Andreas disagrees with you.

"During that call I explained that I could only be involved as a technical advisor and that due to my limited time I could not endorse N&B with investors or take on a director position that would involve fiduciary or oversight responsibilities."

"I had no insight into finances, no oversight, no involvement in marketing or investor meetings, no contact with customers, investors or regulators. "

http://antonopoulos.com/2014/04/18/neo-bee-a-statement-by-andreas-m-antonopoulos-a-consultants-perspective/

In what sense did he vouch for them more than this is an interesting company that could be big and be a viable and valuable business? In what sense did he vouch for them more than any other employee who didn't know the particular finances?

They do ask for proof, thats the point. See the Bitstamp marketplace thread for an example of someone who had to prove where he got the $220 he ws trying to deposit.

What does who it was change to the fact you have to trust them?

I agree and also agree with your rankings. Im not saying "a bunch of random people think we should shut down our organization, so let's shut it down" I don't agree with that.

However it's my opinion that the direction the foundation takes should be decided by the Bitcoin community at large, not just a bunch of random people, IF they profess to represent the community at large and not just the organisation. They can't have it both ways.

Yes and no. The audit was released in I think March or Feb but the actual audit was done in November. Besides you still have to trust the auditor. (Again Im not saying there are any solvency issues)

Yes, you will automatically be paid on the first providing that you have made 50 posts.

See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178608.0

This should answer your questions.

A couple of sentences don't cover it if your asked for proof of where the funds came from. As was the case with myself. But I agree with the its nothing new it just about how and what they are asking. We've seen huge data breaches at third party companies such as Adobe and Ebay and people are right to be wary of what sort of information these companies hold on themselves.

I'd have to take this side of the argument. Surely the community at large, not just those with the funds to be a member, should be of the most importance.

I think that is rash, theres no suggestion or evidence they are insolvent just being far far too intrusive to cover their backsides.

I think its clear that they have changed rules.

Also I don't think its the case now that your are just getting flagged on suspicious activity it seems to be more about a threshold.

I have also been asked this and there is nothing at all suspicious about my account.

This guy for example https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38711.msg6554157#msg6554157 was just trying to deposit $220 and had deposited $12k over a year and a few months.

No he said it was 500 coins over the history of the account. 50 trades of 10 coins (particularly if the account was a few years old meaning that some of the trades could be worth far less than $500/BTC) isn't a large amount at all.

Its not just getting feathers ruffled now in fairness, some of us have spoken about it several times before here and in the Stamp thread, it just so happens that its been brought up again. I reluctantly took my business elsewhere as well. Its a shame.

Please read above and in the Bitstamp thread you will see that it is confirmed. We're not saying Stamp has cause for concerns regarding solvency necessarily . What we are discussing is their in depth probing KYC/AML questions that are rather too personal and unnecessary to many people.

Tier 4 is for companies. So no, for a personal account just the normal KYC stuff is needed.

1) Agreed. Although I will say with all available evidence you couldn't have said Gox was going to be bankrupt within a year not so long ago, I'm not saying its another Gox (normal knee jerk reaction, should definitely tone down that rhetoric), but you get my drift.

2) No, I refused to go through the process for the reasons mentioned before. Provide me with adequate warning and I may. Cite the law and I will. Don't ask such obviously unnecessary questions (they are, as said no other broker asks these questions and my bank doesn't know half the things they were asking) and I will.

3) They do hold it hostage though! Unless you play along with them, thats the point. Are we supposed to bend the truth just to play along and then get burnt later down the line?

4) Thats cool and rightly so they should be worried its a high risk businesses to be in but the rewards are plentiful, kinda like Bitcoin in the first place. Within your reply to Blitz though you missed the whole issue, Kraken asks those things, nobody has a problem providing those things. Hell I've provided them to several exchanges. I don't have a problem with KYC or AML but I have a huge problem with how personal and intrusive the questions are.

Sorry, no third party is being trusted with that sort of information until they can provide me with with clear terms. The threshold, why, which law etc etc. These aren't the sort of things you can sneak in and be like "well to be fair it was an open secret".  Don't make out like your all about compliance, regulation  and covering your ass when you can't even put out some explanatory TOS.

Nobodies saying that your being forced to use them in the first place but if these stringent requests aren't advertised or even written anywhere and you sell funds there then you are forced to either;

1) Answer the questions
2)Buy back coins, pay them more fees for doing so and possibly loosing out due to a change in price.

Sorry but I'm not twisting words, you can't change the definition of a problem. We obviously disagree so its pointless debating semantics. I think its clear that a withdrawal problem is anything that makes withdrawing either currency problematic, which this does.

I too, support their right to do (a) but think that when you do (a) without (b) be prepared for a backlash from customers who either;

1) Are just generally pretty pissed of with (b)
2) Physically cannot sign their most used address.
3) Wouldn't be prepared to offer that information (which is a personal choice) but didn't have the chance to not use the exchange due to (b) and now their fiat is effectively hostage.
4) Think that a lot of the questions in (a) are far too intrusive. Which I think they are no other financial institution in the same category asks those sorts of questions.  Even my bank doesn't know some of the information they are asking for.
 

If its the law to be this intrusive (which its not) then cite it in the request and I will follow it. Until then they are just another exchange that is all too happy to hold your assets hostage.

I guess that falls under what you define a problem as.

Can't withdraw fiat even though you're verified without asking intrusive questions above and beyond what a company could possibly need to know for KYC/AML, add on the fact that many people can't sign their most used deposit address then I'd call it a problem.
Insolvency is a different question but when you want your money that they were happy for you to deposit in the first place without asking where it came from then, to me, thats a pretty big problem.

Its not about anonymity, I don't want/need to remain anonymous its about personal questions that are far more intrusive than is necessary, covering their ass or not doesn't really change that.

There has been plenty of people recently who have posted on Reddit recently with the same story (sorry cba to find them all) so the question of "are they asking for over the top information" is true.

In fact go check out their thread in the marketplace I'm sure there was someone in there who had to prove where he got the money from which included sending bank statements showing deposits. Sorry but if Im verified you can't tell me then that Im not verified enough.