CHZUSDT
Chiliz / Tether USD
crypto Composite

Funds confirmed on-chain but inaccessible — custodial refusal from exchange (technical case)
I’m dealing with a case that is clearly NOT a lost funds scenario, but exchanges are treating it as such.

Here are the facts:

\- Asset: CHZ
\- Network used: Chiliz Chain (CAP20)
\- Destination: Pionex deposit address
\- TXID: 0x4b12...b7a

The transaction is confirmed and visible on Chiliscan.

So the funds:
✔ Exist
✔ Are confirmed
✔ Were delivered to the correct address

The issue:
Pionex does not support CAP20 deposits in their interface and refuses to recover the funds.

However, from a technical standpoint:

\- Chiliz Chain is EVM-compatible
\- The receiving address is controlled by Pionex
\- The private key exists and can access funds across EVM chains

This is NOT a blockchain limitation.

This is:
→ A custodial access issue
→ A manual recovery case

Binance also contributed to this by:

\- Showing CAP20 (same name as CHZ)
\- Offering a 10x cheaper fee vs ERC20
\- Providing no interoperability warning

So naturally, the user chooses CAP20.

Question to the community:

Is there any valid technical reason for an exchange to refuse recovery in this scenario?

Or is this purely operational policy?

Because from everything I understand:
Recovery is possible.
They just don’t want to do it.

Funds confirmed on-chain but inaccessible — custodial refusal from exchange (technical case)
I’m dealing with a case that is clearly NOT a lost funds scenario, but exchanges are treating it as such.

Here are the facts:

\- Asset: CHZ
\- Network used: Chiliz Chain (CAP20)
\- Destination: Pionex deposit address
\- TXID: 0x4b12...b7a

The transaction is confirmed and visible on Chiliscan.

So the funds:
✔ Exist
✔ Are confirmed
✔ Were delivered to the correct address

The issue:
Pionex does not support CAP20 deposits in their interface and refuses to recover the funds.

However, from a technical standpoint:

\- Chiliz Chain is EVM-compatible
\- The receiving address is controlled by Pionex
\- The private key exists and can access funds across EVM chains

This is NOT a blockchain limitation.

This is:
→ A custodial access issue
→ A manual recovery case

Binance also contributed to this by:

\- Showing CAP20 (same name as CHZ)
\- Offering a 10x cheaper fee vs ERC20
\- Providing no interoperability warning

So naturally, the user chooses CAP20.

Question to the community:

Is there any valid technical reason for an exchange to refuse recovery in this scenario?

Or is this purely operational policy?

Because from everything I understand:
Recovery is possible.
They just don’t want to do it.