Why the unnecessary shift of TON from EQ to UQ format?

[EluguHcman]

Please I don't know if similar discussion had been taken here and if this is the right board to post this topic.
Those that has been using the TON (The Open Network) to process their crypto currency transactions recently on the exchange platform like ByBit, BitGet and the rest of them may agree with me that they have noticed this message as displayed in the image below when selects the TON on the platform to copy the address.

            

Since this new change, I have also been using the network very smoothly and never been bothered to know what the new format at UQ is and of what essence was the new development invented.
Noting that the previous format was EQ, I became very concerned this time to know what the differences of the formats is and I came to understand that the EQ format is a bounceable address type and the UQ is non-bounceable address type.

Meanwhile... The bounceable address type according to my research is said to reject any transaction that does not match the TON address and then the coin bounces back to the initiator while the UQ format reacts opposite by allowing the transaction sent out.
That means the format (UQ) does not assist to filter its transactions in case the sender steps on the wrong address that does not fit the TON.

Considering the characteristics of these formats, the EQ seems to offer users better service as it could reduce risks of users sending funds to wrong address types.
So of what essence did they have to shift from this service and adopted this UQ which has no advance service?

At least the Block chain and its technologies should be focused on mitigating risks in their advancements.

[asriloni]

Considering the characteristics of these formats, the EQ seems to offer users better service as it could reduce risks of users sending funds to wrong address types.
So of what essence did they have to shift from this service and adopted this UQ which has no advance service?

The key point is that to ensure no failed transaction happened when it comes to the middle process. The bounceable habit of EQ made it difficult for the exhange sites to verify their users transaction. It needs to be verified manually. it's the reason why TON is shifting from EQ to UQ to make it easier for the various exchange sites to verify their users transaction.

I know "the bounceable" characteristic offered by EQ sounds benefit more to the users, but it obviouslt required more time when we're depositing money on cex or crypto services. It's because cexs and crypto service has to ensure the txs is not going back to sender because it's failed in the mid way. So the transition being made to ensure the fund will be fully delivered without needing a time to verify it on chain manually.

[EluguHcman]

Considering the characteristics of these formats, the EQ seems to offer users better service as it could reduce risks of users sending funds to wrong address types.
So of what essence did they have to shift from this service and adopted this UQ which has no advance service?

The key point is that to ensure no failed transaction happened when it comes to the middle process. The bounceable habit of EQ made it difficult for the exhange sites to verify their users transaction. It needs to be verified manually. it's the reason why TON is shifting from EQ to UQ to make it easier for the various exchange sites to verify their users transaction.

I know "the bounceable" characteristic offered by EQ sounds benefit more to the users, but it obviouslt required more time when we're depositing money on cex or crypto services. It's because cexs and crypto service has to ensure the txs is not going back to sender because it's failed in the mid way. So the transition being made to ensure the fund will be fully delivered without needing a time to verify it on chain manually.

So technically the UQ is a format that verifies users transactions automatically and faster unlike the EQ which verifies transactions manually?
And this was just the reason why they could afford to do away with the edge of the system that plays the safety roles for user on the process of dealing with the wrong address that does not match the network type?

If that only be the reason of the development then the ideal is not encouraging to me.
Moreover I don't think if I have even observed any change in terms of confirmations of the network transaction speed better than the EQ if it is to say they adopted that change to facilitate transactions faster with the automated method of the UQ.