Dear client, no one has stolen anything from you.
We expect you to verify KYC
This is not only our right but also a requirement of the regulator.
The fact that you do not pass verification speaks of your intention to defame us.
Dear colleagues and forum members, at the moment we have hired a company that is investigating this incident, we will resolve this situation in the near future.
Everyone present understands that this business is worth more than the funds that the client demands to return, but at the same time we cannot give in to manipulation from this client.
The issue is not about money, but about ensuring that this incident does not happen again, and this is not the first case with this client. A few weeks ago we had a similar situation with him.
We are forced to take such steps to protect ourselves in the future.
Everyone understands and knows that the requirements of the KYC / AML policy are mandatory and the client agreed to them even before creating the application.
With respect and until next time, the Go-Go team
Thank you for reading my email and Telegram messages and for being here.


As I mentioned in the email, the issue is not about completing KYC, but rather about freezing funds without providing any explanation or evidence that they are unclean. This, in turn, undermines the transparency and credibility of your platform
We hope that the company you hired which you haven’t named, will be fair, resolve the issue, and return the funds to this client, who has done nothing wrong other than trusting your exchange.
If you truly care about your business's reputation, you should provide us with an update as soon as possible and resolve this client's issue.
There is no tampering on the part of the client. He has already provided evidence and the like that proves your platform is at fault, while you have yet to provide any explanation.
You mentioned that a similar situation occurred with this same client a few weeks ago. For the sake of transparency and better understanding, could you please clarify what exactly happened in that previous case?