Bybit is facing a widening cluster of customer complaints over lengthy account restrictions, with one user now saying their account has remained under compliance review for more than 100 days and another reporting that a canceled 52 USDT withdrawal was followed by more than 70 days of restricted access.
The allegations remain unverified customer reports, and there is no evidence that all of the cases share the same underlying compliance trigger. However, the latest complaints extend a pattern previously seen in another Bybit compliance case involving 7,032 USDT, where a user said assets remained inaccessible for weeks after a withdrawal triggered a review.
In the newest case, a customer says their Bybit account has been restricted since June 6, putting the review beyond 100 days as of mid-September. The reviewer says they completed requested compliance steps and submitted documents, while a Compliance Ticket opened on July 13 remains unresolved.
The customer says Bybit has not explained what remains under review or provided a completion date.
Publicly available information does not establish that this case was triggered by a small withdrawal, meaning it should be separated from the growing cluster involving transactions worth only a few dollars or tens of dollars.
A second current reviewer says their account was restricted on July 5 following a canceled withdrawal of 52 USDT. More than 70 days later, the customer says the compliance ticket still shows no substantive update.
The reviewer says live support repeatedly told them no additional documents or information were required. They also say an initial expectation of contact within 48 hours passed without resolution, followed by a five-to-seven-working-day support estimate that also expired.
Bybit has not publicly disclosed the reason for either restriction.
A third recent customer says approximately $4,000 became inaccessible after an attempted transfer of roughly $30 to an external wallet. According to that reviewer, Bybit identified the destination as high risk before placing the account under compliance review.
Bybit responded publicly to that complaint, telling the customer not to send documents or a transfer video unless formally requested and saying the matter was being taken directly to the compliance team.
Another current customer says approximately $12,000 became restricted after a rejected 30 USDT TRC20 withdrawal. The reviewer says the transaction was never broadcast to the blockchain and therefore produced no transaction ID, but the destination was classified as high risk and the wider account subsequently became restricted.
A separate 30 USDT case has received a public response from Bybit saying the matter was being escalated to a senior compliance officer.
Tiny Transfers Have Appeared Repeatedly in Recent Cases
The latest complaints add to a series of cases already involving unusually small attempted transfers.
Several previously surfaced users said their accounts were restricted after small Heleket payments, including reported transactions of 4.45 USDT and 8.99 USDT. Other complaints have involved attempted transfers of approximately $5.87, $10 and $21.
The cases should not be treated as a single verified incident.
Public complaints generally do not disclose the complete destination addresses, making it impossible to establish from the available material whether the same wallets are appearing repeatedly.
There are also differences between them.
Some customers explicitly identify payment addresses generated through Heleket. One $21 TRC20 case reportedly involved an address associated with an HTX account, with the customer claiming the same destination had previously received a successful $20 withdrawal from Bybit in July before a later transfer was flagged.
A separate 52 USDT complaint from September displayed an internal classification described by the reviewer as “FiatComplianceHighRisk,” despite the transaction being a crypto withdrawal. That case should not be confused with the July 5 withdrawal now associated with the 70+ day restriction; the current July complaint does not publicly establish the same risk label or destination type.
Bybit does not publicly identify which blockchain-intelligence provider or risk methodology produced the classifications in these individual cases.
The exchange’s own Enhanced Due Diligence documentation does confirm that it may examine customers’ wallet addresses and crypto transaction histories and use blockchain analytics to assess whether funds are consistent with a customer’s declared source of funds and source of wealth.
Bybit says withdrawals, P2P activity and fiat services may be temporarily limited while an EDD review is underway.
Its EDD submission guide says reviews may take up to five business days. By comparison, ordinary on-chain withdrawals may take around 15 minutes, while certain security changes such as resetting a password or authenticator trigger a defined 24-hour withdrawal restriction.
What Bybit’s publicly available documentation does not appear to specify is a maximum period for the broader compliance restrictions described in the recent customer complaints.
That distinction is becoming more important as Bybit expands its regulated operations. The group has been building separately licensed businesses including Bybit EU, while different legal entities and jurisdictions can impose different customer due-diligence requirements.
The Issue Is Shifting From Why Accounts Are Flagged to How Long Reviews Can Last
The size of a triggering transaction is not, by itself, evidence that a compliance review is unreasonable.
A $5 transfer can interact with an address carrying a serious risk history just as easily as a $50,000 transfer can. Blockchain monitoring is supposed to assess counterparties and transaction paths, not simply the dollar amount involved.
That is why focusing only on the tiny withdrawals misses the more significant issue.
The unusual part is what can happen afterward.
Several customers allege that the withdrawal itself was rejected or canceled before any crypto left Bybit, yet restrictions subsequently remained across much larger balances for weeks or months.
Once that happens, the original $10, $30 or $52 transaction becomes almost irrelevant. The real question becomes how the exchange moves from an automated risk signal to a human decision.
Bybit clearly needs the ability to stop suspicious transactions. Exchanges operate under AML, sanctions and counter-terrorist-financing requirements, and allowing users to bypass controls simply because a payment is small would create an obvious weakness.
Other exchanges have similarly tightened crypto-transfer restrictions and verification when automated systems identify activity requiring additional review.
But an effective risk system also needs an exit path.
If an attempted withdrawal is canceled, the assets remain on the exchange, the customer completes KYC and source-of-funds checks, and no additional documents are being requested, a review that continues for 70 or 100 days raises a different operational question from the initial AML alert.
At that stage, customers are no longer asking why the transaction was stopped. They are asking what still needs to happen before a decision can be made.
That is where the absence of an apparent published upper limit matters.
Bybit provides clear timelines for several narrower processes: approximately 15 minutes for ordinary withdrawals, 24 hours for certain security restrictions and up to five business days for an EDD submission review. The complaints suggest there is another category — account-level compliance investigation — where customers can receive no firm completion date.
There may be legitimate reasons for that. A case could require external blockchain analysis, sanctions screening, counterparty tracing, regulatory consultation or information from another exchange. Publishing a hard deadline could be unrealistic when an investigation depends on third parties.
But there is a substantial difference between refusing to guarantee a deadline and providing no visible boundary at all.
The repeated small-transfer cases also raise a technical question worth watching: whether particular payment processors, exchange deposit addresses or risk classifications are appearing across otherwise unrelated restrictions.
At present, the public evidence is not strong enough to make that connection. Raw destination addresses are missing from many complaints, the reported labels differ and some cases provide no counterparty information at all.
That is the next piece needed to turn a complaint cluster into a more definitive infrastructure story.
If the same addresses or service-provider clusters repeatedly trigger restrictions, the problem may sit primarily in counterparty-risk scoring. If entirely unrelated addresses generate the same outcome, attention shifts more strongly toward Bybit’s internal review workflow and how quickly automated alerts receive manual resolution.
For now, the clearest pattern is simpler: Bybit’s systems appear capable of stopping a small transaction almost immediately, while several customers allege that determining what happens to the wider account can take vastly longer.
The 100-day case pushes that issue beyond routine support delays. The question is increasingly not whether Bybit should conduct compliance reviews, but whether customers have a predictable route out of them once the review begins.
Shane Neagle is a financial markets analyst and digital assets journalist specializing in cryptocurrencies, memecoins, prediction markets, and blockchain-based financial systems. His work focuses on market structure, incentive design, liquidity dynamics, and how speculative behavior emerges across decentralized platforms.
He closely covers emerging crypto narratives, including memecoin ecosystems, on-chain activity, and the role of prediction markets in pricing political, economic, and technological outcomes. His analysis examines how capital flows, trader psychology, and platform design interact to create rapid market cycles across Web3 environments.
Alongside digital assets, Shane follows broader fintech and online trading developments, particularly where traditional financial infrastructure intersects with blockchain technology. His research-driven approach emphasizes understanding why markets behave the way they do, rather than short-term price movements, helping readers navigate fast-evolving crypto and speculative markets with clearer context.