OKX review: Unreasonably restricted sub-account function without notice or valid explanation (ticket #33210456)
I am filing this complaint against OKX/Ouyi for unreasonably restricting my sub-account function without any prior notice or valid explanation.
Recently, I discovered that my ability to create new sub-accounts was restricted. I am a compliant user and have not engaged in any suspicious activity or violated OKX's terms of service.
I submitted a ticket to ask for the reason, and the customer service manager ("时光" / Time) responded with a highly dismissive message. They completely avoided explaining why the restriction was placed. Instead, they simply stated that the restriction "does not affect the main account" and demanded that I stop submitting new inquiries to "avoid affecting normal service order."
This behavior is unacceptable. OKX has failed to provide any terms-of-service basis, risk-control evidence, or timeline for this restriction. Arbitrarily disabling account functions without justification is a severe breach of trust and a violation of user rights. It feels like the platform is suppressing my right to inquire.
Recommendation: am extremely disappointed with OKX/Ouyi. They have unreasonably restricted my ability to create sub-accounts without any warning, justification, or rule basis.
I am filing this complaint against OKX (Ouyi) regarding the lack of transparency in its forced-liquidation process and its refusal to provide the complete calculation data for my liquidation.
On 30 March 2026, my account triggered OKX’s forced-liquidation mechanism. When I reviewed the bill/statement afterwards, it showed only a single final “full liquidation” result. No separate records were displayed for the alleged tier-by-tier forced reductions during the liquidation process.
This conflicts with OKX’s publicly available help-center materials. The relevant FAQ page — https://www.ouyi.support/zh-hans/help/forced-liquidation-faq — states, in substance, that intermediate forced reductions should be recorded in the bill/order records, and that users can check the corresponding forced-reduction records. However, my statement contains no such process-level records.
I contacted OKX customer service through a support ticket. The agent, identified as “OKX Customer Service Manager Yiyu,” replied that:
If the account risk recovers to a safe range after a reduction, the reduction process stops and a corresponding record is generated;
If the account risk does not recover to a safe range, the system will continue reducing positions within the same risk-disposal process and will not create separate independent records for each tier reduction; the final bill will only show the result at the end of the process — either the final partial-reduction result or the full-liquidation result.
OKX therefore claims that because my account never recovered to a “safe” range, the liquidation process was not interrupted, the final result was full liquidation, and the bill therefore shows only the final full-liquidation record. OKX says this does not mean the system skipped the prior tier-by-tier reductions.
I do not dispute that a final full-liquidation result may be the aggregate of multiple internal reduction steps. My complaint is different: OKX’s public rules do not state that the creation of intermediate forced-reduction records is conditional on the account recovering to a “safe” range. The customer service explanation introduces a condition that is not clearly stated in the public documentation. As a result, users cannot verify from the statement whether each tier was actually liquidated at the correct mark price, whether the correct maintenance margin was charged for each tier, and whether OKX in fact followed its published tiered forced-liquidation rules.
Because OKX refuses to provide the complete tier-by-tier liquidation calculation and underlying data, the disclosed information is insufficient for any meaningful verification. This is not a generic complaint about liquidation losses. It is a complaint about information disclosure and inconsistency between OKX’s published rules and its actual record-keeping/explanation.
Requested Resolution:
Provide the complete tier-by-tier forced-liquidation calculation for the 30 March 2026 incident, including for each reduction round: the trigger mark price, reduced position size, corresponding maintenance-margin tier, and maintenance margin charged.
Provide a written explanation of the apparent inconsistency between OKX’s public FAQ (which indicates intermediate forced reductions are recorded in the bill) and the customer service statement that no separate records are created if the account does not recover to a safe range.
Re-review whether the liquidation complied with OKX’s published tiered maintenance-margin and forced-reduction rules. If any calculation or execution deviation is found, compensate the corresponding loss.
Escalate this matter to OKX’s compliance/risk team and provide a substantive response, not another generic explanation.
Evidence Attached:
Screenshot of the OKX customer-service ticket conversation;
Screenshot of the relevant OKX help-center/FAQ page;
Screenshot of my liquidation bill showing only the final full-liquidation record;
Any order-history entries with “forced reduction” / “partial reduction” tags, if available.
0 comments