Recently, some users have been complaining on social media about their accounts being risk-controlled and calling for a major trading platform to unfreeze them. The platform's founder subsequently responded.

His core point is straightforward: if the platform ignores the real-name registration information of accounts, only listens to one side of the story or emotional expressions on social media, and arbitrarily transfers account control to others, that is a true dereliction of duty regarding user assets and platform responsibility. In other words, emotional appeals won't work here.

Why is it so strict? The founder explained very clearly— the platform must implement a real-name authentication system, which is not only a safeguard for user asset security but also a necessary measure to fulfill anti-money laundering, anti-fraud, and other regulatory obligations. Buying and selling accounts is explicitly prohibited in the platform's service agreement.

What if the account is truly frozen? The founder listed three indispensable conditions: first, the account registrant must explicitly waive all ownership rights to the account and assets; second, the account is not subject to judicial freezing, law enforcement investigation, or other compliance risks; third, the user can provide reasonable, verifiable, and regulation-compliant proof of the source of funds.

The final stance is also very firm—emotional hype on social media and public opinion pressure cannot change compliance judgments, and such behavior cannot solve practical problems. Every platform action is subject to public scrutiny, with transparent processes and legal compliance. They are not afraid of threats and will not be swayed by online violence or public opinion.