MEXC frozen funds: a pseudonymous trader known as the White Whale escalated a social-media pressure campaign to $2.5M after alleging the exchange demanded in-person KYC in Malaysia to unfreeze $3.1M — investors should document communications and seek formal dispute channels with the exchange.
-
White Whale ups bounty to $2.5M
-
Trader alleges MEXC requested in-person KYC in Malaysia to release $3.1M.
-
Account review periods of 12 months cited by MEXC; other users report similar freezes and long reviews.
Meta description: MEXC frozen funds: White Whale raises social campaign to $2.5M after alleged in-person KYC request in Malaysia — learn steps to protect frozen assets now.
What happened with the MEXC frozen funds?
MEXC frozen funds refers to a reported incident in which a pseudonymous trader, the White Whale, says MEXC froze roughly $3.1M of his personal assets in July 2025. The trader alleges the exchange later requested an in-person KYC verification in Malaysia and launched a $2.5M social-media campaign to pressure a resolution.
The White Whale initially announced a $2M bounty and added $500,000 — split between campaign participants and charity — after claiming MEXC required a one-year review before releasing funds.
How did MEXC respond to the freeze claims?
MEXC told media outlets that account restrictions are imposed by risk control rules, not profitability. A company spokesperson stated the 12-month review period applies to accounts flagged for coordinated violations, high-risk activity, or compliance concerns, and does not apply to all users.
The exchange’s statement, as reported by media outlets, framed these measures as standard risk-control procedures rather than punitive or arbitrary actions.
Why is in-person KYC unusual for CEXes?
In-person KYC requests are uncommon for centralized cryptocurrency exchanges. Typical KYC processes use online document uploads and verification tools. The White Whale’s claim that MEXC requested an in-person meeting in Malaysia diverges from industry norms and prompted the trader’s escalation.
Other users have reported comparable experiences. For example, a trader named Pablo Ruiz said his account was frozen and placed under a 365-day review, with $2,082,614 USDT inaccessible for months.
Ruiz posted that an email screenshot showed risk control completion while support still maintained the review was ongoing, citing internal contradictions and a lack of transparency.
Frequently Asked Questions
How can a user verify if an exchange’s KYC request is legitimate?
Confirm the request via official exchange support channels, insist on written instructions within the platform, and avoid sharing sensitive data outside verified portals. For unusual demands like in-person verification, request a formal compliance reference.
What legal recourse exists if funds remain frozen?
Options include filing complaints with local financial authorities, seeking a preliminary injunction through courts, and engaging legal counsel experienced in crypto custody disputes.
Key Takeaways
- Escalation: The White Whale increased a social-media bounty to $2.5M after alleging MEXC demanded in-person KYC.
- Industry norms: In-person KYC is atypical; most exchanges use online document verification.
- User actions: Document all interactions, request written reasons, and consider regulatory or legal escalation where necessary.
Conclusion
This case highlights growing friction between traders and centralized exchanges over account freezes and KYC procedures. MEXC frozen funds disputes underscore the need for clear exchange transparency and formal dispute channels. Investors should document communications, verify compliance requests through official channels, and consider regulatory avenues if internal reviews do not resolve access to assets.
