Cryptocurrency Exchanges Refuse to Put All Russian Accounts on Hold

<p>Binance, the world's largest exchange, stated that banning users "unilaterally" "flies in the face of the reason for cryptocurrency's existence." </p> <p>Faced with a request by Ukraine's leadership to freeze the accounts of all residents of Russia and Belarus, major cryptocurrency exchanges have resolutely refused, claiming that the measure would unfairly affect citizens and would "fly in the face" of the crypto community's libertarian worldview. </p> <p>Over the weekend, Ukraine's Vice Prime Minister Mykhailo Fedorov publicly asked the world's major cryptocurrency exchanges to freeze all accounts belonging to the Russian people, as well as the people of Belarus, a Putin ally, rather than just those belonging to legally sanctioned entities, thereby increasing domestic pressure on Russia to end its invasion. </p> <p>Rather than joining the military defence, the United States and European Union have attempted to cripple Russia's economy by aggressively penalising Russian banks, sovereign debt, and leadership, precipitating a collapse in the value of the Russian currency. Simultaneously, bitcoin has become a battleground, with millions of dollars in cryptocurrency given to Ukraine and watchers wondering whether Russia may turn to the blockchain to evade sanctions. </p> <p>Binance, the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange, is cooperating with the penalties, but a company representative stated that the company would not heed Fedorov's request and would instead "unilaterally suspend the accounts of millions of innocent customers," CNBC reported. </p> <p>"Crypto is intended to increase people's financial freedom worldwide. To unilaterally decide to deny people access to their crypto would be contrary to the reason for the existence of crypto," the representative told the newspaper. </p> <p>Similarly, Johnny Lyu, CEO of the cryptocurrency exchange KuCoin, told CNBC that the company viewed itself as a "neutral platform" that would not do anything beyond what was legally needed, adding that the company did not