They are actually legally registered in Hong Kong. I posted a search I had done earlier in the thread after someone posted that they were struck off on the UK register.
They were already registered in HK before they were struck off. So it appears to be a deliberate move to a new jurisdiction.
I'm not sure where it was incorporated prior to this. It is likely that it moved its operation to Hong Kong prior to its de-registration in the UK.
Coinmarketcap shows a turnover of $91k
https://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/trade-satoshi/
With a buy 0.1% and sell 0.1% fee that would make $182 daily in fees
But they also charge for listing coins, tipping slots and airdrops.
They were already registered in HK before they were struck off. So it appears to be a deliberate move to a new jurisdiction.
I'm not sure where it was incorporated prior to this. It is likely that it moved its operation to Hong Kong prior to its de-registration in the UK.
Coinmarketcap shows a turnover of $91k
https://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/trade-satoshi/
With a buy 0.1% and sell 0.1% fee that would make $182 daily in fees
But they also charge for listing coins, tipping slots and airdrops.
Earlier we saw the statement from you that the affected users most likely committed a crime, having specified inaccurate data in a profile. And that gives the right to the exchange to freeze their funds under the pretext of mandatory KYC-check.
The absence of any procedural actions on the part of the exchange to legalize its decision to freeze users' funds and make a statement about the criminal actions of the user legitimate, apparently regarded as the norm: let second-rate exchanges, like Binance, take care of providing official documents on the beginning of the investigation, without which they can freeze the funds for no more than 3 days. Tradesatoshi is in another league.
I have mentioned all this before:
Legally it could be argued that a user using a fake name is fraudulently using the platform contrary to their terms and conditions. It is good that Poloniex recognized it as an issue and was sensible with the solution they offered. However - others may go down a different path and report it to the authorities in the jurisdiction that they are in.
Allowing a user to change their name on the platform potentially could cause liability for the platform if it is done by a hacker that then drains the funds of a user. Phishing was less of an issue years ago. Currently phishing and compromised user accounts are a huge threat.
The reality is that this situation would not have occurred if the user had not lied about their personal details. It is the user that committed the legal wrong .
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?Allowing a user to change their name on the platform potentially could cause liability for the platform if it is done by a hacker that then drains the funds of a user. Phishing was less of an issue years ago. Currently phishing and compromised user accounts are a huge threat.
The reality is that this situation would not have occurred if the user had not lied about their personal details. It is the user that committed the legal wrong .
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.
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.
In reality, as it turned out, the exchange plans to apply KYC to all users and in case of refusal to cooperate all their funds will be frozen. And the correctness of the data in profile does not affect this decision.
I was also robbed of almost 100,000 doge this was the majority of my account and the majority of my coins stored on exchange.
I have the correct info but do not wish to comply with KYC, does this mean i broke an agreement or don't deserve to withdrawal my coins? their move was a cash grab. plain and simple
I have the correct info but do not wish to comply with KYC, does this mean i broke an agreement or don't deserve to withdrawal my coins? their move was a cash grab. plain and simple
In addition to such a blatantly illegal freezing of users ' funds, the exchange is actively engaged in delisting coins on terms that clearly put users at a disadvantage and allow the exchange to raise extra money from them, which is clearly shown here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118992.msg50347951#msg50347951
You are making more and more general statements, which have no relationship or very distant to the situation. The facts show that Tradesatoshi is experiencing financial difficulties due to the lack of professionalism of its team and solves them by scamming its own users. Should this "incredible" volume of the exchange, which you mentioned and which is allowing it to take 175th place out of ~200 on the CMC, be regarded as a call to all affected users to understand and forgive, as Tradesatoshi was able to deploy a negative trend and no longer needs to apply fraudulent technics to its users in order to get some money? Are trying to save appearances?