This seems odd, Brandon. I can understand them asking for more information that they don't currently have so that they can comply with some new regulation and avoid being shut down in some location. But new information is not a reliable way of verifying identity.

I leave a parcel with the gate keeper, and ask him to pass it on to Bob, when he comes to collect it. The gatekeeper has never met Bob. When a man turns up and says to that gatekeeper, "I'm Bob, here to pick up a parcel." The gatekeeper answers, I have to be sure you're the real Bob. What's your last name?" Bob says, "Sure, my last name is Jones." The gatekeeper nods. "That'll do, sounds good enough for me. Here's your parcel." Security doesn't work like that.

The security information must be given to the organisation first, before the organisation can use it to verify identity. Imagine logging into a website after a long absence and getting a message, "We've used our AI algorithms to crawl the web and discover your favourite food. Type your favourite food into this box to unlock your account."

I'm agreeing with R-J-F on this incident:

And I'd like to take this moment to compare Bittrex behaviour to what I've experienced from DNotes Global Inc. DNotes plan what they are doing and share their plans in a timely manner, with clarity. Then if the plan is changed, they provide updates. For major changes they establish a mailing list for people to be kept up to date with. And then they actively monitor their forum and respond directly until the user has no more questions. All of this comes from a single motivation. They believe that "Doing the right thing at the right time" is key to being successful. And they clearly stand by and live their ethics.