Source of Funds: What Exchanges Actually Ask For

SoF and SoW are not the same

Source of Funds (SoF) answers this question: where did the money used for this transaction or deposit come from? Typical evidence includes a bank statement showing salary payments, a TxID for a transfer from another exchange, an asset-sale agreement, or OTC correspondence that identifies the parties.

Source of Wealth (SoW) answers a broader question: how did you build your wealth overall—for example through income, investments, inheritance, or a business? Large exchanges and their banking partners may request SoW evidence when turnover is high or the account profile appears inconsistent. Kraken's public guidance on SoW and SoF is one clear explanation of the distinction.

What is commonly accepted and where the chain breaks

Exchanges may accept documents that show the account holder's name, relevant dates and amounts, and a link to the account: payslips, tax forms, statements from other exchanges, sale agreements, or inheritance documents. Consistency between the dates and amounts and the on-chain history matters more than submitting a large volume of files “just in case.”

Common gaps include amounts that do not reconcile, a missing primary source, opaque P2P transfers, unexplained use of mixers, and documents that belong to someone else or have been falsified. If the transaction chain needs to be reconstructed from addresses, blockchain analytics may help. For the broader set of triggers, see the top reasons exchanges freeze accounts.

Crypto-only income often lacks a clear bridge to fiat or evidence of the original acquisition: the exchange sees turnover but cannot establish where the initial capital came from. It may be useful to compile the history of the first substantial inflows rather than only the last three months.

Checklist before submitting the package

1. Write down exactly what was requested: SoF for a deposit, SoW for overall wealth, or a combined review.
2. Match each substantial amount to a document and TxID.
3. Redact unnecessary personal data that was not requested.
4. Do not submit someone else's files.
5. Send one coherent package through the official channel.
6. Keep a copy of the package and the support ticket number.

• Do not resubmit the same package without addressing the gaps.
• Do not add files that look persuasive but belong to someone else.
• Do not assume a deadline for lifting the restriction.

Review the package from a compliance analyst's perspective: does the name match the KYC record, are the dates legible, and does every file support a specific row in your table of amounts? If not, add a concise one-page explanation rather than twenty more screenshots without captions.

If the package has already been rejected

Read the stated reason for rejection literally. Most often, the link between amounts or the relevant time period is incomplete. Address the specific gap instead of resubmitting the same files. If a complete package receives only a generic rejection, escalation and a route assessment may be appropriate, without any promise of the outcome.

Submitting the same files again three days later rarely helps. It is better to address the specific comment once. If the restriction is already affecting withdrawals, also consider the first steps after a Bybit withdrawal freeze; the evidence logic is similar at other large platforms.