It is understandable that compliance requires users to do KYC and necessary risk control measures, but if the risk control measures are excessive, it means that compliance goes to extremes (everything for compliance may not be good). In my understanding, exchanges can require users to submit necessary supporting documents, but providing detailed work experience, country of residence, and region over the past decade is a bit excessive. In my impression, even foreign banks and securities firms do not have such extreme risk control requirements. As long as it is proven that the account belongs to the user themselves, the user only needs to provide necessary asset proof. The exchange is more concerned about whether the user's deposit is clean. In fact, Binance and OKX have sufficient technical means to determine whether there is a problem with the user's money coming in. If there is a problem, the user needs to provide proof of the source. Foreign banks' large deposits only require proof of source and will not trace an individual's work experience over the past five or ten years. Mainland encrypted users are actually very weak due to being in a gray area of judicial supervision (strictly prohibited in China, and various exchanges essentially operate offshore in the face of discourse users, without judicial jurisdiction). The recent revelation that FTX does not intend to compensate mainland customers is also a manifestation of this. When encountering such problems, there is no judicial channel to appeal, only to appeal to the platform's operation. Please also consider from the perspective of users and optimize compliance and risk control measures, in moderation rather than excessive.