Pionex/Binance/Chiliz - Funds confirmed on-chain but inaccessible — custodial refusal from exchange (technical case)

Funds confirmed on-chain but inaccessible — custodial refusal from change (technical case)

I’m coping with a case that is clearly NOT a misplaced funds state of affairs, but exchanges are treating it as such.

Listed here are the details:

- Asset: CHZ
- Community used: Chiliz Chain (CAP20)
- Destination: Pionex deposit tackle
- TXID: 0x4b12...b7a

The transaction is confirmed and visible on Chiliscan.

So the funds:
✔ Exist
✔ Are confirmed
✔ Have been delivered to the right tackle

The difficulty:
Pionex does not help CAP20 deposits of their interface and refuses to recuperate the funds.

Nevertheless, from a technical standpoint:

- Chiliz Chain is EVM-compatible
- The receiving handle is controlled by Pionex
- The personal key exists and may entry funds across EVM chains

That is NOT a blockchain limitation.

This is:
→ A custodial entry problem
→ A guide restoration case

Binance also contributed to this by:

- Displaying CAP20 (similar identify as CHZ)
- Providing a 10x cheaper payment vs ERC20
- Offering no interoperability warning

So naturally, the consumer chooses CAP20.

Question to the group:

Is there any legitimate technical purpose for an trade to refuse recovery in this state of affairs?

Or is this purely operational coverage?

As a result of from every part I perceive:
Recovery is feasible.
They only don’t need to do it.