TA said: I hope Bitget will never let AI completely replace humans

Author: White Runner

The crypto industry has always believed in "technology supremacy."

From Bitcoin, blockchain, smart contracts, to decentralized networks, on-chain transactions, tokenized assets, and now AI Agents, each new narrative in the crypto industry has almost always stemmed from the efficiency gains brought by technology.

Almost all platforms share similar pursuits: faster matching, more accurate risk control, more assets, simpler on-chain access, immediate AI customer service responses, and AI-assisted trading decisions. For platforms, technology means scale, efficiency, and lower costs.

However, efficiency can sometimes bring about another feeling: coldness.

When systems relentlessly pursue speed, savings, and automation, users can easily be compressed into a set of data: a visit, a conversion, a transaction, a ticket. What platforms see is whether the process is completed and whether metrics improve, but what users feel might be: "Doesn't anyone care about me?"

Here are five stories from Bitget that are worth examining: some re-evaluate a previously correct rule, some clarify risks before letting clients decide whether to participate; some push for experience improvements for a few users, while others escalate communication when partners delay issue resolution, and accompany users through the entire asset recovery process when rules cannot be relaxed.

They provide an observation entry: in an increasingly technical and efficiency-driven crypto world, what truly allows users to remain?

Jaron: Should privacy coins be listed, and can rules be re-evaluated?

Jaron is from Bitget's blockchain security team. For a long time, the team's stance on privacy coins was clear: not to be listed for now.

Privacy coins involve anonymity, money laundering risks, and subsequent management requirements. Any mishandling of these aspects could place additional pressure on the platform. To control these risks, Jaron and the team established more cautious entry rules. The facts have proven that this set of rules has indeed helped the platform avoid many potential risks in the past.

But things changed.

A privacy coin suddenly became a market hotspot, user discussions increased, and more exchanges began to list it. Internally, questions arose: users want to trade, why don’t we?

Yet the rule of "not listing privacy coins for now" was established by Jaron and the team.

By continuing to adhere to it, the platform can maintain consistent review standards and continue to control risks; reopening evaluations would mean facing new pressures in risk control, compliance, and management. For Jaron, this was not simply about following market trends, but more about asking himself: can a once-correct rule still answer today's questions?

In the end, he did not directly overturn the original rule, nor did he compromise due to market heat.

Jaron pushed for the security, risk control, compliance, and research teams to re-evaluate the risks of privacy coins and establish a new review mechanism. Only after confirming that the platform had the corresponding management capabilities would eligible privacy coins enter the normal evaluation process.

The key point here is that when user demands and market environments change, does the platform have the courage to re-examine its judgments? Rules should not be easily broken due to trends, nor should they be forever unexamined simply because they once protected the platform.

Anna: When VIP clients want to invest, should we only talk about returns or clarify risks?

Anna is a VIP client relationship manager at Bitget. A VIP 4 client holding about $1 million in assets at Bitget was very interested in the newly launched USDGO, primarily attracted by the 12% APR.

From a business perspective, this is clearly an opportunity worth pursuing. The client has the funds, interest, and the product is in the promotional phase.

However, the client did not immediately subscribe.

He raised a series of questions: What if the smart contract is attacked? Is there any legal or regulatory protection? Why are there only over a hundred holders on-chain? Where do the returns come from? Is the 12% a platform subsidy? What happens after the promotion ends?

These questions are very specific and must be answered seriously.

For Anna, the real choice is not whether to push the client to invest, but whether to fully clarify the complex and potentially hesitating aspects of the product: emphasizing APR might lead to a quicker subscription; fully explaining the mechanisms and risks might make the client more cautious, or even temporarily hesitant.

In the end, Anna chose the latter.

She responded to each of the client's questions, shared publicly available information, explained the product mechanisms and potential risks, and encouraged the client to continue independent research.

Ultimately, after fully understanding, the client allocated about half of his assets to USDGO.

Thus, maintaining transparency and clarifying risks may not necessarily reduce a conversion; many times, it can lead to longer-term trust.

Vicky: Why do the needs of a minority also deserve systematic investment?

Vicky is from Bitget's user visual design team. Early last year, the team received feedback that the color schemes of certain interfaces were not friendly to users with weak color perception.

In trading products, color is not just decoration. Red and green indicators, rise and fall statuses, risk information, operational feedback—all rely on color for many judgments. If users cannot accurately distinguish, they may miss important information, even affecting their operations.

Initially, the team made single-point optimizations for specific pages and components. But Vicky quickly realized that relying on "fixing where feedback is received" would not truly solve the issue: this is not just a color problem, but a fundamental color experience issue.

To solve it systematically, the underlying color component library must be addressed, involving multiple business pages, design reviews, testing acceptance, and extensive development and coordination on the app side. With front-end resources tight and business demands queued, such projects are hard to prioritize.

But Vicky continued to push forward.

Her judgment was that users with weak color perception may not be the majority, but this affects whether a portion of users can equally access a good product experience.

By the second half of last year, the proportion of feedback related to color perception and color recognition issues rose to about 41%. This further indicated that single-point fixes were no longer sufficient.

Ultimately, the team recalibrated color contrast and visual identifiers based on WCAG 2.1 standards, and collaborated with front-end, product design, testing, and multiple business teams to complete the app upgrade. A color-blind mode was launched, theme colors were optimized, and users can customize color modes according to personal preferences.

Vicky's story illustrates that the needs of a minority should not be easily pushed to the back. "Minority users" are actually part of the "whole user" puzzle. Only by completing this piece can the user experience be truly whole.

Alex: When a client's funds are stuck, can the platform take an extra step?

Alex is from Bitget's overseas business support team. A long-term trading client completed a transaction but was unable to withdraw funds as expected, with the funds not arriving on time.

The client was very anxious: my money is stuck with you.

But the exact issue was not clear at first. Was it a system failure? A security issue? An account anomaly? Or an external process delay? Until the cause was fully clarified, the platform's options were quite limited.

The safest approach was to continue waiting according to existing processes. This would maintain adherence to rules and avoid introducing new risks when the situation was unclear.

But Alex knew that for the client, "please be patient" would not truly alleviate anxiety; the client might see it as just a mechanical response. Especially since this client was a long-term active trader, a delay in funds could challenge not just one transaction, but the platform's reputation.

Alex did not take a cold approach.

He first coordinated with finance, customer service, and technical teams to comprehensively verify the client's historical records, account behavior, fund paths, and the reasons for the funds not arriving.

After verification, the situation gradually became clear: the delay was due to local regulatory reviews and banking processes, not a loss of funds or a system failure. The client's past records and account behavior also met internal risk assessment requirements.

Once the facts were clear and risks were controllable, the team completed a multi-department evaluation and obtained internal special approval to provide the client with advance support while continuing to follow up on the subsequent review process.

Taking an extra step does not mean bypassing the rules. Truly valuable support means clarifying the facts when the situation is unclear and pushing issues forward when risks are controllable. For users, whether the platform has someone who genuinely understands their situation is more meaningful than a simple "please be patient."

Iago: When rules cannot change, what can people still do?

Iago Romero is also a VIP client relationship manager at Bitget. He encountered a very distressing asset recovery case.

A VIP client had withdrawn a significant amount of STX from Bitget to another platform. Later, due to issues with the memo information and the other platform's refund process, the funds were returned but had not yet arrived back in the client's Bitget account.

To recover the assets, the client had to complete strict ownership verification: recording a continuous verification video, logging into both platform accounts, showing transaction records and deposit addresses, providing the refund TXID, and completing identity verification.

These requirements are all necessary. Asset recovery involves security and responsibility; the platform cannot lower verification standards just because the client is anxious.

However, for the client, this process was very difficult to endure.

The materials involved a lot of personal privacy, and the steps were complex. The client faced multiple rejections due to missing details and technical issues. The longer the wait, the stronger the anxiety. Coupled with recent market fluctuations, his emotional stress increased.

According to duty boundaries, this case had already entered customer service and risk control processes. Iago could have just followed up on the progress or told the client to continue submitting materials as required.

But he began to explain the reasons for each verification requirement, helped the client find safer recording methods, continuously followed up on internal processing progress, and proactively updated the client at every key point.

He did not ask the team to relax the rules, nor did he promise the client that the issue could be resolved immediately.

What he did was: when the rules could not change, he made the client feel that they were not alone in facing this process.

Ultimately, the client successfully recovered the assets. Afterward, the client sent a message:

Thank you for your empathy and human communication. It helped me maintain hope. I hope the platform never lets AI Agents completely replace humans ("Thank you for your humanity and human contact. It helped me keep hope. Hope that platforms never replace humans by AI agents").

This statement is almost the ultimate proposition of this text.

AI can make systems faster, and processes can become increasingly automated. But when users are anxious, helpless, and repeatedly have their materials rejected, what they need is not a standard reply.

When rules do not change, warmth can still exist. What users remember most is when, in the most difficult times, someone is willing to explain, accompany, and walk with them to solve the problem.

Epilogue: AI enhances efficiency, but trust still forms between real people

Marc Andreessen wrote in the "Technology Optimism Manifesto":

"Our enemy is stagnation."

Indeed, in a world dominated by technology, we are always afraid of stagnation. Faster systems, more efficient AI, and more convenient operations are crucial parts of competition among all platforms. But these five real events from Bitget illustrate that while "technology supremacy" can determine how fast a platform runs, "user supremacy" ultimately decides whether users are willing to stay.

The foundation of a platform is not only technology but also users. And for users, no matter how fast AI customer service's automated replies are, they cannot compare to human companionship and understanding; between rules, risks, and responsibilities, only humans can empathize with human needs, and only humans can truly earn human trust.

Trust comes from transparently disclosing risks, from re-evaluating rules, from completing experiences for minority users, from taking an extra step when situations are complex, from daring to escalate when partners are negligent, and from having someone accompany users to the end when rules cannot change.

Therefore, even exchanges that fully embrace technology and AI will still retain the position of "human."

Technology supremacy determines efficiency; user supremacy determines relationships. The exchanges that can truly transcend cycles are not just those that make systems faster, but those that always remember: behind every transaction, every ticket, and every wait, there is a real user expecting a response.