Obviously, if Coinbase is allowing transactions to go through when BTC goes down in value, and not allowing transactions to go through when BTC goes up in value, that would be scammy. With that said, I am not at all convinced that they do, and OP has offered no evidence to back up his accusation.
Coinbase has over 630,000 customers. Almost all of which are happy and satisfied, but the small percentage that aren't happy or satisfied, has taken a HUGE hit. We're not talking about $5, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars. This "anti-fraud" "high risk transaction" algorithm that coinbase has is nothing more than an algorithm (if it's event that) made to put extra money in the pockets of the owners.
Obviously, every single organization in existence of any appreciable size has some amount of customers that are not happy. This is life.
How do I know this? Common sense.
Ah, common sense. This is one of those things someone says when they make a wild assertion, but don't have any proof. If they had proof, they would provide it. Since they don't, they just claim it is common sense. Your claim it is large orders that this happens to, but then the list you provide has a lot of tiny orders on it. Like one for 60ish dollars. Really? a 60 dollar transaction is the one they chose to defraud? That's common sense?
Once a customer has verified their bank account and initiated a buy transaction, right than and there the algorithm should kick in to detect if it is "high risk" or not. NOT 2 weeks later when the money has been taken out of the person's bank account (and then ultimately returned back to the person's bank account bc it is "high risk"). That is why there is a verification process to make sure the registered customer owns the bank account. During those 1 - 2 weeks, coinbase is in control and can do whatever at will.
Common sense would tell you that NO credit processor can detect fraud instantly. That's the whole point of the 1-2 week delay. I would assume the algorithm is used to flag transactions for follow up, but I don't know for sure. What I do know is, no creditor in existence can instantly tell if a transaction is fraudulent. "common sense" tells you if that were possible, there would be no fraudulent transactions!
You can rectify everything by showing that "anti-fraud algorithm" for the experts to take a look at. But who knows, you might have already covered your tracks.
That's cute. You say they can rectify this situation by showing you the algorithm, and then just to cover your tracks just in case they do show you, you say they may have covered their tracks. So basically you have decided they are frauds, and no amount of evidence will deter you. Got it. Incidentally, why would they show people who they obviously think are frauds, their anti fraud algorithm? Would that be "common sense"?
Now about that list you provided. There is one key piece of information you failed to give. And that is, are those transactions fraudulent? They refused to process those requests because they flagged them as fraudulent (which, just so we are clear, if they process them knowing they are fraud they are now committing a crime). Maybe, jsut maybe, this isn't some great big conspiracy to defraud you, but those transactions are actually.....fraudulent?
