Zcash User Says $589K in USDT Has Been Stuck on NEAR Intents for 50 Days

A Zcash user says approximately $589,000 in USDT has remained inaccessible through NEAR Intents for more than 50 days, despite allegedly receiving written confirmation in July that a compliance review had been completed and the funds would be released. The dispute began after the user converted 1,120 shielded ZEC through the Zodl wallet and later attempted another swap using NEAR Intents. Neither NEAR Intents nor Zodl has independently confirmed all of the user’s claims.

1,120 ZEC Was Converted Into $589,000 USDT

According to a September 8 post on the Zcash Community Forum, a user identified as “timtech” used Zodl on July 20 to convert 1,120 shielded ZEC into approximately $589,000 USDT through NEAR Intents.

The initial swap reportedly completed successfully. The user then transferred the USDT to a new MetaMask address and later to a Ledger hardware wallet.

About eight hours later, the same USDT was sent to a new Ethereum deposit address generated by NEAR Intents for another swap. The Ethereum transaction confirmed onchain, but the user says NEAR Intents never credited the deposit.

Compliance Review Was Reportedly Cleared

The transaction was eventually placed under an administrative and anti-money-laundering review.

According to correspondence published by the user, NEAR Intents told them on July 23 that the compliance review had been successfully concluded, restrictions had been removed and the funds would be released.

A refund request was then submitted to return the USDT to the user’s Ledger address.

The user says the refund never arrived.

Follow-up requests reportedly continued through late July and August. On August 26, NEAR Intents allegedly informed the user that the transaction had been paused again because of an ongoing regulatory compliance review.

The following day, support reportedly characterized the July clearance as an initial determination that could be reconsidered following additional verification.

NEAR Intents Can Block Transactions for Compliance

The dispute highlights an important detail about how NEAR Intents operates.

Its cross-chain infrastructure uses compliance screening that can flag or block transactions. According to its published documentation cited in the report, screening incorporates several AML data sources and services.

That means an onchain transaction can successfully reach a deposit address while the corresponding swap or refund is still subject to additional compliance procedures.

Zodl Changes How It Describes Its Swaps

The situation has also drawn attention to how Zodl describes its integration with NEAR Intents.

An archived version of Zodl’s documentation reportedly characterized the swaps as “trustless” and not dependent on a centralized third party.

The current documentation instead explains that independent market makers compete to fill orders, settlement occurs through smart contracts and swaps are subject to NEAR’s Terms of Service.

Zodl acknowledged updating its public-facing language to describe the integration more precisely.

The wallet team also said it doesn’t hold or control assets involved in NEAR Intents transactions and therefore cannot independently release or return the disputed funds.

This Isn’t a Zcash Network Failure

Importantly, the reported incident doesn’t appear to involve a failure of the Zcash blockchain or its shielded transaction technology.

The initial shielded ZEC transaction and conversion reportedly worked as intended. The dispute centers on the subsequent NEAR Intents swap and compliance process.

That distinction separates the situation from the unrelated Orchard shielded-pool vulnerability disclosed earlier in 2026.

$589,000 Remains in Limbo

Several important details remain unresolved.

The public record hasn’t independently established whether NEAR Intents currently controls the entire $589,000, why the reported July compliance clearance was later reconsidered, or what specific compliance issue triggered the continued review.

For now, the case highlights an important tension between crypto’s promise of self-custody and the compliance systems that can still exist inside cross-chain infrastructure. A user can control their wallet and successfully complete an onchain transaction, yet still encounter centralized compliance controls when using third-party swap services.