They said: I hope Bitget never lets AI completely replace humans.
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
They said: I hope Bitget never lets AI completely replace humans.
AI improves efficiency, but trust is still built between specific individuals.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: White Runner
The crypto industry has always believed in "technology first."
From Bitcoin, blockchain, and smart contracts to decentralized networks, on-chain transactions, and tokenized assets, and now to today's AI Agents, almost every new narrative in the crypto industry comes from efficiency gains brought by technology.
Almost all platforms share similar pursuits: faster matching, more accurate risk control, more assets, simpler on-chain entry, immediate AI customer service response, and trading decisions increasingly assisted by AI. For platforms, technology means scale, efficiency, and lower costs.
But efficiency can sometimes bring another feeling: coldness.
When systems blindly pursue faster, cheaper, and more automated processes, 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 complete and whether metrics have improved, but what users feel might be: "Does it seem like no one cares about me?"
Here are five stories from Bitget worth looking at: someone re-examining a rule that was once correct, someone clarifying risks first before letting the customer decide whether to participate; someone driving experience improvements for a minority of users, and someone escalating communication when a partner fails to address issues promptly, accompanying the user through the entire asset recovery process when rules cannot be relaxed.
They provide an entry point for observation: In an increasingly technological and efficiency-driven crypto world, what truly makes users stay?
Jaron: Should Privacy Coins Be Listed, and Can Rules Be Re-examined?
Jaron is from the Bitget Blockchain Security Team. For a long time, the team's stance on privacy coins was clear: not listing them for now.
Privacy coins involve anonymity, money laundering risks, and subsequent management requirements; mishandling any link could bring extra pressure to the platform. To control these risks, Jaron and the team established more prudent access rules. Facts have proven that this set of rules did help the platform avoid many potential risks in the past.
But things changed.
A privacy coin suddenly became a market hotspot, user discussion volume kept rising, and more and more exchanges began listing it. Internally, people started asking: Users want to trade, why don't we have it?
But that rule of "not listing privacy coins for now" was established by Jaron and the team themselves.
Continuing to persist allows the platform to maintain consistent audit standards and continue controlling risks; reopening evaluation means facing new risk control, compliance, and management pressures. For Jaron, this isn't simply about complying with the market, but rather asking himself: Can a rule that was once correct continue to answer today's questions?
In the end, he did not directly overturn the original rule, nor did he choose to compromise due to market hype.
Jaron pushed the security, risk control, compliance, research, and other teams to re-evaluate privacy coin risks and establish a new audit mechanism. Only after confirming the platform had corresponding management capabilities did qualifying privacy coins enter the normal evaluation process.
The key point of this matter is, when user demands and market environments change, does the platform have the courage to re-examine its own judgments. Rules cannot be easily broken because of hotspots, nor should they never be re-examined because they once protected the platform.
Anna: When VIP Clients Want to Invest, Do We Only Talk Returns or Clarify Risks?
Anna is a VIP Client Relationship Manager at Bitget. A VIP 4 client holding about $1 million in assets on Bitget was very interested in the newly launched USDGO, most attracted by the 12% APR.
From a business perspective, this was obviously an opportunity worth pursuing. The client had funds and interest, and the product was in its promotion period.
But the client did not subscribe immediately.
He continuously raised a series of questions: What if the smart contract is attacked? Is there legal or regulatory protection? Why are there only over a hundred holders on-chain? Where do the returns come from? Is the 12% subsidized by the platform? What happens after the event ends?
These questions were very specific and all had to be answered seriously.
For Anna, the real choice was not whether to push the client on board, but whether to fully explain the complex parts of the product that might cause hesitation: emphasizing only the APR might lead the client to subscribe faster; fully explaining the mechanism and risks might make the client more cautious, or even wait and see temporarily.
Anna ultimately chose the latter.
She responded to the client's questions one by one, shared public materials and available information, explained the product mechanism and potential risks, and also encouraged the client to continue doing independent research.
After fully understanding, the client ultimately allocated about half of their assets to USDGO.
So, maintaining transparency and clarifying risks does not necessarily reduce a conversion; many times, it also earns longer-term trust.
Vicky: Why Are the Needs of a Few Also Worth Systematic Investment?
Vicky is from the Bitget User Visual Design Team. Early last year, the team gradually received feedback: the color scheme of some interfaces was not friendly to users with weaker color perception.
In trading products, color is not just decoration. Red-green alerts, rise/fall status, risk information, operation feedback, many judgments rely on color completion. If users cannot distinguish accurately, they might miss important information, or even affect operations.
At first, the team made single-point optimizations for specific pages and components. But Vicky soon realized that relying on "fixing where feedback is received" for such issues was hard to truly solve: this was not a problem of one color, but a problem of a set of underlying color experiences.
To solve it systematically, changes had to be made to the underlying color component library, involving multiple business pages, design reviews, test acceptance, and a large amount of development and joint debugging on the App side. Front-end resources were tight, business demands were queuing, and such projects were hard to be prioritized for support.
But Vicky continued to push.
Her judgment was: users with weaker color perception might not be the majority, but this concerns whether a part of users can equally obtain a good product experience.
By the second half of last year, among interface-related feedback, the proportion of color perception and color identification issues rose to about 41%. This further indicated that single-point patches were no longer enough.
Ultimately, the team recalibrated color contrast and visual identifiers based on WCAG 2.1 standards, and jointly completed the App upgrade with front-end, product design, testing, and multiple business teams. Color blindness mode went live, theme colors were optimized, and users could also customize color modes according to personal preferences.
Vicky's story reflects that the needs of a minority of users should not be easily relegated to the last priority.
"Minority users" are actually part of the "all users" puzzle. Only by completing this piece can the user experience be truly complete.
Alex: When Client Funds Are Stuck, Can the Platform Take an Extra Step?
Alex is from the Bitget Overseas Business Support Team. After a long-term trading client completed a transaction, funds should have been withdrawn normally, but the funds did not arrive as expected for a long time.
The client was very anxious: I can't get my money out from you.
But where exactly the problem lay was not clear at first. Was it a system failure? A fund security issue? An account abnormality? Or an external process delay? Before the cause was fully identified, the options available to the platform were actually very limited.
The safest way was to continue waiting according to existing processes. This maintains acting according to rules and avoids introducing new risks when the situation is unclear.
But Alex knew that for the client, "Please wait patiently" was hard to truly alleviate anxiety; the client would think this was just a mechanical response. Especially since this client was actively trading long-term, one fund delay might affect not just one transaction, but also be a challenge to the platform's reputation.
Alex did not handle it indifferently.
He first coordinated with finance, customer service, technology, and other teams to comprehensively verify the client's history, account behavior, fund path, and the reason for the funds not arriving.
After verification, the situation gradually became clear: this delay came from local regulatory audits and bank processes, not fund loss, nor system failure. The client's past records and account behavior also met internal risk judgment requirements.
After the facts were clear enough and risks were controllable, the team completed multi-department evaluation and obtained internal special approval, providing advance support to the client while continuing to follow up on subsequent audit processes.
Taking an extra step does not mean bypassing rules.
Truly valuable support is clarifying the facts first when the situation is unclear, and pushing the problem forward after risks are controllable. For users, whether someone on the platform seriously understands their situation is more meaningful than a phrase like "Please wait patiently."
Iago: When Rules Cannot Be Changed, What Can People Still Do?
Iago Romero is also a VIP Client Relationship Manager at Bitget. He encountered a very tormenting asset recovery case.
A VIP client once withdrew a significant amount of STX from Bitget to another platform. Later, due to issues with Memo information and the other platform's refund process, the funds were returned but did not return to the client's Bitget account for a long time.
To recover the assets, the client had to complete strict ownership verification: record continuous verification videos, log into both platform accounts, show transaction records and deposit addresses, provide the refund TXID, and complete identity verification.
These requirements were all necessary. Asset recovery involves security and responsibility; the platform cannot lower verification standards just because the client is anxious.
But for the client, this process was very hard to endure.
The materials involved a lot of personal privacy, and the steps were complex. Due to omitted details and technical issues, the client's submissions were rejected several times in a row. The longer the wait, the stronger the anxiety. Plus recent market volatility, his emotional pressure grew larger and larger.
According to responsibility boundaries, this case had already entered the customer service and risk control processes. Iago could just be responsible for following up on progress, or could tell the client to continue submitting materials as required.
But he began to explain the reasons for each verification requirement item by item, helped the client find safer recording methods, continuously followed up on internal processing progress, and proactively synchronized the latest situation at each key node.
He did not ask the team to relax rules, nor did he promise the client that it would definitely be solved immediately.
What he did was: when rules could not be changed, let the client know they were not facing this process alone.
Ultimately, the client successfully recovered the assets.
Afterwards, the client sent a message: Thank you for the empathy and humanized communication you showed. This helped me maintain hope. I hope platforms never let 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 sentence 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 materials returned, what they need is not a standard response.
Rules unchanged, warmth can still exist. What users remember most is definitely during the hardest times, when someone is willing to explain, accompany, and walk together to the end to solve the problem.
Epilogue: AI Improves Efficiency, But Trust Still Forms Between Specific People
Marc Andreessen wrote in "The Techno-Optimist Manifesto": "Our enemy is stagnation."
Yes, in a technology-first world, we are always afraid of stagnation. Faster systems, more efficient AI, more convenient operations are important parts of all platform competitions. But these five real events from Bitget reflect: "Technology first" can determine how fast a platform runs, but "user first" determines whether users are willing to stay.
The cornerstone of platforms includes not only technology but also users. And for users, no matter how fast AI customer service automatic replies are, they are not as good as human companionship and understanding; between rules, risks, and responsibilities, only humans can empathize more with human needs, and only humans can truly win human trust.
Trust comes from transparently disclosing risks, from re-examining rules, from completing experiences for minority users, from checking one more step when situations are complex, from daring to escalate when partners fail in responsibility, and also from someone still accompanying users to the end when rules cannot be changed.
So, even exchanges that fully embrace technology and embrace AI will still retain the place for "humans."
Technology first determines efficiency; user first determines relationships. Exchanges that can truly cross cycles not only make systems faster but always remember: Behind every transaction, every ticket, every wait, is a real user expecting a response.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
