Under your previous Level if you add up the days and the amount allowed, the funds withdrawn should have also been accrued vs time. So if you were only allowed $25 a day and you have waited a month you should all of the sudden be allowed to withdraw $750 since that transaction started 30 days ago. This means that by stopping a large transaction they now have to abide by their own timeline and apply it to that entire transaction. So if the transaction was $750 it would take 30 days to clear. They can't stop the transaction due to a limit, they can only start the timeline to the amounts they set per level. So this is illegal under their own statements if they didn't release the funds after X amount of days. You had a transaction and a level so they need to apply the time vs amounts to it and then allow it to be released after X amount of time.

So technically after this amount of time you should not have to upgrade or give your identity to get the total funds out. The time has passed and the transaction was started a month ago so they need to release the funds with no questions asked.

Sooo.. this is really just them coming in line with KYC and people having level 0 accounts....

MERICA

Q8. Are there minimum transaction thresholds, under which customer due diligence is not required?
If Yes, what are the various thresholds in place?
A8. No - basic due diligence is required for all accounts/customers regardless of transaction amounts.

i embezzled the air i breath from the sky !
But hey maybe let's talk about Cryptsy ?
Class Action does any of you think this is actually going to happen ?
I don't think so and my opinions are important business !

Response regarding lawsuit

There was quite a bit of PR pushed out yesterday from a law firm that stated that they were filing a lawsuit against Cryptsy and myself. The complaint alleges that Crytpsy misled users and was negligent in security. They represent a single user.  We have close to 300,000 users at this point. We have reviewed the unofficial complaint and believe that it is without merit. We intend to defend the case vigorously.

We would like to note that we have not received any documentation or official notification concerning any lawsuit yet.  We also find it unprofessional that the law firm decided to push out such a large PR campaign prior to serving any notice.  It should also be noted that according to the user terms of our site, disputes are to be handled via arbitration.  

We realize that there have been a few "Bad Actors" in the crypto-currency space running exchanges and other services.  Cryptsy strives for transparency and doing what is right.  This lawsuit attempts to place us in the same group as many of these bad actors, but this is simply not how we operate.  We are not a fly by night operation, we are a company that plans to be around for a long time.   Our desire is to be the model of how to operate a crypto business.

As I’m sure many of you are aware, we take security very seriously.  We pride ourselves on being one of the most secure places to trade on the internet.  The crypto-currency space has been the target for a lot of hackers over the last year due to the increase in value of Bitcoin.  These hackers  not only target Cryptsy users, but users of many other Bitcoin services.  

In this case the attack on the user making the claim came from within their own computer.  This is currently one of the most common attacks by hackers.   While we try to educate our users on how to secure their local environment, we ultimately have no control of a users computer system.

So as a reminder I’d like to reiterate a few security tips:

- Do not leave your computer logged into your Cryptsy account when you are away from your computer

- Do not install browser extensions from unknown developers

- Do not install mining software from unknown developers on the same computer you use to access Cryptsy

- Run a virus scan regularly.  

- Make sure you use 2fa on your Cryptsy account

Paul Vernon
“BigVern”
Cryptsy.com

    Oct 24th, 2014
    5 notes

You seem to be confused. It clearly says that the monthly limit is $100, you can't claim it's $750 "under their own statements":