My new article delves into a provocative claim amid 2025's crypto turmoil: that exchanges may derive their second-largest revenue from appropriating user funds via prolonged freezes, following only trader losses, through mechanisms like interest on held assets or unclaimed escheatment. It examines root causes such as regulatory compliance triggering automated flags (e.g., Chainalysis reporting $45 billion in illicit flows), inadequate support leading to endless documentation loops, high legal barriers starting at $20,000, and secondary scams causing over $9.9 million in losses via fake recovery services seized by the FBI. Technical glitches and jurisdictional issues further compound emotional and financial distress.
Illustrative cases include a $150,000 Binance freeze resolved via escalation, a year-long $2 million Gate.io hold ended by targeted outreach, and MEXC's $3.1 million incident where viral community pressure caused $39 million outflows, forcing refunds and reforms. Other examples highlight DeFi traps, secondary frauds like CJBcrypto, and "abnormal profits" liquidations.
Solutions emphasize systematic approaches: identify causes, engage support, file regulatory complaints (e.g., FBI IC3) and amplify publicly on X/Reddit with evidence, hashtags and influencers to exploit reputation risks, as in MEXC's case. For unresponsive exchanges, target media in core markets like Asia. Legal paths involve experts, Chainalysis for blockchain evidence (key in 2025 DOJ cases recovering millions), contingency fees, class actions and judicial holds. Prevention via self-custody and KYC compliance is advised.
Overall, the article positions public amplification and legal strategies as key to recoveries, deterring alleged profit motives and fostering a more accountable crypto sector.
In the cryptocurrency ecosystem of 2025, where market crashes and regulatory crackdowns have become commonplace, a contentious perspective has emerged: that the appropriation of users' funds through prolonged freezes represents the second largest source of income for exchanges, trailing only the losses incurred by traders themselves. This view, echoed in user complaints and industry critiques, suggests that platforms may indirectly profit from held assets via interest accrual, reduced outflows or even escheatment processes where unclaimed funds eventually benefit the exchange or state. Such practices, whether intentional or systemic, exacerbate the challenges of frozen accounts, turning routine compliance into extended financial limbo for users. This article explores these problems, drawing from documented cases and analyses, while emphasizing solutions like public amplification and legal strategies to counteract potential revenue incentives and reclaim assets. By leveraging reputation concerns and judicial tools, users can pressure platforms into resolutions, disrupting any alleged profit from withheld funds.
Compliance and regulatory requirements form one of the main problems leading to freezes. Governments and oversight bodies, concerned with money laundering and illicit activities, require exchanges such as Binance, Coinbase and Gate.io to deploy automated systems that flag suspicious transactions. A deposit from a wallet indirectly linked to fraud, for example, can trigger a hold until a review completes. According to Chainalysis's 2025 Crypto Crime Report, illicit activity accounts for just 0.4% of crypto volume, amounting to approximately $45 billion, yet exchanges implement broad freezes to mitigate risks and avoid penalties. In 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice has seized more than $225 million in funds tied to fraud, often in partnership with platforms that pause transfers during investigations. Consequently, legitimate users face delays of weeks or months, resulting in unpaid obligations, lost trading chances and heightened financial pressure, especially when the frozen sum constitutes a substantial portion of holdings. This ties into the broader claim of fund appropriation as revenue, as held assets could generate indirect gains for exchanges during these periods.
Customer support deficiencies on exchanges exacerbate the situation. With platforms managing vast user bases, support systems frequently prove inadequate, causing extended delays. Reports indicate users submit detailed documentation, including bank records, identification and transaction details, yet encounter automated, repetitive responses. Complaints to entities like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have risen in 2025, many criticizing platforms for poor handling of freezes. On Gate.io, "risk control" serves as a common but unclear justification, while Binance freezes often follow minor triggers like small transfers or new logins. Analyses suggest this reflects a business structure where retaining funds may yield indirect benefits, such as interest accrual or deferred outflows during volatile periods, aligning with the perspective that such holds contribute to exchange income second only to trading losses. This becomes particularly evident in the context of the $1.35 trillion market cap erosion since October 2025.
Legal and jurisdictional obstacles add further complexity. The international scope of crypto means freezes may fall under laws in remote locations, like the Cayman Islands. Legal pursuits demand specialized counsel, with entry costs around $20,000 for initial preparations, potentially reaching six figures for continued efforts. Platforms remain undeterred by suits, bolstered by internal legal resources and favorable arbitration terms. In 2025, civil crypto fraud cases have increased, with courts issuing emergency asset holds, but reclaiming funds requires robust proof. Secondary frauds target affected users, demanding advance payments for nonexistent recovery services - the FBI documents millions lost to these schemes annually. Desperate users often fall prey to "recovery services" promising to unlock funds for upfront fees, only to vanish. The FBI has seized websites of such fraudulent outfits, with losses from these secondary scams exceeding $9.9 million in recent years. Fictitious law firms targeting crypto victims are a growing threat, using fake licenses to extract more money. Technical malfunctions and platform quirks also contribute, notably during market downturns or updates. Maintenance on exchanges like Coinbase has trapped deposits temporarily and DeFi smart contract errors can immobilize assets permanently. With illicit inflows to exchanges declining to 15% from 40% in previous years, proactive freezing has intensified, though it risks driving away genuine participants. The emotional repercussions include stress comparable to financial confinement, diminishing confidence in the sector and fueling discussions on how these practices might serve as a hidden revenue stream.
To illustrate these challenges, several anonymized user cases from public reports and 2025 documentation are presented. In one instance, a trader deposited $150,000 on Binance, only for a peer-to-peer transfer to flag as suspicious due to a distant scam connection, leading to an immediate freeze. Weeks of documentation submission yielded only standard replies, coinciding with a market decline that prevented trades and caused personal debts. Social media posts reflect similar frustrations, where users publicly appeal to Binance. This case points to compliance checks under sanctions as the cause, resolved through escalation but after considerable delay, highlighting potential exchange benefits from prolonged holds.
Another case involves an investor on Gate.io with a $2 million portfolio locked for "risk control" after a withdrawal request. Over a year, consultations with various services proved fruitless, incurring time and minor expenses. Forum discussions describe ignored support tickets and accusations of fund detention, with one report detailing a month-long hold post-hack speculation. The exchange's focus on specific markets prolonged the issue. Targeted outreach in key regions eventually prompted a review and release, demonstrating how regional indifference can extend hardship and possibly allow platforms to retain assets longer for indirect gains.
A prominent 2025 example from MEXC concerns a $3.1 million freeze amid misconduct claims against a trader known as "TheWhiteWhaleV2." The account was frozen in July 2025, citing vague "risk control" measures, prompting the trader to launch a $2.5 million social media campaign that gained traction with community support and involvement from on-chain investigators like ZachXBT. Public outcry on platforms like X led to widespread withdrawals, causing $39 million in outflows from the exchange and ultimately forced MEXC to apologize, return the funds, implement "fast-track" resolution promises and conduct community airdrops as a gesture of goodwill. This incident highlights how sustained community pressure can expose platform vulnerabilities and compel reforms, though it also reveals that users without significant followings may face greater difficulties in achieving similar outcomes. It underscores the revenue risks exchanges face from reputational damage, countering any short-term benefits from fund appropriation.
Cases of secondary scams include those affected by the CJBcrypto fraud, where a fake exchange blocked withdrawals. Additional losses occurred to bogus agents post an initial KuCoin freeze, underscoring the importance of verified assistance. Another report from 2025 describes a user who, after a $14,000 freeze on an exchange due to "abnormal profits," faced forced liquidation despite video KYC; public escalation led to a promised refund, though delivery remained pending. These examples demonstrate the human impact, from financial strain to the need for external interventions like public campaigns or regulatory reports, to challenge potential profit motives.
Turning to solutions, a systematic method is recommended, with particular depth on amplifying issues through public channels and pursuing legal options, as these have proven effective in 2025 cases where direct support fails and alleged appropriation occurs. Begin with cause identification via platform alerts, often tied to KYC gaps or flagged activities. Immediate support contact involves submitting thorough documents: identification, proofs and reports, methodically. For Binance, recovery tools or chat escalation prove useful. If stalled, regulatory filings follow: in the U.S., the FBI's IC3, SEC or CFTC channels exert influence on compliant exchanges. These steps have aided many resolutions in 2025.
Amplifying via public channels, such as posting on X or Reddit with tags to exchanges and influencers, leverages reputation concerns by highlighting freezes to a broad audience, potentially eroding user trust and prompting swift action to avoid revenue losses from outflows. The MEXC resolution stemmed from community pressure, where the trader's viral campaign, amplified by figures like ZachXBT, led to fund release after months of deadlock, alongside public apologies and procedural changes. Similar tactics have worked in other instances, such as users tagging exchanges in pleas for help, resulting in quicker escalations when posts gain traction. Effective strategies include crafting detailed narratives with evidence (screenshots of support chats, transaction proofs) to build credibility, using hashtags like #CryptoFreeze or #ExchangeScam and encouraging shares from communities like r/cryptocurrency on Reddit. For unresponsive platforms, media in primary markets is effective; exchanges like Gate.io, focused on Asia, respond more to coverage in regional outlets such as Chinese or Korean crypto news sites, where reputational damage affects core user acquisition. Research shows that public scandals can lead to massive outflows, as seen with MEXC's $39 million loss, incentivizing resolutions to stem financial hemorrhage. Building a timeline of events in posts and collaborating with influencers or investigators amplifies reach, turning individual complaints into collective demands for accountability, directly challenging any profit from frozen funds.
Legal options involve engaging experts for arbitration or litigation, supported by blockchain tools like Chainalysis for evidence, which traces transaction flows to prove fund legitimacy and counter exchange claims of illicit activity. Chainalysis has been instrumental in 2025 cases, such as the Intelbroker takedown, where it linked crypto movements to criminal entities, aiding prosecutors and exchanges in asset seizures. Contingency fees help manage expenses by tying lawyer payments to successful outcomes, making pursuits viable for larger sums without upfront burdens. 2025 fraud cases show growing success with judicial holds, including DOJ indictments against scam operations like the Prince Group, resulting in $15 billion in forfeited Bitcoin and multimillion-dollar recoveries for victims. Courts have increasingly admitted Chainalysis data as reliable evidence, as in recent admissibility rulings, strengthening user claims in civil suits. Combining public amplification with legal steps, such as filing class actions or seeking emergency injunctions, has led to settlements, with SEC dismissals and shifts indicating a maturing enforcement landscape. For international freezes, coordinating with regulators in the exchange's jurisdiction, like Hong Kong courts discharging improper holds, enhances leverage. These approaches not only facilitate recoveries but also deter platforms from viewing freezes as a revenue source.
For blockchain problems, recovery services like Unchained Capital or debug tools address smart contracts. Verification through the BBB avoids fee-based frauds. In fraud-linked freezes, authority reports and platform collaboration aid returns, as seen in FBI-assisted recoveries of six-figure scam funds.
Preventive measures include self-custodial wallets for storage, exchange diversification, KYC adherence, 2FA activation and VPN avoidance to prevent flags. Regular updates and monitoring mitigate risks.
In summary, the alleged appropriation of user funds as a major revenue driver underscores the need for robust countermeasures in crypto. With 2025's regulatory progress and tools, recoveries are enhancing through public amplification and legal strategies. Prompt action, documentation and a blend of social pressure and judicial tools are key to resolutions, ensuring exchanges cannot profit indefinitely from freezes. The sector's potential remains strong, bolstered by informed practices that turn reputation concerns and evidentiary advancements into user advantages.
Sources and references: