What happened to Tradehill?

[WME]

They owe me over 50k USD and still no news

[1714054012]

1714054012

[1714054012]

1714054012

[yochdog]

They owe me over 50k USD and still no news

Wow.  And this is why I don't leave much over 1K in any exchange, ever, for any reason. 

[bitcool]

BTC withdrawals work.  Just did a small one. 

I got my btc withdrawal fulfilled after a few hours of dealy.  I can breath a little easier now.

I have one for over 200 that seems to be permanently in process....

How long did you have to wait?  I tried 200BTC, now it's 6 hours and waiting.

About 5 days

[duckfeet]

Since the Jan 11th, at noon, when I initiated withdrawal of $1100.  Nothing.  No email--and of course I've sent several.  Bad business.  I've notified other forums I'm on.  What an ugly mess this will turn into.

[HendrikJan]

Our bank closed the without prior warning and without giving a reason.
Thank you for your patience and we're working as fast as possible to resolve this.

Regards,
Jered

Jered,

what about having a bank account in some fiscal paradise, like the Channel Islands or Barbados?

Would a bank in such a place pose less restrictions to the flow of fiat money?

Best regards.

spiccioli

Yes and no. It would, but it would set off all kinds of flags. Not to mention it's not FDIC insured etc
We wouldn't be able to send cheap domestic wires like we can with a US account and I like being able to walk in to my bank and sit down with them. The offshore accounts that I've seen didn't have all the nifty stuff like an API and other advanced features but I'm sure they're out there.

Bottom line I've been told that it's not a smart idea by someone with a lot of experience in the business. Risk of bank problems would go down and US gov risk would go up.

I really like the idea and would love to bank outside the US if possible. There may be a compromise in the future involving a country that isn't shady yet isn't the US.

There is no silver bullet to this problem (possibly if you have millions and millions to throw at it). I welcome all suggestions on changes we should make to our banking setup. There might be someone who's thought of something I haven't.

Jered

Jered i am living in the Netherlands and the banks here are not closing accounts that fast.
Maybe you can look into making an european/Dutch bank account.

[bitcool]

BTC withdrawals work.  Just did a small one. 

I tried both.
Small amount works pretty well, larger amount is a different story.

[tiptopgemdotcom]

My money has been stuck since the 29th of last month.  He has stopped answering emails now.

[tiptopgemdotcom]

It's hilarious to me that Jered has time to participate in discussion on this forum but doesn't have time to talk to his customers. 

Jered, why are you acting like a small child?  Are you a 20-something spoiled kid who has never learned any basic life lessons?  Why not man-up and get on here and address your problems?

[tiptopgemdotcom]

I just want out of Tradehill.  I don't care if it's a cashout, or a bitcoin bail.  Get me the heck out of this tradehell.

[ZodiacDragon84]

Crypto X Change - Problem Free - Totally Global

You will not have these issues with Crypto X Change, we have deposit & withdraw to and from any currency for a $5 flat fee anywhere in the World, our system is 100% Automated, and there are never any issues.

NEVER Any Frozen bank account issues!

We also have withdraw & deposit to MtGox via MtGox Coupons, and also BitInstant.

We are just adding withdraw to PayPal right at the moment!

www.cryptoxchange.com

Regards

The Crypto X Change Team

hijacked!

[MelMan2002]

Yeah, I've been waiting over 3 days now for a btc withdrawal on TradeHill...I've emailed & PM'd several times and not a single reply.

[Dinkytoyz]

Yeah, I've been waiting over 3 days now for a btc withdrawal on TradeHill...I've emailed & PM'd several times and not a single reply.

Use withdrawals of less then 80 btc, that seemed to work for some people. Not for me though because I have no btc on my TH account and cant buy them either because my money is stuck 'processing'.

[zer0]

I don't think any exchange should have their own bank accounts.

Use the LR/Pecunix model. Exchangers (bitinstant) do the nasty work of collecting funds from all over the place and pay into your system. Then an exchange is only ever receiving B2B payments from a few sources no getting thousands of payments from all over the world. When you want to withdraw funds you go back to that exchanger and are paid out locally. Because you're just moving around credits you don't have to license yourself, or worry about KYC or anything. Exchangers handle all that for you.

[duckfeet]

I had over $1100 U.S., and was pretty freaked out about the whole deal.  All I could see was to open an OKPAY account, and withdraw most of it to there.  I didn't like doing it, for the simple reason that OKPAY needed way too much personal information from me, before they would 'verify' my account: god help me if they ever go bad...but anyway, eventually I got my money back...

I appreciate the fact that TradeHill wasn't totally outlaw, as I'd feared for a while, but simply IMO, in over their heads...new for of currency, to
be expected, I guess, but it was pretty nervewracking to me...I hope all the other people waiting, have gotten their funds reimbursed by now...took a couple weeks for me, and to accomplish it, I had to give OKPAY all too much info and pictures and stuff...now it looks as tho you can get a check sent, as they used to, which is a plus...

[JoelKatz]

what if you used a number of banks, with a few accounts with each bank? if Bank 1 wants to be uppity and reject your business, you still have banks 3, 4, and 5

This would create more problems than it solves and attract unwelcome scrutiny.

You had better believe it!

31 USC 5324(c): "No person shall, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, the reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed by any order issued under section 5326, or the recordkeeping requirements imposed by any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 of Public Law 91–508—  ... structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions."

It is illegal to intentionally divide your business among multiple banks to avoid triggering investigations. All the government has to do is find one deposit to one account for less than $10,000 and another to another account for less than $10,000 that total to more than $10,000 and you just evaded a reporting requirement.

[rjk]

what if you used a number of banks, with a few accounts with each bank? if Bank 1 wants to be uppity and reject your business, you still have banks 3, 4, and 5

This would create more problems than it solves and attract unwelcome scrutiny.

You had better believe it!

31 USC 5324(c): "No person shall, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, the reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed by any order issued under section 5326, or the recordkeeping requirements imposed by any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 of Public Law 91–508—  ... structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions."

It is illegal to intentionally divide your business among multiple banks to avoid triggering investigations. All the government has to do is find one deposit to one account for less than $10,000 and another to another account for less than $10,000 that total to more than $10,000 and you just evaded a reporting requirement.

This isn't the point - the government is welcome to investigate all they like. It is only to remain reliable and have a failover, and they would be reporting all the full amounts from all accounts together. Not doing so would be a problem, yes.

[JoelKatz]

This isn't the point - the government is welcome to investigate all they like. It is only to remain reliable and have a failover, and they would be reporting all the full amounts from all accounts together. Not doing so would be a problem, yes.

All you have to do is perform two transactions each individually under $10,000 that total over $10,000, and you have knowingly evaded a reported requirement (assuming you know that transactions over $10,000 are reported). Willfulness is no longer an element, thanks to the so-called "Ratzlaf fix". I wouldn't count on juries to see a difference between acting to avoid business interruptions due to investigative activity and evading the investigative activity itself. In fact, I'm not sure that I see a difference. Money launderers don't want their businesses interrupted by investigations either.