Binance actually has a troubling ownership. It's legal status (or lack of), location of offices in unknown and volume traded potentially (centralized volume) could result in another QuadrigaCX or MTGox style disaster of Mt Gox proportion.
https://www.theblockcrypto.com/2018/11/16/fast-footwork-binance-has-danced-around-regulations-and-even-moved-itself-to-run-its-exchange-the-way-it-wants/Tradesatoshi is only small and insignificant in size. Some of the coins they list are only listed on their exchange. So while it may be inconvenient for some users it wouldn't result in a big market impact.
Their size also make it unlikely that they could afford to take on a a regulatory body if they determined that they did not meet their AML obligations.
In 2017 Bittrex introduced mandatory KYC resulting in the freezing of many accounts. Some still remain frozen due to being located in embargoed countries.
An attempt to present Binance as unreliable exchange through the citation of controversial media content looks very unconvincing. The shift of emphasis from the fact that a respectable exchange, on the example of Binance, in a case of blocking users' funds follow a transparent legal and reasonable procedure, to an irrelevant controversial statement about the danger of this exchange for the market, is not only unconvincing, but also intellectually dishonest.
Reasonings that Tradesatoshi, in contrast to Binance, have no strong impact on the market, so it can only affect and, in a case of scam-actions, harm a small group of its users, I'll just leave to your conscience.
I think there is some difference between the 0.1% accounts for Bittrex, part of which remained blocked due to the embargo, and total KYC-checking of accounts with a lifetime lock in case of refusal to cooperate for Tradesatoshi. Moreover, as I said, it is not the respectability of the exchange that determines the quality and legitimacy of the procedures it follows in relation to its users, but vice versa.
How to find out whether the user's data are right or wrong? Is the wish to find it out by starting a KYC-check is enough ground to make a decision that funds are illegal and to withhold the funds?
How do you think, what procedural steps have been taken by the exchange to have a reason to call each particular case "criminal" and to block users funds?
By your logic, can Tradesatoshi consider itself both investigation authority and judicial authority? They started mandatory KYC-checks without reasons and blocked users funds without any evidence for uncertain time, simply because they themselves started the KYC-checks. Seems, they don't need any of those authorities to decide what is legal and what is not.
Usually with financial institutions if false information is provided the authorities have to be notified. The authorities determine what happens to the funds.
I don't know whether this happens or whether Tradesatoshi follows a legal path. What does stand out is what appears to be illegal activity by the examples that were mentioned in this thread.
That is, you don't know whether Tradesatoshi is following legal procedure when it is blocking users or not. But without any evidence, in advance, without any KYC-verification, you're ready to accuse users of committing a crime and illegal activities. Please, do not claim that any comments made in discord, and even after the check had started, can serve as proof of someone's guilt.
Moreover, we know perfectly well that all affected users have passed the verification of the first level at the exchange. So, the exchange actually confirmed that these users can legally trade and meet the requirements of the exchange. Until the contrary is proved, the exchange has no right to hold the user's previously deposited funds. Exchange can block an account until the user passes the check - no problems. But to hold the funds, like Tradesatoshi does, for uncertain period without any grounds and without committing legal procedures - the official investigation, for example - is illegal.
For example, Binance blocks accounts suspected of committing a crime for 3 days. In the absence of official documents on the beginning of the investigation after these 3 days, the blocking is removed.
By the way, many exchanges do not request user data at all until verification is required - only login and password. Binance, which is mentioned above, is one of them. Because there is no sense to ask for such data until KYC.
Like I said earlier. Binance has troubling ownership and jurisdiction. While I appreciate that they appear to have good systems, good customer service and good code - there appears to be no legislative oversight. Sometimes things that appear to be perfect are a Bernie Madoff style ponzie.
Bitfinex / US Tether and Binance both have the ability to cause massive damage to crypto.
https://www.coindesk.com/fake-volume-on-crypto-exchanges-isnt-the-half-of-itAs I said, these are just controversial statements, a shift of emphasis, and, like argumentum ad hominem, they are irrelevant.
You are making more and more general statements, which have no relationship or very distant to the situation.
My reply was directed at what nutildah had just said and I included his quote in my reply.
It covered point by point what he had said. You may not like what I say but time will prove whether it was correct or not.
Your answer only contained a set of statements, so I tried to clarify their meaning in the context of the question under discussion.
I don't agree that enforcing KYC and AML that is forced onto exchanges by various Govenments amounts to "being a scam".
...
There was no such statement here.
Tradesatoshi's attempt to implement KYC:
- was made without any notifications;
- will be applied to all users regardless of the status of information in their profile, which clearly indicates the absence of any other serious reasons for the checking, except the desire of the exchange - this was also confirmed by the exchange staff in support responses;
- the check started with blocking and refusal to return users funds, which were previously recognized by the exchange as legal; there is no a singel evidence that these funds are illegal, so it is clear that this blocking is intended to make users hostages of the situation.
In addition, other clearly fraudulent practices are used by Tradesatoshi:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50347951That's what I call a scam.
I understood your point and I'm not trying to change your mind - in other case this topic will turn into the flame. Users have enough facts outlined here to make their own decision.
) 
