.

That's correct. It's an idiotic move, since the inactives will not know and would just lose that money. It's indeed very close to stealing.
I find it a desperate move, caused probably exactly by the fact people are no longer trade much there. But not problem, really, there are plenty of more welcoming exchanges - with or without KYC.


It doesn't matter. They've just lost a huge amount of credibility and I expect people continue to leave in big numbers. And this means lower liquidity, hence one more reason for the users leave.

They are not to be trusted as I considered all of these act as theft. How can you charge such ? Who does that ?
$200 at the end of every month is a big amount. They would have lost more user if they had not uplift the ban thus.
Are there any difference between the exchange's and the bank related to these acts. ?

Cryptocurrency exchanges are the thorn in the cryptocurrency market's flesh. Though, they are centralized platforms operating for a decentralized entity. But, they fail to keep themselves away from biased decisions. Recently, on July 5, Bitstamp posted that inactive accounts will pay a $10 bill on their next transaction. Such a decision became clear to them that users saw it as a biased rule to favor the platform; this morning they lifted the rule. However, users already left the exchange, and some users may lose interest in cryptocurrency due to such an order. An exchange with a reasonable board of admins should have thought things out before effecting such a rule knowing that they are many other competitors.

On the other hand, users complain that the exchange is demanding a $200 minimum deposit per month to keep an account active. So if a user fails to deposit up to $200 per month their account will get deactivated.

Such exchanges are making decisions outside the goal of cryptocurrency marketers or inventors. It shouldn't be this way. Some exchanges are centralized already. They should be a general central body that should govern every exchange in the cryptocurrency space. The decisions they come up with every day, and the threat of some exchanges going into bankruptcy in the cryptocurrency space is not helping this ecosystem. A rule should govern any existing exchange to keep things in place or the market will face more threats in the future. 






https://blog.bitstamp.net/post/bitstamp-cancels-plans-to-charge-inactivity-fee/