This does not sound right. Small claims courts cap the maximum amount, not minimum, and amount does not define eligibility.
From quick googling – ASIC seems to be securities regulator in Australia. They dont’t deal with consumers, reporting to them is a good thing, but won’t resolve your case.
The correct body is AFCA. Coinbase Australia is a member. Filing is free. There is no minimum dispute amount.
In case AFCA denies jurisdiction or you don’t like the outcome – state-specific civil/consumer tribunals are next steps (NCAT/VCAT/QCAT). There is also no minimum amount, but filing fees apply.
For clarity: I’m in the US and I also use Coinbase. Not because they’re “the best,” but because I don’t care about micromanaging key custody. I delegate it and rely on legal recourse. If they screw up, it will be their problem to fix. They havent’ so far. Outside of abhorrent UX it works fine.
AFCA and VCAT, QCAT etc are toothless. Either state based or non government agency.
With VCAT, when you win, and receive compensation, the other party is under no obligation to pay. In order to enforce, you must take VCAT order to Magistrates Court, and apply for an enforcement order - how it was last time I needed them.
Yes, no min value, but application fee far exceeds the loss, and I’ve got to spend at least one day at court, or day in mediation.
ASIC where happy to talk to me, took details of complaint, asked for evidence. Powerful federal government agency
not in all countries. Some may just block your funds for attempt to withdraw in the ATM. Very “convenient”, when you are in a different country.. Yes, I know, security measures, etc.
So, not in all cases. You need to have several. And why not also a hardware wallet with part of your funds? This helped me in the exact that case (and many other, like transfer money to a friend to congratulate with her birthday, etc.), so my trust in banks is lost forever. Especially when some started to treat me based on my nationality. Doesn’t matter that the source is legal and documented and cryptographically confirmed. Yes, I unblocked by providing documents, but all that time I was without my money.
Not in all countries. Only in few.
Unfortunately this is another one reason to do not use an exchange deposit address as a wallet for regular payouts…
This is quite a reckless advice to give ignoring what was discussed above with respect to custody, let alone in the thread about wallet compromise without recourse….
You have recourse with exchange. You have none with self-managed custody.
Even OP ran out of arguments and switched to pure high impact ad-hominem artillery.
Again, not in all countries you can count on that. And not for all nationalities, as turned out (again, my own experience). Sometimes it costs more time and money, than handle a hardware wallet.
So, it’s not an universal advise too. The universal would be - don’t keep all eggs in the one basket. Especially if the basket is not yours.
Enforcement and leverage dont’ need to be combined in the same entity.
AFCA determinations are binding on members. Large companies comply because non-compliance escalates to licensing and regulatory consequences. That’s the leverage right here.
VCAT/QCAT are not toothless either. They produce enforceable orders. Enforcement is a second separate step; this is not unique to Australia, it’s the same almost everywhere, including the US. They are not useless just because enforcement is a separate step.
Fees exceeding loss – is valid, but this is after you fail the free avenue with AFCA. And then I would go all in regardless of cost, on principle. It’s up to you, though.
It you look at distribution here – and you have access to very rich discourse stats – most people here are from US, Germany, UK, the rest of EU, AUS, and a couple of people in the rest of the world, in that order.
These jurisdictions have functioning legal systems. In that context, taking on uncompensated personal custody risk is reckless, regardless of amount. The existence of countries without effective legal recourse does not invalidate the principle. It only changes the operational constraints for those users.
It’s reasonable to say there are risks in both models. What’s not reasonable is repeatedly and categorically recommending against delegated custody (“not your keys, not your money”) as a universal rule — especially when it’s unclear whether that’s a Storj position or a personal one.
Most people cannot manage email passwords reliably. Crypto custody requires substantially more discipline. This thread is a concrete example of an operational failure that would not have occurred with exchange custody.
The default advice should be: use an exchange unless you have a clear reason not to and fully understand the implications (which most people, including OP, stil don’t, inspite of thinking othewrise) . If you choose self-managed custody, do it knowingly and accept the risk.
Who said Coinbase is the best?
They’re changing policies and fees based on how the wind blows or how the stars align etc. I used them once, never again.
There are no “the best” exchanges; everyone has some positives and some negatives.
I can’t speak for US, but in EU, Kraken has the most positives.
