Earlier this month, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe instructed banks to stop holding accounts for cryptocurrency exchanges and to stop facilitating transfer of cryptos. The central bank gave the banks 60 days to halt activities but it seems the grip has been tightened as it now seems some of Golix’s bank accounts have already been frozen yet only nine days have passed since the directive was passed.
We realised something wasn’t right when 3 days ago we received this email:
Not sure if the RBZ directive on cryptocurrency is the cause of this but it seems Golix not processing withdrawals. Its the 3rd day now I am trying to withdraw my $1500 from the exchange and i am being told different excuses. Yesterday was told all withdrawals would be processed last night and it never happened. Normally its been taking just 1 hour to withdraw.Opencast RefrigerationUS $3.00 HarareHuawei y6 Prime 2018US $74.99 Harareitel vision 1US $142.00 GokweBluetooth earbudsUS $7.00 Marondera
The challenges this man faced are probably a result of the fact that by the time he attempted to make a withdrawal yet the accounts had already been frozen. People in our Whatsapp community groups have also been facing challenges with withdrawals and now we know what the problem is.
A source close to the situation has informed us that some of (not all) Golix’s have been frozen. Since some of their accounts are still active it probably means the particular bank that has closed the Golix account has decided to take an aggressive stance and not give Golix any time to move their money or facilitate withdrawal until the 60-day timeline has come to pass. The source did not share which bank had frozen the Golix account.
What happened to the 60 days?
It’s interesting that the sixty-day timeline seems to have been thrown out of the window and banks have been given free rein to proceed as they please. It does seem quite harsh to close the accounts a mere week after the directive has been given.
How does the RBZ or the bank that decided to freeze the account expect citizens to secure their funds? Wasn’t the whole point of this directive to ‘safeguard’ the public? I’m not sure if ensuring that people cannot access their funds falls in line with the safeguarding or maybe those who were dealing in cryptos have just been left in the cold…