I officially submitted Full Binance violations and case files to the Dubai crypto regulator(VARA).

Binance stalled, they deflected, they rotated agents, they offered silence vouchers 13% of total loss. I built a full 13-page case. VARA officially requested the material — so I sent them everything. This is not just a support complaint — this is an official regulatory case. Evidence submitted includes chats, screenshots, timelines, agent logs, and financial breakdowns.

Binance failed to provide any resolution after multiple deadlines.

Thank you for your previous response. As requested, I have attached a detailed PDF file containing all of the documents, screenshots, timelines, and correspondence related to my complaint against Binance.

I kindly ask you to review this material thoroughly. This is not merely a personal grievance — it is a reflection of deeper systemic failures in Binance’s platform and their customer support structure. The issue I raise is not about trading losses or market volatility. It is about transparency, accountability, and the integrity of Binance’s internal systems. My account was force-liquidated under conditions that do not align with the actual margin levels or market volatility. I had sufficient margin at the time, and yet, the position was liquidated and I was charged over 100% in fees — exceeding the position’s own size.

I documented this anomaly extensively, including Binance’s repeated delays, sudden silence, and pattern of shifting between customer agents without progressing the case. I provided Binance with a 7-day legal deadline to respond before escalating to regulatory bodies. This deadline was ignored. Only after I informed Binance that I had formally submitted the case to VARA did their tone suddenly change. I was transferred to a so-called “Escalation Team,” which showed signs of internal panic — excessive politeness, sudden “rechecks,” and scripted empathy.

However, this shift lasted briefly. Once they confirmed that I am not a UAE resident, their responses reverted to silence and copy-pasted apologies. They stopped replying again.

It is also important to note that I am not alone. Over 20 users have reached out with similar liquidation cases that lack justification. These cases are strikingly similar — instant liquidation, lack of volatility, no explanation, and eventual silence. It is increasingly clear that this may not be an isolated incident but a system-level failure or bug within Binance’s liquidation engine. What makes this situation particularly difficult is the power imbalance between the user and the platform. Binance controls the interface, the logs, and the communication flow. Meanwhile, users are left with no recourse other than to accept “silence vouchers” or ambiguous promises of “further review.” This is not just about compensation — it’s about trust in the financial infrastructure. I'm binance user from 2018 and I don't deserve such behavior. A platform that silences users instead of investigating real issues is not just being negligent, it may be in breach of basic consumer protection standards.

I ask you to look beyond my specific liquidation and examine the pattern this case reveals. The issue here is not simply about margin calculations or platform errors — it’s about how a financial giant like Binance handles complaints, how it manipulates silence, and how it hides behind scripted empathy and rotational support to exhaust users into giving up. In my experience, and in conversations with others who’ve gone through similar events, it has become evident that Binance’s internal systems are either flawed or strategically designed to suppress resolution. Their agents repeat prewritten lines, offer delay tactics masked as “internal reviews,” and strategically introduce confusion by constantly transferring chats between agents — each of whom claims to “just now begin reviewing the case.” At times, I was made to repeat the same information to six or seven different people in a single day. And after all that, I would be told: “Please wait, our relevant team is still reviewing.”

But what triggered the most shocking response was not technical evidence, not the loss itself — it was simply the mention of VARA. The moment I stated that I had submitted the case to your institution, I was immediately moved to a so-called “Escalation Team.” The tone changed. The politeness increased. They suddenly “took my case seriously.” But that, too, lasted only until they realized I was not a UAE resident. Once they confirmed this, the support went silent again. If this is how Binance responds based on jurisdiction — rather than justice — then it’s not only a platform issue, it’s a regulatory concern.

I want to emphasize this again: over 20 users have reached out with nearly identical stories. I have collected fragments, screenshots, chat logs, and liquidation reports from many of them. And although my case may be one voice, it is part of a larger echo — one that is growing louder as Binance refuses to offer a transparent explanation. In many cases, users were liquidated despite having strong margin, with positions closing during periods of no unusual volatility. The only common thread? Silence followed by a generic apology — and in rare cases, a small voucher.

This isn't about compensation anymore. This is about preventing future harm, demanding transparency from a platform that processes billions in user funds, and asking a regulator with reach and credibility — such as VARA — to examine whether this system is operating in the shadows. I am not a UAE resident, but I submitted my case through Dubai’s DED portal (CMP-25-471649). I trust that jurisdiction alone will not be the basis for inaction — not when the issue at hand may reflect a deeper technical or ethical failure.

In addition to the broader concerns I have already expressed, I believe there are several critical case elements that must be officially acknowledged:

Language used by support agents — including indirect “gambler” profiling — during an active investigation.

Contradictory and unclear responses between departments, which damaged trust and transparency.

Financial pressure caused by unresolved losses and outstanding loans resulting from this incident.

Promised answers — particularly following the March 29 escalation — were never provided.

The case appeared to be closed, then reopened, without clear explanation.

Even after reopening, the new promised updates (due Tuesday) never arrived. No one told me why.

And finally — the core incident remains unresolved:

Despite my account being marked as bankrupt, over 30% of my total balance was still taken as post-liquidation fees. To this day, no explanation has been provided as to how a "bankrupt" account could be subject to such deductions — rather than that balance being used to reduce losses or protect open positions. I hope this submission brings more clarity, and I place my full trust in VARA to help shed light on what truly happened. The attached documents provide my evidence. If further clarity is needed, I will gladly assist in any way.

There is one more detail that has disturbed me throughout this experience — and I believe it warrants closer attention. At multiple stages during this case, I was told that I had a “gambler’s status” on the platform. This label was never explained — not how it’s assigned, not why it matters, not how it affects the way my account is handled. But the tone of the platform changed after this status appeared. I noticed increased delays, and interactions became even more evasive. If Binance has internal profiling systems that categorize users based on trading behavior — and if such labels affect customer support treatment, risk models, or liquidation protocols — then this is a much larger issue than a single case.

Even more troubling is the growing suspicion that some of these liquidation events may not be accidental. The silence, the refusal to show clear logs, the overly delayed support structure — it begins to resemble a mechanism designed not just to deflect, but to control the narrative and quietly close user cases. I cannot definitively prove that my case was targeted or pre-engineered — but the pattern of behavior, the sudden internal shifts, and the suppression of transparency suggest that something deeper may be at play. If Binance has constructed a system where individual accounts are monitored and selectively pushed into failure — under the guise of risk control — that would constitute a massive ethical and possibly legal breach. Even if that is not the case, the mere possibility that profiles like mine are subject to automated flags, and that these flags affect fairness in how liquidations occur, should be investigated. The use of vague internal labels like “gambler,” combined with a pattern of unjustified liquidations and copy-paste replies, does not reflect the behavior of a transparent financial institution. It reflects a platform that creates an illusion of fairness — while certain users are quietly sidelined.

binance can’t justify irreversible outcomes using designations made retroactively. This is not “risk I accepted.” This is post-factum classification — a system where users are flagged, blamed, and penalized without context, transparency, or process. If Binance truly believed I was high risk, they should have intervened before my account was liquidated — not after. Placing me into the Responsible Trading Program post-liquidation is not risk management — it's retroactive blame-shifting. It’s clear this flag serves one function: to protect Binance from liability, not to protect the user. I don’t believe I ever deserved to be placed in the Responsible Trading Program. I use a well-defined strategy with a clear risk management framework. Binance made this classification without ever verifying my trading logic or asking for context — which makes it a subjective designation that primarily serves their own internal risk optics, not a fair evaluation of user behavior. If Binance had made any effort to understand my system,

they would know I don’t use stop losses because I hedge manually, and my bots follow a disciplined, non-random execution logic. I use cross margin exclusively, and my choice of higher leverage is deliberate — it’s meant to reduce unnecessary margin lockup, not to increase risk. Cross margin ensures the system can automatically allocate protection where it’s actually needed. So what may look like a “20x position” is in reality balanced across available assets — and is part of a controlled portfolio approach, not gambling. If they evaluated context, they would know this.

I respectfully ask VARA to:

Accept the attached full case file and formally acknowledge the issues I’ve raised.

Investigate the technical inconsistency that led to my liquidation and the suspiciously high fees.

Clarify Binance’s obligations under Dubai’s regulatory framework in terms of dispute resolution, response times, and internal escalation procedures.

Open dialogue with Binance to request a transparent explanation of their liquidation mechanisms and any known internal issues that could lead to unjust liquidations.

I am placing my trust in your institution as a regulator that upholds fairness, especially when users are systematically ignored. I understand that I may not be a UAE resident, but I submitted the case through Dubai’s Department of Economy and Tourism (DED Case CMP-25-471649), which has confirmed acceptance.

At this point, I must ask clearly: Will any action be taken? I was led to believe that action would follow — that my efforts to document everything and report properly would not go ignored. I hope VARA is not only receiving these cases but standing by those of us who have no other shield left. Because if even the regulators go silent… then justice simply doesn’t exist for users like me. I sincerely hope VARA stands with users when platforms fail them — because for some of us, this is the last line.

I look forward to your continued guidance and action. Please let me know if any further documents or clarifications are needed.

Best regards,

Tornike

Legal Grounds and Clauses Violated

– **Clause 6.1:** Right to transparent calculation before deduction.

– **Clause 6.3:** Manifest error clause — system behavior must be logically sound.

– **Clause 30.1:** Binance waives liability only in absence of gross negligence or material breach. Both are evident in this case.

If I had accepted the 13% hush voucher, none of this would be known. But I didn’t. And now, it will be. I encourage you to share — this is the only way we hold centralized platforms accountable.