TBH I found multiple complains about all crypto exchanges. This is enough, to use Google and search for query: "name of exchange + scam".
I have taken from Coinmarketcap 10 first exchanges, biggest by the volume and checked like this. All these exchanges are accused, by random users across all available channels for multiple cases of abuse and obvious scam tactics. From failed KYC, blocked accounts by AML, to lost deposits, and withdrawals, lost alt coins in a mysterious way, etc. I think, I found all types of accusations possible.
The main reasons for the flag are this shady TOS and blocked account, but Hhampuz proved already, that all exchanges have such Terms of Service. Better or worse, they are hidden between complex industry specificities, to mislead users or put there in the hope, that they will not understand it completely or never read it in the first place. This Livecoin TOS are there from the very beginning and to bring this now, to the light is like a falstart in sport. A very long one, because took a few years to find it, which proves that indeed nobody reads, these rules before registering.
I don't see any other scammed members in this thread, which is very rare and weird, taking into consideration, how many people are scammed because of exchanges.
I see, that there are other threads and somebody is talking somewhere, that he was scammed too (quoted above), but never showed up here and we can assume, that this thread caught attention from the entire forum and all interested members have already seen it, taking into consideration the thread title. Is enough, to look at the stats of this thread.
Despite, how shady and not moral this TOS are, they are there from the beginning and one has, to agree with them when signing up.
To accuse now the exchange, that they use it against OP is not appropriate, because OP was warned, multiple times and proven, to be lying about the exchange and even admit it publicly.
Going back, to the Mona case, there are still not enough pieces of evidence and many questions should be answered before we come, to final conclusions.
Additionally, OP is not the most honest person and I have a problem, to believe in all his statements.
I can't shake the filling, that the main purpose of this all, was to stop the Livecoin signature campaign (QS), and show Hhampuz in a bad light.
After the announcement, that campaign will be finished, I don't see anybody asking the OP, if something has changed in his case, or maybe there is something, that could be done for him?
Even Op is not active and every normal OP in his thread is active constantly. I know because, I always was, especially in such important once. Here comes to me another thought, that maybe these Mona coins are not so important and this is not the only reason?
As for now, the only outcome of this case is, that the Livecoin exchange, got a flag for a block of one account, to which they use their TOS (despite moral or not), to close.
OP still didn't get the money and now, when the situation is even worse, I doubt, that Livecoin will help, after all that has been done and said. They have nothing to lose now, so why, to make the OP happy? Would you do this after such a battle? Of course, you do, but only if there will be something to lose, which was advertising in this particular case. One can think about this, as a simple signature campaign, but this was the reason for 10%, of the traffic on the Livecoin exchange. This is really a monster card, to play with (like AA), but they were burned all pre-flop. To scare away money from Bitcointalk is a very strange tactic for me, taking into consideration, that 99% of people are here, only because of the money.
Now, we have additional 20+ members, which are victims of this case, because of the lost spots in a great campaign, with one of the highest payouts. There was a big chance, that it will be ongoing for a very long time. Don't mention all the future members, which could get a spot, after some time and earn a few additional bucks, when posting on the forum. We all know, how everything is changing constantly in the signature campaigns.
Not so long ago, painted red one of the Polish exchanges, because there was, also a scam accusation thread, here on Bitcointalk against them. I was the only member of the polish community, active in this discussion. After OP posted evidence and additional accounts popped up, with more accusations, I filled obligated, to give the red trust. After some time, turned out, that the OP wasn't telling, the full truth and the other accounts, disappeared and never answered further, to me or exchange questions. I had to apologize and take my negative trust back after some time. The exchange was accused of holding deposits after OP passed full KYC. After deposit of a significant amount of cryptocurrencies, account was immediately frozen, despite KYC and exchange didn't want to send coins back, to the owner address. Looks obvious, but wasn't.
I think the approach, to flags, should be different. The flag should be granted at the end of the case, not at the very beginning.
First, we should try, to inform all involved parties and let them explain everything, between each other. We should keep close attention and help in the mediations, taking into consideration the interests of both sides. Like Hhampuz did, kudos for this. Flags were created, to stop the possibility, to destroy an account, with a single red trust, but from what I see, this is still possible.
When the flag is granted from the very beginning, the altitude of accused could be bad and I understand it. He could be not willing, to cooperate because already found guilty, so why, what for?
I am sure in a calm and polite way, we would be able to achieve something and not only, to create complete disaster and many collateral victims.
