But if you're talking for instance about a centralized exchange; first and foremost you shouldn't be worried about your account being closed, since you shouldn't have any funds on there anyway.
Me? You're right, I wouldn't have any funds there because I'm a poor pleb. Hahaha. But that's not the point, plus you nor I, are not the only users of Bitcoin. There will be other users who might be willing to accept the trade-off of being a WasabiWallet user.
I don't really get what's the upside of this so-called 'trade-off'. There must be something in it for both sides in a 'trade-off' deal.
Sure, using a centralized exchange may be a viable trade-off if you're willing to give up privacy for features like staking, trading tons of (virtual
[but that's not the topic right now]) coins and being usable on mobile; compared to using Bisq.
However what's the trade-off / deal when using Wasabi? I only see upsides for the Wasabi side, no benefits to the users. As we determined earlier, you don't get privacy and you have to pay a fee, plus you'll be looked into thoroughly by Chainalysis, so why would you use that.
It's not Chainalysis that's giving the greenlight ser, it's those services not wanting "tainted coins" according to their definition, whoever that may be, that made Chainalysis a necessity.
Chainalysis do determine the 'taint' by - well - analyzing the blockchain and telling the exchange which coins are 'good' and which aren't.
In reality, coins are not
better for them because they have no ties to criminal activity, but they're good if they are easily traceable and provide useful user data that can be sold at high prices. That's why they hate mixing so much; mixed coins are worthless in terms of data collection - this shows mixing is working.
So governments / agencies / Chainalysis approached (or maybe co-developed from the start (??)) the mixing service provided by Wasabi to lure in people who look for mixers and deanonymize and track them / collect their data.
I personally agree that the user should consider switching to services that did not censor transactions, but that's not the point. Because another user could consider not to switch, accept the trade-off and continue with Wasabi, knowing that he won't have problems sending his coins anywhere.
Again, what's the tradeoff? What's the benefit to the user? They can send their coins to any sane human being, that's the whole point of Bitcoin. Nobody forces them to send coins to an abusive service that is just out to profit from them in (in my opinion) dishonest ways, i.e. not being happy with simply the trading fees (in the context of an exchange), but also trying to potentially sell them fake BTC that don't exist
[again, other topic, sorry], and get as much user data and information to sell, too. Or merchants who aren't happy with the profit from an item's sale but also want to deanonymize the other party and sell their data. I don't want to have anything to do with someone like this and not interested in doing business with them. Would you want to do business with a bully?
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome