What should I do if a crypto exchange forced me into a settlement, and then a regulator used my case to create new rules?

Ironically, the regulatory body established a new reform in relation to my situation with my materials, yet my case was unjustly closed, directly on the exchange. The reform was created on the case, which itself is unfairly closed. Both parties are aware that their jurisdiction does not extend to me, just as mine does not apply to them, and they both absolved themselves of responsibility. Simply, this means that independently of me, my materials were put on the table, and both of them privately said that this is true and reform is necessary; the rules should be tightened. The exchange was forced to adopt stricter rules, either to receive a fine or to revoke the license.

So, in more detail: Picture this. You’re trading on a crypto exchange, a technical issue happens, and you take a financial loss. Instead of fixing the problem transparently or providing full compensation, the exchange corners you into signing a confidential settlement. They pressure you with an unwritten deadline shorter than a full day, deny you any direct legal contact, and in the end, they pay you about half of what you lost. They call it a “final offer.” The strangest part: Two specific conditions you asked for were left out, even after they sent a revised contract. As the essence of the contract was sent for the second time and their internal process, I trusted it without checking it(no time was left). It feels like they deliberately avoided giving those points official status; however, they sent a new one still... Ultimately, they mentioned that the suspended account would only be lifted if I agreed to their confidentiality agreement. Consequently, if I choose not to sign, I will remain categorized as both a threat and a gambler.

Now here’s where it gets surreal. A few weeks later, a regulator publishes new rules that directly address the flaws you raised - deadlines, transparency, proper legal contact, fair compensation, etc, and those rules were clearly shaped by the materials you submitted during your dispute. In other words, your private case was used as the raw material for reform, but your own outcome was left unfair, unanswered, and unresolved. The system got improved, but you were left behind. There was no full compensation and confession of guilt... Isn’t the exchange required to provide compensation? If that’s the case, they should back up their stance with the written rules that we agreed to from the first day. There have been numerous breaches, and even attempting to defend themselves could be detrimental to them, meaning they might end up saying something foolish. This means another responsibility. There were eight questions, each one opposing the others. You couldn't provide an answer to one until you had addressed another, creating a cycle of dependence. This resulted in a clear disconnect of technical coherence.

Since those two clauses were never added, as I asked, I see the contract as incomplete. Yet the settlement now restricts me both legally and publicly. I feel like I’m trapped: if I speak out, I’m violating terms and exposing myself. If I stay silent, the truth dies with me. And honestly, what does it mean when a regulator can take your case to fix the rules, but can’t protect you because of jurisdiction? The exchange also knows this and is bold. In offshore Asia, the court is a huge expense, and that is the reason that they are bold again. Where should I go to protect my truth and other people's truth by my name? I maintain my composure through my mind; otherwise, I find myself facing unavoidable hostility. I'm curious to see who will come across as intelligent and earnest in this public forum.