A Zcash En Español user just informed us that he also had two transactions blocked and only the transparent transaction was accepted.
3 Likes
I’m crossposting the response below to ensure all relevant information is included in this thread.
5 Likes
7 Likes
@aquietinvestor it’s very important to get the TEX address implemented before July 4.
Once in a quarter, on the 4th day of every quarter, Binance adjusts the MONITORING label and makes a formal announcement.
If we miss this date, we’ll have the monitoring label for another 3 months and be in the basket of coins/tokens that are dead/scams (like FTT).
If a coin has the monitoring tag attached, users are basically told it’s riskier than other assets and forced to submit a questionnaire.
Also, it’d be a very bad look for Zcash if Firo implements it first, gets the monitoring label removed and we don’t for another quarter.
5 Likes
I can assure you, since November 2023, under the US compliance monitor, Binance has been seen as the safest exchange of them all (maybe with the exception of Coinbase). Being under the monitor, is one of the best things to happen to Binance (even from the marketing perspective).
Binance is stronger than ever and Zcash can’t afford to lose it (it’s the only place in the universe with sizeable liquidity), there cannot even be a discussion about this. Zcash can no longer afford making more irrational moves and mistakes based on some biases of some people who are out of touch with reality or how trading works. We must be data-based, not emotion-based. Experts over amateurs.
The community can’t become a community of naive libertarians who think that some imaginary DEX will solve the problem with CEXes. Yes, I also look forward to Maya integration! But if someone proposes to get rid of CEXes, it’s just stupid. I can see it either as stupid or even as an attack on Zcash. DEXes can only be seen as complementary, at least for many upcoming years.
Rationality above everything.
1 Like
So safe American’s are not allowed to use it directly? 
Where is that data?
I agree, nothing about the Binance situation is or has been, rational. I may not be a VC, but I know things too.
I spend most of my time helping educate about Zcash, not attack it. I might be stupid, and for that, I apologize. When I learned about this technology, it was never about accumulation, it was about an alternative for spending. Hopefully we can agree on that front, privacy matters.
3 Likes
I might have come out as too aggressive, sorry for that. It was a personal rant, maybe, against some people that could have been seen in the community, nothing against you personally.
1 Like
I just transferred 250 Zec from Zashi to binance.
At first on binance it said the transaction was going through the confirmations, then it disappeared.
In my Zashi wallet the 250 Zec says sent but binance no history of the transaction is there anymore? No now I’ve lost 250 Zec at least it appears that way 
need an option to shield or unshield
So binance has rejected the deposit so not sure if that means because it came from Zashi and the transaction completed on Zashi side they don’t know where to return it to
First message was confusing so I’ll simplify it:
Had same problem solution:
Go on binance 24/7 chat.
Speak to advisor.
Explain to them you sent from Zashi and didn’t realise the address wasn’t transparent
They will tell you they won’t accept deposits from hidden address’
They will ask you to submit a case. Tell them the submit button doesn’t work
They will submit the case for you with evidence you supply in the chat
You provide them with your Zashi transparent address
That’s it.
They accepted my claim and it says it will be sent back 30+ days. Longtime but Im just glad I’m getting it back
Good luck
7 Likes
Can you elaborate on this?
I don’t think that what the ecosystem is doing in terms of this problem is irrational. On the contrary. It is very rational. The problem has been assessed, the alternatives have been evaluated. Maybe we could put a SWOT† analisys together if people need to see it clearer.
I’m almost sure that nobody actually likes having to implement TEX addresses. But given the arguments that have been expressed on this thread, a decision was made, a ZIP was drafted, that ZIP went through the ZIP process and implementations were made.
I know first hand that is a lot of effort and time put into this initiative that seems like a moving goal post. I don’t agree that it is an irrational decision. Many decisions we might not like. That doesn’t make them irrational. Maybe just unpopular.
† Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats
2 Likes
The why is the irrational part, not the how. My distaste for this situation is not a reflection of the dev work, nor the folks who rely on the liquidity.
My fear is we spin our wheels and we don’t move anywhere. We have an awesome community and they shouldn’t be takin’ for a ride.
I insist, maybe it’s me that I don’t understand what you mean. I apologize in advance.
I don’t understand what you consider irrational of the decision made given that arguments were laid out, evaluated, scenarios were considered, risks and threats evaluated and the a decision was made collectively (with the tools available at the time)
So if you may, please ELI5 to me what you consider irrational about the decision made. 
It’s not about the decsion made. With limited time, I ask why this “problem” is happening at all.
why now?
why is this not an issue for Coinbase, or Gemini or Kraken?
why is access to Binance shielded depending on where you live?
Do the above questions lead a world that seems rational to you?
First it was a warning, then it was a denial, now its “30 day holds”. Any guesses what comes next?
Privacy is normal, right?
Hope this helps.
MiCA in EU is coming this year… identification of the sender (for the purpose of sending them their assets back, is crucial).
2 Likes
Probably any answer that can be given by anyone that hasn’t made the decision in Binance is speculative. What we know is that they decided to do this “take it or leave it”.
I don’t know. I’m not a Gemini user but I believe it supports shielded withdrawals and regulators didn’t find that being a problem. Other CEXs do KYC-less exchanges with shielded addresses, like Sideshift. Binance communicated to Zcash Ecosystem leaders that they were required this source address of transaction requirement. What I can deduce from all of this, is that there is no uniform treatment among exchanges from regulators and that everyone is adjusting as they see possible.
I don’t understand what you mean by shielded in this case.
I guess this is out-of-scope of the topic and TEX addresses themselves.
This is not accurate. Binance warned Zcash and others about what they would do. Those who didn’t announce adjusting to their requirements would be delisted (they were), those who did express their will to comply with such requirements would be placed under an “interstitial” situation treated like if they were “doing something to implement those requirements”. That also happened. To be fair and “rational”, I don’t think that’s moving the goal post further than they initially did.
The “30 day holds”, is something “new” in terms of them enforcing the rule without implementing the solution they requested. It is a problem, but it is probably what it will happen for the case of someone deriving the t1 address contained in the TEX deposit address and sends the funds there.
The protocol has no capability of rejecting funds to be sent anywhere. Binance implementing this with no warning whatsoever is probably a bad product choice on their end. This could have happened because of many things. In my experience working in huge companies, I assume that Binance being a huge company as it is, it might have had the change developed, reviewed and approved, and it being so they deployed it in the backend without a holistic approach doing a frontend change as well.
I can’t think they had any “bad intentions” because actually, @aquietinvestor asked them to put up a warning and they did in a matter of two hours or so. Otherwise they would have refused to actually put up warning dialog on their ZEC deposit page and they didn’t, on the contrary they were totally on board with Jason’s ask.
If you scroll up A LOT, you would read me and others say that this is a potential “moving goal post” situation (as it is with any regulation). You never know what will come next. You only know what it is now and act accordingly to what you think it is best.
There was a whole day of ZconV dedicated to “legal stuff” those talks pretty much paint the sky of what might be coming or not, because no one has a crystal ball to see the future.
I think everyone has argued their points on that regard.
Yes, that’s why no privacy properties of the protocol are affected with neither of the two alternatives drafted initially for ZIP-320 and Zcash remains as private as it always was.
Moreover, Zcashers that do have the alternative to, can choose to move out of Binance to other exchanges. Unfortunately, that’s not everybody’s case. As @joshs said during ZconV, there are many things that Zcash needs to focus on to be able to have straight forward support for shielded Zcash on Exchanges.
This is a contingency. It does not compromise any of Zcash core values and mission.
3 Likes
Question for you, if Binance is so critical to users outside the US, why are they adding instead of removing friction? As a business you would think, reducing friction would benefit customers. I don’t buy the cost argument for a single second either, they have money, potentially more than the other exchanges I listed above.
At the end of the day, you are right: we have too many unknowns and I’m simply expressing my opinions. Hopefully Binance can step up and support privacy instead of making more unnecessary work for the devs.
1 Like
Binance can be critical to Zcash without Zcash being critical to Binance.
6 Likes
That is fair, I will shut the ole’ pie hole. It’s just frustrating.
1 Like