August 23 became a turning point for the cryptocurrency industry: Binance completed a three-stage campaign to restrict settlements with a number of crypto services, finally cutting off channels for HTX, EXMO, and nine other platforms. Earlier, in August, the exchange had already suspended operations with Shelbit, Aban Tether Exchange, and then with A7 Nigeria, A7 Africa, and PilotFinance. The final list turned out to be impressive — 16 services linked, in my assessment, to attempts to circumvent Western restrictions.
In an official notice, Binance warned all users, regardless of jurisdiction, of a ban on transfers, receiving assets, and any operations with the listed platforms — both directly and through intermediaries. The exchange emphasizes: funds sent after the cutoff may be frozen for review, and the transactions themselves will be considered a violation of the terms of use. This is a tough signal that cannot be ignored.
What lies behind the decision: pressure from three regulators
Formally, Binance cites "recent regulatory changes" and the need to comply with the requirements of the countries where it operates, without mentioning Russia directly. However, my analysis shows: most of those on the list were included in the 21st EU sanctions package of July 23, where Brussels accused them of facilitating the circumvention of restrictions against Moscow. Additionally, the U.S. Department of the Treasury added two Iranian platforms, and HTX had previously been separately flagged by the UK. The phased nature of the bans — from August 7 to 23 — indicates coordinated and escalating pressure on settlement infrastructure.
Key point: Binance, operating under the European MiCA license, is forced to comply with EU requirements. This explains why it, rather than competitors, came under fire. But, as I have said before, the same fate awaits other major platforms — regulatory pressure is only intensifying.
Market reaction and lessons for users
A debate has flared up in the community: why Binance, and not other exchanges? The answer is obvious — business follows the rules of the country where it wants to operate. But the main lesson I see is the risk of holding funds on centralized platforms. Binance long allowed transfers with these services and then abruptly shut them down. Users who failed to withdraw assets in time may face freezes and loss of liquidity.
Experts agree: sanctions will make cryptocurrency that has passed through sanctioned services "tainted," threatening isolation and the growth of the gray segment. However, completely abandoning exchanges will not work — they are the channel for fiat conversion and P2P transactions. A reasonable compromise is to store bitcoins in non-custodial wallets and only deposit funds to the platform for a specific operation. This minimizes risks, especially when news of bans arrives with a delay.
My conclusion: Binance is demonstrating that compliance has become the top priority, even at the cost of losing part of its audience. Coinbase, Kraken, and Gemini with their Western infrastructure will come out ahead, while Binance and KuCoin are losing ground. For users, this is a signal: asset diversification and self-custody are not paranoia but a necessity in an era of tightening rules.