pull down to refresh

An exchange has a right to decline service as long as they are up-front in their terms just as the customer has a right to take their business elsewhere based on those terms.
It's at their discretion what they consider valid chain-analysis and who they sanction.
they are spoils of war
By this logic any exchange not-domiciled in a North Korea aligned country should keep their coins for themselves as well as their customers for consorting with the enemy. So you're effectively arguing against yourself in one pointless virtue signal.
After coins changed hands in a bona-fide arm's length transaction, they are no longer Koreans'. By your logic, most gold must be confiscated, because at some point in history those atoms were stolen by someone from someone else.
reply
must
The only one talking about authoritarian control is you, these are self-policing reputational systems.
reply
You mean Binance blocking users accounts, citing third-party AML reports? What happens next? I've been in such situations a few times already, presumed guilty until proven innocent beyond a shred of doubt. Not pleasant!
reply
Don't use Binance then? Or do you want the President of Bitcoin to force them to be your service provider?
reply
I don't. This can happen at any time with any KYC custodial. Two ways to deal with this:
  1. protest AML chainanalysis practices
  2. quit using KYC providers altogether
reply