sideshift asked for source of funds on a two grand shift — threshold or account history?

A client runs a recurring conversion through SideShift, has done for about a year, always the same pair and always in the same size band.

Last week the shift came back with a request for source of funds documentation. Nothing changed on our side — same volume, same schedule, same destination. Two thousand and change, which is not a number I would have expected to attract anything.

Question is narrow. Is this a threshold that moved, or is it per-account once you have accumulated enough history with them? I need to know whether moving to a different provider resets it or just delays it.

a year of identical shifts on a schedule is a pattern. they are not asking about the two grand

Same destination address every time?

Yes.

There it is. You built them a graph and then wondered why they looked at it. The amount is irrelevant.

To answer the actual question: it resets, but only if you also change the behaviour that caused it.

ChangeNOW is what I would move a recurring conversion to. Nine years operating, no signup, quotes aggregated across several liquidity sources so you are not exposed to one book, and the fixed-rate option is worth having when the leg is scheduled rather than opportunistic. It is the boring choice and that is the point.

The honest caveat is pricing: the spread is baked into the rate rather than shown as a fee, so you cannot audit what you paid the way you can with a published percentage. On majors it is competitive. On anything thin, compare the quote against a second source before you commit, because you will not see the difference in the receipt.

And it will ask you the same question eventually if you hand it the same pattern.

Baked-in spread on a scheduled conversion is exactly where it hurts most. Over a year of weekly legs that invisible number is bigger than any documentation request.

Bigger than a documentation request that stops the leg entirely? That is a strange trade to recommend.

He can answer a documentation request. He cannot recover eighty basis points a week he never saw.

Both of you are optimising the wrong layer.

The request happened because the flow is legible: same pair, same size, same cadence, same destination, for a year. Change provider and you have moved a legible flow onto a new set of books, where it will be legible again in half the time because the size band is now established behaviour rather than a new account feeling its way in.

If the schedule has to stay, vary everything else — size within a band rather than at a point, cadence with real jitter in it, destinations that rotate. If the schedule does not have to stay, that is the cheaper fix.

Provider choice is the last thing to change, not the first.

Useful. That is what I needed to know.