Policy

Dispute Policy

This policy explains how users can dispute a rejected decision or provide additional evidence for further review.

Appeal Process

Users may dispute a rejected decision by contacting support and referencing the internal request ID.
Appeals should be submitted within the timeline communicated in the case decision where applicable.
Additional evidence may be required, including wallet ownership details, transaction hashes, network information, screenshots, or provider correspondence.
Appeals should clearly explain why the user believes the decision should be reviewed again.
Submitting a dispute does not guarantee that the original decision will be changed.

Appeal review timelines vary based on evidence quality and case complexity.
The review may result in the original decision being upheld, reopened, or escalated for further review.
Final decisions are based on available evidence, applicable policies, and operational feasibility.
Complex disputes may require additional time if blockchain evidence, wallet provider responses, or exchange processing timelines are involved.
Support may request additional information before completing an appeal review.

Evidence should be complete, legible, accurate, and relevant to the disputed decision.
Transaction hashes should match the correct network and wallet addresses.
Screenshots should not be edited in a misleading way and may need to be supported by on-chain records.
Provider or exchange correspondence should include dates, relevant case numbers, and visible sender/recipient context where possible.

Users may communicate with support/admin through platform messaging during review.
Status updates may be provided through in-app notifications, email, or the relevant request page.
Users should avoid submitting duplicate tickets for the same dispute unless instructed by support.
Failure to respond to reasonable follow-up requests may delay or close the dispute review.

Fraudulent, abusive, manipulated, or repeated unsupported disputes may lead to account restrictions.
The platform may decline further review where evidence is insufficient or inconsistent.
Attempts to impersonate another user, falsify ownership, alter evidence, or exploit support processes may result in restrictions.
The platform may preserve records related to suspected abuse, fraud, or security incidents.