I did here: Snip from Binance ToS:
Not even close to "causing trouble" or publishing information from customer service.
If you read their entire ToS it can be construed as such. Since they state that they can these things if they "Violate their terms". It is just worded differently and better.
I think there are at least two somewhat linked but different issues: user's account, and MONA fork/attack.
IMO at the very least Livecoin should unlock the OP's account regardless of "trouble" caused.
Beyond that there is a lot of precedent of how to properly handle forks and other issues, and it would be great if they choose a customer-friendly approach instead of expecting that coin developers (who don't really decide how many confirmations an exchange should wait for a deposit) compensate the losses of a private business. But I would begrudgingly admit that Livecoin can tell the customer to get lost (sell the coins at a loss, withdraw proceeds) and it wouldn't be too different from how most exchanges have treated their customers. Doesn't make it ethical or right, just a sad state of affairs, and probably not against the law in whatever backwater jurisdiction it operates in.
From their response in this thread they stated that they could/would unlock OP's account, did they not? And if the OP did as LiveCoin claims, threat their staff (we don't have the full details) then there may be more to this than what is being displayed here. This is why I believe some users seem a bit trigger happy. And it does not matter if I agree with you or not, I have in fact messaged LiveCoin (when I first saw this thread) about at the very least remove/change some of the terms in question.
Quite an eloquent use of vague-enough legalese, carefully crafted to protect binance from having done something they shouldn't have either "accidentally" or intentionally due to some "misinformation." But note the absence of anything resembling "The Customer guarantees not to disclose any information, obtained from the Service support operator," or "Violation of this rule will lead to the account termination without refunding of the remaining balance of the account," and certainly no mention of "causing troubles."
So, if I were to hypothetically say Changpeng Zhao's second-cousin's crotch is infested with the fleas of 1000 mangy curs, I'll still be able to access my binance account tomorrow, and don't have to worry about them stealing my money.
But now you are just making assumptions of what happened, no? Do you have full records of what was said between the OP and or LiveCoin and their staff? I don't and have seen no such thing as of yet either. If we are to act solely on assumptions then there's some other prominent scam accusation that coincidentally QS is involved in where some of you need to step in and tag the user/s in question.