Does your local CEX as you to verify the information of your sender

[aioc]

One of the things that I find annoying is how our local CEX asks for the details of your sender, so if you happened to do a P2P on forums like Bitcointalk, you will have to ask him his full name, so our local exchange will not possibly restrict or question the transaction, it's the only local CEX that has this rule. Hence, I seldom use this local exchange.

Do you have these kinds of rules on your local CEX

[EarnOnVictor]

What is this??? It looks like an abomination to me, and I've never found it anywhere ever since I started transacting in cryptocurrency. Privacy is part of the reasons for creating cryptocurrency, and fine, we could verify our accounts, which is still understandable. But for CEX  making our senders to be accountable for all the coins they send is so ridiculous and highly unacceptable.

Sophisticated exchanges will not do this. They could be doing that so that they can confiscate the inflow to themselves. Otherwise, I don't know why it will be singled out for such ignoble act.

[Oshosondy]

I think this has to be about MiCA laws or laws in countries like United Kingdom about cryptocurrencies. See what Bitstamp sent me in September of this year which was some months ago:

   

Are you from such country or using an exchange that strictly adhere to the laws pertaining to cryptocurrencies in United Kingdom or European Union countries?

All these happened when they passed more anti privacy laws this year.

[KingsDen]

One of the things that I find annoying is how our local CEX asks for the details of your sender, so if you happened to do a P2P on forums like Bitcointalk, you will have to ask him his full name, so our local exchange will not possibly restrict or question the transaction, it's the only local CEX that has this rule. Hence, I seldom use this local exchange.

Do you have these kinds of rules on your local CEX

This is absolutely weird and in this present stage of bitcoin and cryptocurrency, this is the least information I expected to read.
How on earth are you expected to know the information of the sender? Like how?
Like do they think that only your family member sends money to you?
Like how about if it's a business and someone credits, you have to gather the information of all of them even if the transaction was done through third party.

It's better they just ban bitcoin transactions in your country. I believe the law is related to the country and not the CEX. No exchange will choose that kind of law, it is not user friendly.

[aioc]

It's better they just ban bitcoin transactions in your country. I believe the law is related to the country and not the CEX. No exchange will choose that kind of law, it is not user friendly.

There are several CEXs in our country, and only one local exchange requires this kind of verification; the others do not. They claim to be the number one local exchange, but with this kind of feature, many local traders will transfer to competitors. It's annoying that they have to do this; it's understandable if the others are doing it too, but they are the only ones.

[blockman]

I think this has to be about MiCA laws or laws in countries like United Kingdom about cryptocurrencies. See what Bitstamp sent me in September of this year which was some months ago:
~
Are you from such country or using an exchange that strictly adhere to the laws pertaining to cryptocurrencies in United Kingdom or European Union countries?

All these happened when they passed more anti privacy laws this year.

It's from a Philippine local exchange and he's right that we're always asked as in every transaction that comes to you, they'll ask you automatically where it came from or whom sent it to you. And that's why I just fill it in always with the answer that it is from "myself" and I just post the TXID in the form that they provide to us and then it's good to go. It's an easy requirement but they shouldn't really be asking that info anymore. I guess it has something to do with our central bank being too strict with their rules for the local exchanges to avoid anti money laundering.

[fullfitlarry]

It's better they just ban bitcoin transactions in your country. I believe the law is related to the country and not the CEX. No exchange will choose that kind of law, it is not user friendly.

There are several CEXs in our country, and only one local exchange requires this kind of verification; the others do not. They claim to be the number one local exchange, but with this kind of feature, many local traders will transfer to competitors. It's annoying that they have to do this; it's understandable if the others are doing it too, but they are the only ones.

Is this coins.ph? I haven't used that exchanges for many months now and recently receiving mails from them to renew or send KYC again. But I request to because of so many complaints in the past.

I have moved to PDAX, and so far I haven't got any issues depositing and withdrawing from them. So you are right, if they continue with this, then most of us will move to their competitors because this is really absurd.

[BitMaxz]

We have the same local exchange here that asks for the sender's information; it looks like the same as the image you provided above.
Is this a coins.ph?

If I am right, then there are no other exchanges that ask for senders' information. That is why I stopped using that exchange because of very strict regulation, and they always ask for KYC if you deposit a large amount to your wallet. I have a bad experience with them where I need money, but they kept holding funds for almost a week.

I suggest never using them again. There are lots of other good exchanges to use, like global exchanges like OKX or Binance; they have a P2P option that doesn't need too complicated a process once you receive it to your bank account, unlike the coins.ph exchange.

[rat03gopoh]

They think it'll be easy to treat crypto users like conventional bank users. Lol.
This is truly a crazy request; no such complex level of verification on my local exchanges. I'm curious to see their user statistics before and after implementing these "security" measures. By the way,, have they been previously sanctioned for compliance or AML violations?

[hugeblack]

This is unnecessarily complicated; such information isn't required for bank transfers.

In short, such updates mean you'll be forced to keep your cryptocurrency on centralized platforms to maintain its legitimacy.

Such services should be avoided

[aioc]

We have the same local exchange here that asks for the sender's information; it looks like the same as the image you provided above.
Is this a coins.ph?

If I am right, then there are no other exchanges that ask for senders' information. That is why I stopped using that exchange because of very strict regulation, and they always ask for KYC if you deposit a large amount to your wallet. I have a bad experience with them where I need money, but they kept holding funds for almost a week.

Yes, it's coins.ph. Fortunately, no other CEX exchange has implemented this unpopular policy. I use it only for transactions with relatives I can identify.
However, for other transactions, I used local exchanges that do not offer this feature. My biggest question is why they are the ones implementing this locally; none of the other local exchanges are, perhaps because they claim to be the number one exchange and don't want to use a platform for money laundering.
I suspect they prefer to be strict rather than risk becoming unpopular with the community.

[Oshosondy]

Yes, it's coins.ph. Fortunately, no other CEX exchange has implemented this unpopular policy. I use it only for transactions with relatives I can identify.
However, for other transactions, I used local exchanges that do not offer this feature. My biggest question is why they are the ones implementing this locally; none of the other local exchanges are, perhaps because they claim to be the number one exchange and don't want to use a platform for money laundering.
I suspect they prefer to be strict rather than risk becoming unpopular with the community.

I thought you will be from EU or UK before but when I know that you are from Philippines, I am surprised that you are using such an exchange. What are you even using the exchange for relatives transactions? If there are other exchanges that are alternatives in your country, it is better you people stop using the exchange.

[The Cryptovator]

Yes, it's coins.ph. Fortunately, no other CEX exchange has implemented this unpopular policy. I use it only for transactions with relatives I can identify.

Why not simply avoid them? As you said, there are more local exchanges that don't ask for such information; you can use them as well. But I prefer to use your own wallet, which means using a noncustodial wallet to receive funds. So no one is going to ask you about the sender. And later you can use any international exchange for trade, but funds shouldn't involved with any criminal activity.

However, for other transactions, I used local exchanges that do not offer this feature. My biggest question is why they are the ones implementing this locally; none of the other local exchanges are, perhaps because they claim to be the number one exchange and don't want to use a platform for money laundering.
I suspect they prefer to be strict rather than risk becoming unpopular with the community.

In such a situation, I am curious to know why users still choose them to make deposits there. For me, I won't use that exchange; those ask for sender information for each transaction. International exchanges like Binance would ask for details about the sender only for suspected transactions. They seem stricter than the traditional centralised bank. How did they claim number one when users don't like to use their service? Sounds unrealistic to me, their excuse regarding money laundering just nonsense.

We don't have any local exchanges since crypto isn't legal by the government.

[joniboini]

I think one of the popular ones in my country does this, too. I remember reading a complaint thread from a user where their deposit/withdrawal is stuck because they need to input the recipient details (or sender, I can't remember exactly which). It's not limited to fiat either. I don't think it's a mandatory requirement atm, but it's possible next year they'll change that, and every single CEX will ask you for that info (if they haven't already).

[julerz12]

I'm curious to see their user statistics before and after implementing these "security" measures.

If OP's exchange is what I think it is, the one from PH, probably lower than before. I, for one, stopped using this exchange when they implemented that nonsense. Aside from the fact that it's annoying 'cause you have to do this every single time you make a deposit, I see no real use for it since you can just put whatever info on it and hit submit. LOL Probably just an added feature to make it look like they are compliant with AML policies from the government.

By the way,, have they been previously sanctioned for compliance or AML violations?

No. Not that I heard of.

[Z-tight]

That is a crazy one and i am very certain they do not go any further with the information posted. So i could just write whatever there and be done with it. So then the question is why such a feature in the first place.

However, even if i can input any information whatsoever, i would surely not use a service that has such a feature. I understand that any centralized exchange can seize your funds and make life difficult for you, but this type of exchange would be much more famous in doing things like these, so best to avoid them.

[coupable]

I think one of the popular ones in my country does this, too. I remember reading a complaint thread from a user where their deposit/withdrawal is stuck because they need to input the recipient details (or sender, I can't remember exactly which). It's not limited to fiat either. I don't think it's a mandatory requirement atm, but it's possible next year they'll change that, and every single CEX will ask you for that info (if they haven't already).

I think this is a useless requirement because I can fill the page with whatever info about an unknown sender. How would they come to verify those info? It's pathetic that a cryptocurrency exchanger interact with cryptocurrencies like they are a bank using fiat money.
It's clear that those exchangers are very few and that they lost a large base because of those bullshits. I doubt that any licensing providers will require such a dumb thing.

[Potato Chips]

Not a local exchange but I was once asked a similar thing on binance. However, my deposits always come from my personal wallet so I inputted it's from my wallet and I was good to go. From what I know, it has to do with the travel rule.

Mine was on a special case basis while yours seems mandatory though, so big difference. I don't think I'll ever use an exchange with such mandatory rule, but that is only because I have plenty of better options. Who knows what the standard regulation would be in the next years to come. One can only hope.

[robelneo]

I think this is a useless requirement because I can fill the page with whatever info about an unknown sender. How would they come to verify those info? It's pathetic that a cryptocurrency exchanger interact with cryptocurrencies like they are a bank using fiat money.

You can do that if it's a small amount, but with a considerable amount, it can sound an alarm and question you about the condition of the transaction and possibly their status, which is risky for both of you and your sender, soit's  better to use this exchange only for transacting a small amount

It's clear that those exchangers are very few and that they lost a large base because of those bullshits. I doubt that any licensing providers will require such a dumb thing.

I hope other local exchanges will not follow. I have a similar thread on our local board, and most of us do not agree with this kind of verification.

[coupable]

I think this is a useless requirement because I can fill the page with whatever info about an unknown sender. How would they come to verify those info? It's pathetic that a cryptocurrency exchanger interact with cryptocurrencies like they are a bank using fiat money.

You can do that if it's a small amount, but with a considerable amount, it can sound an alarm and question you about the condition of the transaction and possibly their status, which is risky for both of you and your sender, soit's  better to use this exchange only for transacting a small amount

Even with a large amount transaction, why should i verify the nature of the sender? And what if I want to deposit from my own wallet address or from another exchanger? Should I always lie or prove that the funds are mine.
This requirement is quite understandable with bank transactions in which it's sometimes required to provide the reason of the transaction especially with large sums. But in crypto, the nature of the technology itself proves the naievety of those exchangers. Yes it's much better to avoid them for all sums of money.