Hello,

I recently transferred 18112 DOT to my Binance deposit address. However, the transfer was made via the Bifrost network, not directly on the Polkadot Hub.

Since Bifrost and Polkadot share the same address format, the funds were sent to the correct address, but Binance does not currently support deposits from the Bifrost chain. As a result, my account has not been credited.

Below are the details of the transaction:

My address: 13prG6Z5hky9T5MMBo2sms7cjn1gWizgdwRpAHzs9kp4AxML
Binance deposit address: 15qjgQ3gukpFmMkMng7DqeNwo1QHiy86uzx9GWpiStk72Vbb
Transaction hash: 0x574403a52b0abe291d677bfb2b6703580198c210782947efe52d6964d5faca72
Block explorer link: https://bifrost.subscan.io/extrinsic/11685220-3

You can verify that the funds have arrived at the address on-chain, but they have not been credited to my Binance account.

I would greatly appreciate your assistance in recovering these funds 

There are  two very similar cases. One vote was passed a day ago. I hope you won't be confused and reject my case. Thank you very much.

![image.png](https://subsquare.infura-ipfs.io/ipfs/QmQsLb33gHAByopMUZH1MtPsPuNkwuHDPBZ14f4Yio91oo)

This has been identified on-chain as a Binance user deposit address, and Binance has also declined to support the Bifrost network at this time.

Shit happens. I've AYEd the ref.

Just a reminder for DOT transfer to CEX.
You can only send DOT to CEX addresses from AssetHub.
https://support.polkadot.network/support/solutions/articles/65000190138-safe-transfers-from-polkadot-to-exchanges

I vote NAY for this proposal. In my previous vote on a similar case, I supported governance intervention because it appeared to be an isolated user error involving a cross-network deposit to a centralized exchange.

However, this second case occurring shortly after the first indicates a repeating pattern of similar incidents rather than a one-off situation. This suggests a broader structural issue related to user experience and exchange network support, rather than an exceptional case that requires governance intervention.

While the funds are still on-chain and not technically lost, repeated use of governance for such recoveries risks setting an unsustainable precedent where the protocol becomes a fallback for operational or integration failures outside its control.

For these reasons, I vote NAY and believe this type of issue should be addressed at the infrastructure and exchange integration level rather than through governance.

Read user's original post here: https://bifrost.subsquare.io/posts/187



source

dest

currencyId

amount

Executed

Submitted

DecisionStarted

DecisionDepositPlaced

ConfirmStarted

Confirmed

root

Recovery User's Mistakenly Transfer to CEX

candidates

members

proficients

fellows

senior_fellows

experts

senior_experts

masters

senior_masters

grand_masters

whitelisted_caller

fellowship_admin

referendum_canceller

referendum_killer

liquid_staking

system_staking_admin

salp_admin

treasury_spend

delegated_voting_admin

Origin able to dispatch a whitelisted call.

Origin for managing the composition of the fellowship.

Origin for managing validator node of SLP protocol.