maybe you should recall that what you "see" on a computer monitor is not "real" as in brick and mortar. All you see is the response of a computer program. And any one of these has bugs and glitches. Needless to add, that a LTC rate of $1 for an sustained period looks unlikely. But in the end, the rate is formed by deals carried through, and what gets carried through is being decided by the trading engine.

Thus I see two lines of argumentation.

First off, you should check if your overall balance is correct. That means, if some trade was wound back, the balances on both LTC and USD (or BTC in case of LTC/BTC) should be changed by the exact reversal of that trade, including the reversal of the fees. Since you have made screenshots (a very good idea!), you can do the math and verify "they" did the math correct on their part.

Then there is another line of argumentation. You might want argue that you have a right to get that deal executed. But, honestly, your chances to make this into a serious argumentation are near zero, since you have no insight into the inner workings of the platform.


At that point I'd like to add two general observations

• in the traditional finance industry, this kind of dispute is exactly what gets all that regulatory overhead started. There are irregularities and mismatches, and there are some clever people benefiting from those. And, at some point then, regulation is a self-runner.
• also in the traditional finance industry, such situations are communicated proactively in each individual case, since experience shows that such an dispute doesn't even start when both sides know there was a technical glitch. While this may seem perfect, we should note that a huge load of the overall cost of the traditional industry is sucked away by paying all those people to care for communication on each and every occasion. So there is a price tag for sure