Upbit Restricts Withdrawals from Suspected Ponzi Firms

Upbit limits withdrawals from companies suspected of Ponzi schemes to protect users amidst ongoing regulatory scrutiny in South Korea.

On March 20, 2025, Upbit, operated by Dunamu, announced it will restrict withdrawals to companies suspected of being involved in Ponzi schemes. This decision aims to protect users and aligns with increasing regulatory scrutiny in the country, with immediate market reactions showing minimal impact on major cryptocurrencies.

Upbit Targets Six Firms Over Ponzi Scheme Concerns

On March 20, 2025, Dunamu, the operator of Upbit, announced restrictions on virtual asset withdrawals to six suspected Ponzi scheme operators. These measures are to protect users from potential scams.

Upbit’s proactive decision to restrict withdrawals reflects its commitment to user safety and financial integrity. Although the involved companies are undisclosed, this move demonstrates stringent action against fraudulent activities. As Lee Sirgoo, CEO of Dunamu, stated:

“Protecting our users is our top priority. We’re taking decisive action against suspected fraudulent activities to maintain trust in the crypto ecosystem.”

Bitcoin Steady as Upbit Tightens Withdrawal Policies

The latest price data indicates that Bitcoin is currently trading at $78,234, experiencing a fluctuation between $78,000 support and testing the resistance level. Analysts note alignment with neutral market conditions.

Lee Sirgoo, CEO of Dunamu, stressed the focus on maintaining trust within the crypto ecosystem, reflecting a larger trend towards increased regulatory compliance. This decision follows previous regulatory challenges faced by Upbit.

Strengthening Security: Upbit’s Historical Measures

In 2024, similar challenges arose with fraudulent deposits, as reported by Binance. Upbit’s current actions follow a history of improving security measures to combat fraudulent activities effectively.

Experts indicate that the move aligns with strengthening global compliance frameworks. Drawing parallels to historical precedence, this decision reaffirms the tightening regulatory climate in South Korea.