Ah ok - I didnt see this update.

The clincher for me was this:

What is verification needed for?
If you plan to enter and display Fiat, verification is necessary.

Do I need to be verified on a new site in order to withdraw the koin?
No.

Do I need to undergo verification in order to start trading on a new site?
If the balance of the account on the new site is replenished in koin, then no. If in fiat, then yes.

I couldnt work this out either.
My take on it was that you need verification to trade fiat.
It was a bit misleading though as they also talked about your fiat being returned in btc, ltc, eth by percentage - I couldnt be sure if this only related to the refund.
Also the problem was that if it was converted to coin that this may happen on the 15th. If this was the case then you would just have to accept the rate of the market on the day.
The other potential issue was that if your only option with fiat was to be verified before you could trade - they could have a large backlog of verification requests, meaning you would just sit there and watch the markets without being able to do anything.
I concluded as a result that the best optioin for fiat holders would be to opt for the refund at the best rate before 15th
Thats just my take...

FIAT
What will happen to the fiat in the users' accounts?
The team of lawyers works on fiat, which decide how to return access to it. At the moment, you have the opportunity to get 55% in koin.

In which koins will the Fiat be converted from my balance on output, before launching a new site?
BTC, ETH, LTC as a percentage.

Do I need to undergo verification in order to start trading on a new site?
If the balance of the account on the new site is replenished in koin, then no. If in fiat, then yes.

3. On the day the site is launched, the balance sheet will be recalculated at the market rate and will be credited to accounts with a higher ratio than 55/45. There will be no conversions, some of the funds will be transferred to tokens.

Presumably this means that you have an option to transfer your fiat into coin prior to balances being transferred to new site?
And if you opt to remain in fiat you will need to get verified before you can do anything at all?

Also prusumbably fiat balance funds will also be recalculated at the "higher rate"

What are other peoples take on this?

Thats all well and good if fiat balances are true fiat balances, however if fiat balances are represented as fiat tokens whose value may change and do not represent true USD value, particularly if people dump tokens and value drops.
There is not enough clarification to allow one to make a decision.

They really have provided very little to go on to clarify the position with fiat! There is nothing about fiat in their FAQ
They seem to be treating people with fiat balances very poorly with a singular lack of information.
People are having to second guess their intentions.
As a result they will be losing a lot of otherwise loyal customers!

The only official info I can find is on an old FAQ

"What will happen to the fiat in the users' accounts?
The team of lawyers works on fiat, which decide how to return access to it. At the moment, you will be able to deduce 55% in koin."

Can anybody quote anything they have said that provides any info about treatment of fiat balances?

It seems with current info and lack of info they are forcing fiat holders to choose the refund option!

Please can anybody post any actuall quote relating to their proposals?

Thanks for the clarification.
Thats really crap!
They will be losing some potentially loyal customers by driving them away before the 15th.
It seems their current refund option is better than the uncertainty of waiting.
It would be fair enough if their tokens were like tether and tracked the usd price but the chances are their value will drop while crypto rises...

I dont think they have any left - its all hajibros

I verified at btc-e & xbtce. I dont have a problem revealing my ID as I have nothing to hide. My only is that my belief that I have done nothing wrong may not be shared by the feds seem to suggest we are criminals by association...
I still remain unclear as to how fiat balances will be converted on 15th. If they willl use the same ratio i.e. 50% 25% 25% btc ltc eth respectively and whether this ratio will be calculated on the day.
Also if our 55% may improve based in other factors such as increase value of coin and people who decide to forfeit their 45%

I really am not happy about the idea that full fiat balances will be converted to tokens whose value may instantly decrease...

I was under the impression that they were being converted to BTC 50% LTC 25% ETH 25%
That definitely seems to be what is happening with the refunds.

This is what it shows on the refund page in respect of fiat refunds - it shows the balances after the 45% deduction and give the option of providing withdrawal addresses...

Recount of fiat funds:
For USD:
BTC: xx.xxx BTC
LTC: xx.xxx LTC
ETH: xx.xxx ETH

I assume fiat balances will be converted to coin on 15th?
If the value of coin is higher on 15th than now the conversion will result in less coin.
This should be compensated by the increase in the 55% that they intimated, but it all seems a bit vague.
Currently for those optiong for a refund timing is quite important...

Exactly!
Additionally people say that it was all the fiat that was taken by the feds.
When you trade to fiat, this is just a ledger - the trade doesnt result in a fiat output. Therefore none of the fiat we had on the exchange at that time was seized.

The way you guys talk about fiat holders cracks me up!
Its an exchange - users trade assets on exchanges.
Either you are coin holders and shouldnt have been using an exchange to hold your coins or you traded in which case you were just lucky not to be in fiat at the time.
Fiat is where the clever money was at the time the exchange went down!
There's no such thing as a fiat holder in the context of exchanges...

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding re "fiat holders"
When we traded coin for fiat - It didnt automagically instantly convert itself into USD and pay itself into the bank. The fiat that the feds took obviously wasnt the fiat that so called fiat holders were holding.
Basically for these purposes while we do trades for fiat it could equally well be treated as another coin.

I dont understand your point??
What do you mean they shouldnt have traded to fiat to begin with. Always believe in BTC.
If you dont use an exchange to trade then you shouldnt have even had your coin there in the first place!

People who were in fiat at the time were in fiat because they were probably half way through a short trade.
Given slightly different timing we would have been back in coin and better off than people who hadnt done the trade in the beggining.

They may be planning to pay fiat users BTC, ETH etc on 25th July rate which is a popular demand of fiat users. Maybe that's why the percentage is same.
[/quote]

I wish this were the case & I think that this would be fair because most fiat holders were only holding fiat by chance and would probably have been in coin if the timing were slightly different.
However I think they propose to set the conversion date once the exchange is up.

"With a balance of 1000 USD, after conversion you will receive 55% in BTC, LTC, ETH (at exchange rate on the day of conversion) and 450 USDET. By this principle all koins and fiates will be converted. "

"Wise Crypto Holders"
What does that mean? If you remember, there was a well anticipated dip at the time the exchange went down. Many were in fiat in anticipation of this and were mid way through what would have turned out to be a good trade. So whats your point?
Are you saying trading is unwise and that holding coin is wise? If thats the case - why hold coin on an exchnge?

+1

Totally agree. I was in exactly the same position as you.
People talk about fiat holders but we are dealing with a trading scenario and for most it was probably just a question of timing as to whether we were in coin or fiat. There is no such thing as a "fiat holder" in the context of a crypto exchange.

"BTC-e attempted to conceal that it provided services to customers located within the United States."

I wonder where the rationale behind this statement comes from.
It seems odd that they would attempt to conceal something unconcealable - I wasnt aware that it was even supposed to be secret

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=019e4e0f-fddb-4097-895c-c872bbbdcb3a

Jurisdiction

Although BTC-e is not a US company, FinCEN asserted jurisdiction because BTC-e conducts business as an MSB in substantial part within the United States. More specifically, FinCEN regulates as “money transmitters” (MTs) any person in the business of accepting currency, funds, or any substitute for currency from one person and transmitting such currency, funds, or substitute for currency to another person or location (unless an applicable exemption applies). To establish jurisdiction, FinCEN asserted that:

    Since 2011, BTC-e customers located within the United States conducted at least 21,000 virtual currency transactions worth over $296,000,000.
    These transactions included funds sent from customers located within the United States to recipients who were also located within the United States.
    These transactions were processed through servers located in the United States.
    BTC-e attempted to conceal that it provided services to customers located within the United States.
    BTC-e instructed customers to make use of correspondent accounts held by foreign financial institutions or services provided by affiliates of BTC-e located abroad.