Recently, a case has been circulating within the community, prompting many to re-examine the issue of fund security.

Here’s what happened: someone transferred money from a popular online platform to a balance-based financial product, then used those funds to purchase stablecoins via a C2C channel. As a result, their account was directly frozen. Thinking about this carefully, the logic behind it is worth considering.

Two possibilities come to mind. The first is that the platform’s risk control system may have established some kind of fund flow tracking mechanism. If the system detects a particular transaction pattern—such as frequent small transfers quickly moving to third-party accounts—it may trigger an abnormality flag. This means that the monitoring granularity for fund flows from traditional financial channels to crypto assets is finer than expected.

The second scenario is more straightforward: the C2C trading counterparty might have issues. If the seller’s account is linked to suspicious sources of funds, the buyer could be associated with risk control measures even if their transactions are legitimate. This kind of “guilt by association” mechanism is not uncommon in anti-money laundering systems; once illicit funds are flagged, upstream and downstream accounts can all be affected.

The current dilemma is that it’s very difficult for ordinary users to determine where the problem occurred. Was the use of funds accurately identified, or did they simply run into a problematic account? If it’s the former, any transfer involving crypto assets will need more cautious planning in the future; if it’s the latter, then carefully selecting C2C trading counterparties becomes a top priority.

To be honest, this kind of uncertainty is the most frustrating part. If anyone has had similar experiences, feel free to share—maybe we can figure out some strategies to avoid these pitfalls.