Imagine if you did this every week? Every signature campaign payment is deposited into Kucoin and subjected to the same events, this is obviously unfair.

because it is a regulatory policy that they want to fund small amounts or a lot if it is from a high AML examination, they will do the same.

Do they use Chainanalys to monitor every high risk deposit?

And I thought our local exchange was very strict; I encountered the same issue with my local exchange. They don't ask me to undergo any process; they just returned the funds and reminded me to check their TOS before sending them.
That Kucoin process is harsh and it's too imposing you might as well avoid Kucoin there are better exchanges that will treat you fairly.

What? I don't expect this type of response from anyone on here, you don't consider this attacks to be one of the worst ever in crypto space because no exchange went down? So because Binance is able to reimburse their customers now you feel it's nothing?

I am still curious where the money came from, maybe Binance is feeling the hit and pretending in the face of the public like everything is fine? Because their emergency fund was a billion dollars, where the extra came from seem like a huge loss for them.

I am expecting them to carry out a big money hijacking plan in the future like the past 10/10 because they need to recover that money back whether we like it or not, 2026 is the biggest one so far since I've been in crypto space and it happened this fast because of AI.

Well you can check it on their official account to know if its legit https://x.com/star_okx/status/2117796832722239546?a=mdAUjWzvlQESNdX6aaM

And looks like they are just trying to catch hype, for saying those things.

I'm really curious on how OKX could handle the same situation. Because we don't know if they will survive or their platform collapsed if same thing happened to them.

From the payments side, a few reasons this rarely happens:

- There's nothing to reject. An on-chain transfer lands in the exchange's address before anyone looks at it. The screening (KYT) runs after the fact.
- Sending it back is a decision too. If the funds really are tied to a sanctioned or stolen source, returning them means the exchange just processed a payment to that source. Compliance teams would rather freeze and ask than take that risk.
- "Return to sender" isn't always clear. If the deposit came from another exchange or a shared wallet, the sending address often isn't the person who owns the funds.

What helps on the sender side is what BitMaxz said: check the address risk score before you send, and don't keep reusing an address that has picked up a bad history. Most business payment tools now run this check automatically before a payout leaves.

I was not in jail for gambling lol, I beat a dudes ass who called my woman a bitch. Gambling in jail on card games was how we passed time. Like I said, young dumb shit is what put me in jail.

They won’t just reject and return the flagged money, because their main purpose is to frustrate any suspected money laundering activities. The more money they freezes, the more the regulators will be happy with them. Who knows if they will get some operational incentives when they come top in freezing accounts suspected for money laundering. The aim is to keep those funds in their possession and not return it to the owners. Also the size of funds don’t matter.

hahaha, when your funds is being held, of course you will have to be patient and submissive. Not as if op had other choice than complying with whatever they were demanding from him. In my place there is a saying that, he who is carrying a pot of oil in his head, don’t start a fight.

Week 70

---

The post count has been completed.
Payment will be credited to your Spinly account.
$20 bonus has been given to Darker45. Congratulations!

---

Since Soko-Deke did not join, we have 1x Hero/Legendary spot open. Please apply!

Yeah it is messed up but it’s a low hanging fruit for them and they can get away with it….. at least until someone comes chasing after their tail and its a government or some other kind of party that you really don’t want to be dealing with. It’s shady and sneaky to blindside users the way some of these casinos handle their business, makes em look like little bitches too!

Chainanalys was too focused on the recent Binance attack, so it forgot its own data to be the target of the attack? This is what kind of joke, I think this platform does not store any data.
My assumption - hackers may be annoyed that the results of hacking coins continue to be tracked so they finally carry out an attack on Chainanalys.

Maybe someone wants to track coins then Chainanlys asks for customer document data, including clients of the victims of the Binance hack and others?
With the situation now that it is no longer allowed to provide documents on any platform, I believe our documents are already scattered and leaked because with cases like this.

It seems you're missing a lot on this case. Check the qoute below, that's a direct confrontation and criticism from OKX CEO. Of course, they don't use their official platform profile to attack the competitor, maybe that's why you missed it. It's always the leadership that throw the missiles on behalf of their platform.


This was coming from OKX CEO after CZ interview with Coindesk after the hack incident. You can find more of similar post on his twitter profile https://x.com/star_okx


Maybe when they're busy doing the PR, they take their eyes off their own security. Hackers are usually after a slim vulnerability and they won't hesitate to exploit it.

For me that issue can't be separated from the fungibility / tracking question. The big dilemma is: track or not track? Not "if you track, then freeze or not freeze".

Or to say it differently: if mixers don't care about fungibility and secretly (not like in my proposal) employ normal AML tools (otherwise they cannot know that funds are stolen!) then it's easy: they are either almost unnecessary (if they'd freeze funds) or bad actors (if they don't freeze - then they knowingly help criminals).

Yes, you can't please everybody, but you can offer a service that caters to a certain public and solves their problems. In this case it's "users which want to keep their coins fungible even if some chain analyst may have linked them to some kind of risk score".

So I don't think there is something like "generalized mixer ethics". I think the ethical question resolves in how good the service is for the use cases of the target public. And yes, this can conflict with another interest group: victims of crime, but if you design the protocol in a way that it minimizes this "moral cost", but still caters to the target public's necessities, then - why should this be "bad" (ethically) in any way?

I think it isn't that simple to detect direct criminal funds. Mixers are automated. There are no support employees following crypto news all the time, and then manually checking all the addresses of their mixer customers to see if some is related - that would be impossible to pay Even a "rudimentary" AML tool covering only big heists needs someone who enters the addresses / UTXOs in the blacklist when they know about a hack, and they have to be fast, so that is a service that needs good full time employees 24/7 (maybe it can be automated with an AI, but at the cost of false positives, I assume).

This I think most mixers would probably not know about a hack until it's too late if they don't use a dedicated AML tool or service.

So if they chose to not use an AML tool, then (after that fact) there is no moral dilemma for them. The dilemma is the decision to use the AML tool or not and in which fashion (secretly or openly) - and then, in a second question, to freeze or not to freeze, but for me the answer for this second question is much clearer, see above.

The point is to make it more difficult to spend the coins. At least, your "ethical" mixer won't help the criminals. It may also not help the police directly (e.g. if you catch and freeze the coins), but that's not necessarily your business.

Finally, someone pay attention!

I'm surprised that several replies above yours didn't notice the nonsense (probably AI made up story) they're replying to. Maybe people just want to air their opinion without even questioning how genuine the thread is.

If fishing merits is this easy, everyone should be legendary by now 

Try more effort, Op.


You won't see because the story is likely made up. According to Op, he will share the QR on Sunday if the forum admin permit it. Lol

I can't wait to check back on Sunday. Remember they have small balance in their wallet. We can verify everything on chain and if his story check out, I will offer my apologies by the way.

I think it's two different reasons though, for Pacquiao he fights for his fans and not for the money or fame already it helps a lot obviously. For Floyd, it's more of to sustain his lavish lifestyle, and so he needs more money so that he can continue to promote himself as having a lot of money.

However, there are rumors that he has money problems, that's why he is making some noise again on trying to fight everyone, from Mike Tyson to Pacquiao and then some unknown boxers next to have some income going inside his bank account.

I don't know about you, but to me it does not make sense to have a fight in which one of the two boxers actually have a stake on the event as a whole, when it comes to its organization, funding, advertising and other crucial things which are in place to push it forward. 

These kind of events are supposed to be organized by a third party with no direct link with the boxers of the events, everyone gets benefited by the event and there is less likely for one of the boxers to get favoured by the administrators or organizers of the fight.

It does not make sense Paul has a say in that matter...