Bitcoin Forum

This is not necessarily bad news, no? Although it will definitely be a hassle for legacy customers to go through the verification process, if it eventually leads to lower risks and a better trading experience all around, I think people should be OK with this.

What are legacy accounts, by the way? Does it mean that all new accounts have to be verified as soon as you register there? I have an account at Poloniex which I don't currently use, so if I got everything correctly I won't be able to trade there or do anything there apart from verifying my account after the deadline, right?

But how are they going to verify accounts en masse if they don't even bother to answer support tickets?

It's pretty old news since people with legacy accounts have been complaining about them needing to verify themselves out of nothing for quite a while now. I don't see this as a big problem since for me personally there shouldn't be a difference between legacy accounts and those who registered after the regulations having been implemented. I even dare to call it unfair to not require legacy accounts to verify themselves where others are being forced to do so -- everyone is equal since they use that exchange for the exact same reason. I see it more as something they have corrected rather than something they have implemented from scratch.

You can read the press release here (https://poloniex.com/press-releases/2017.12.27-Notice-to-legacy-account-holders/). Legacy accounts were accounts created sometime before this year. They signed up under different AML/KYC terms and thus had different KYC and withdrawal tiers. Legacy account holders have a $2,000 daily withdrawal limit -- low, but they don't need to provide any personal information or documents. Just a name and email address. I have a legacy account, so I'm sort of bummed to hear this.

Basically, your account would be in "wind-down" mode. Withdrawal limits don't change, but deposits and trading are disabled, and positions can only be diminished or closed.


The fact is that legacy account holders agreed to very different terms. It is customary (and ethically right) to offer legacy account holders ample notice before those terms change. I appreciate that Poloniex has done that. Bittrex could learn a thing or two in that department.

Regulation aside, they were having some issues with the interface being sluggish at times with the sheer number of people using it.  I suppose the silver lining for the users who do stick around is that they might get better performance for a while if less of them are using it.  Maybe that alone would be worth jumping through the hoops and getting verified, but it won't be to everyone's liking.  For the limited amount of trading I do, I certainly can't be arsed.  They'll probably lose quite a few of their smaller customers because of this, but their hands are tied.  It's either this or relocate their entire business to a more permissive jurisdiction.  The big fish will want to stick around, though, so they'll probably continue doing just fine.  Fare thee well, Polo.

Agreeing to different terms unfortunately doesn't matter much in a market where exchanges can do anything they want if they feel it's necessary. On another note, the least an exchange in this case should do is to grant legacy account holders more slack, so yes, Poloniex has done a better job than Bittrex in this case. Bittrex has gone in full rampage mode where they just go through all acounts like they mean nothing to them, all to nurse their egos and make themselves comply with regulations at all cost. Poloniex users went to Bittrex to avoid incompetence, but now Bittrex is suffering from the same problems, which is a damn shame.