Forget about exchanger search! Use BestChange!

[Best_Change]

On June, 19 our company celebrated a bright event — its 15th anniversary!

We would like to express our gratitude for your support, for recommending our service, for its wide-scale promotion, and for your activity. It’s hard to over-evaluate the input into the service development by anyone who has at least once used it. We would like to congratulate all partners, colleagues and social network subscribers. The success we are proud of would be impossible without your assistance.

Over the years, thanks to your support, we have made a worthy alternative to crypto exchanges and p2p platforms, which we are incredibly happy about. On behalf of the entire BestChange.com team, we wish you good luck, self-confidence, perseverance to reach new heights, great successes, colossal achievements, more ups, fewer falls, so that you are always favored by a fair wind!

[1714606414]

1714606414

[1714606414]

1714606414

[1714606414]

1714606414

[1714606414]

1714606414

[Husires]

On June, 19 our company celebrated a bright event — its 15th anniversary!

It is rare to find a company that survives for that long, and yet it is still developing.

This means that your team is cohesive and has a good background in administrative, marketing and technical matters, so I congratulate you and hope to see your presence there for as long as possible.

What are the big changes that the company has gone through over these years, 15 years is not a short period, and this means that you are ready before Satoshi writes the white paper, and what is your view of the coming period, especially with the economic pessimism about a possible recession.

[Best_Change]

Witty.  The “NF” in “NFT” stands for Non-Fungible, so you clearly are not so thoughtless about this as some people.

Regardless, everyone needs to be informed that the absurd notion of so-called “taint” is an existential threat to Bitcoin.

It literally means that 1 BTC ≠ 1 BTC.

Best_Change, I am not inclined to open a debate about this in your thread.  I’m not here to start an argument with you.  I hereby express no opinion either way about your service in itself, which I have not evaluated.

I speak out because the “coin taint” delusion is a cancer which continues to grow, as long as people give no pushback.  People need to boycott services that peddle the “coin taint” lie; such services are untrustworthy and destructive to Bitcoin.  People need to speak out, as I am doing here.  “Coin taint” is only taking hold because its perpetrators are skilled propagandists, who make an obscene pretense of having some sort of moral high ground.  The “tainting” of coins is wrong—it is outrageous—someone needs to call out the Emperor‘s New Clothes here.

Please understand that AML does not threaten the integrity of the bitcoin ecosystem as such, but it only limits the work with gateways between the traditional financial system and the crypto world. Whether you like it or not, but if you want to exchange bitcoin to dollars, you need to kindly follow the rules for handling dollars, and they mean a tough policy of AML legislation in many countries of the world. With that, if you are making deals within a crypto community, then nobody and never will be able to censor your operations, this is the essence of decentralization.

But you want to shift the principles of decentralization to centralized services, such as exchanges, exchangers and simple shops operating in KYC-enabled jurisdictions. Such a position is quite popular and understandable but fundamentally wrong.

Instead of a conclusion: you can use bitcoin within the community and not try exchanging it to fiat currency, then you won’t have to complain about “AML-discrimination”.

[Best_Change]

All about BestChange notifications

We decided to elaborate about BestChange notifications — it came to our knowledge that not everyone knows about this convenient option and use it. Meanwhile, you can considerably increase the profitability of your exchanges if you set up notifications about profitable conditions. We give an opportunity to set specific rates and reserves, and when a relevant offer appears, we will receive a notification in Telegram or email.

The main situations when it’s handy:

🔔 For the exchange direction you need, there are currently no available exchangers, and you would like to be notified when they appear.

🔔 You are in no hurry but would like to make an exchange at the most profitable rate.

🔔 Exchanger that suits you by all parameters does not have enough reserves at the moment.

Also, exchanger owners use this option to monitor rates that their competitors have. Notifications come to Telegram from the account @bestchange_bot, or by email from noreply@bestchange.com. We recommend you add these addresses to the contact list so that the messages won’t get blocked by antispam at a critical moment.

[Best_Change]

Calculator function on BestChange — how to use it to find the best deals

The monitor offers a convenient option of a calculator — you can use it if you want to get familiar with the rates and other conditions of the exchanger. Firstly, select a payment direction (the currency you give and receive). Then select the tab “Calculator” over the table.

Further steps are very easy and straightforward:

✅ Select the option “Receive” or “Get”. It depends on what currency you need to learn the result.

✅ Enter the amount of exchange you have in mind.

✅ From the drop-down list, select the suitable option — whether or not to consider the commissions of the payment systems. We recommend considering the commission, this way you will receive a more accurate calculation.

After clicking the Calculate button, in the table, you will see specific amounts you will need to give to conduct a deal. This way you can count on finding the most profitable exchanger than without the calculator, that’s why we recommend using it. We always keep up the relevance and timely updating of rates/reserves of exchangers so that you don’t miss a convenient moment for your deal.

[death_wish]

Witty.  The “NF” in “NFT” stands for Non-Fungible, so you clearly are not so thoughtless about this as some people.

Regardless, everyone needs to be informed that the absurd notion of so-called “taint” is an existential threat to Bitcoin.

It literally means that 1 BTC ≠ 1 BTC.

Best_Change, I am not inclined to open a debate about this in your thread.  I’m not here to start an argument with you.  I hereby express no opinion either way about your service in itself, which I have not evaluated.

I speak out because the “coin taint” delusion is a cancer which continues to grow, as long as people give no pushback.  People need to boycott services that peddle the “coin taint” lie; such services are untrustworthy and destructive to Bitcoin.  People need to speak out, as I am doing here.  “Coin taint” is only taking hold because its perpetrators are skilled propagandists, who make an obscene pretense of having some sort of moral high ground.  The “tainting” of coins is wrong—it is outrageous—someone needs to call out the Emperor‘s New Clothes here.

Please understand that AML does not threaten the integrity of the bitcoin ecosystem as such,

Unfortunately, it does threaten the integrity of Bitcoin.  Lack of fungibility is corrosive to confidence in a currency.  If some units of currency have “taint”, others don’t, and the only way to tell the difference is to pay for the “analysis” of corrupt private companies that are essentially enemies of Bitcoin, then the currency just is not very useful as money.  In the long term, this is one of the biggest existential threats to Bitcoin’s value—even to its basic viability.

But don’t take my word for it.  Here is a good explainer of fungibility from a February 9, 2014 talk by Dr. Adam Back, the CEO and co-founder of Blockstream:

https://youtu.be/3dAdI3Gzodo?t=47

Dr. Back later speaks of Bitcoin, then of “taint”:

https://youtu.be/3dAdI3Gzodo?t=1379

This video is old, and much of the technological information is outdated.  But the basic issues remain the same.

I rarely cite a video, but this is a good one; and the link helps to avoid a lengthy tangential exposition in your thread.  Here, I will simply conclude that “coin taint” is an illusion.  If you believe that such a thing exists, then you have been bamboozled.  Avoid services that pretend there is such a thing as a “tainted” bitcoin—and in the long term, please support any competent efforts to add to Bitcoin what Dr. Back says on one of his slides:

“Idealized cryptographic ecash aims to enforce fungibility via indistinguishability rather than law... trust in mathematics over law”.

[Janyiah201]

Please check my threads:

SCAM EXCHANGE: Openchange (Openchange.cash)

and

SCAM EXCHANGE MONITOR: BestChange

[LoyceV]

Question @Best_Change:

If you take a look at exchangers list, most of them are with 0 (ZERO!) negative reviews, because if you post negative review they invite the exchanger to comment and all that exchanger have to to is to click "cancel claim" and your negative review becomes a comment.

Is this true? If so, that makes the review system worthless, but it does explain why there are no persistent negative reviews on any of the exchanges you've listed.
If this is indeed true, can you publish this as a warning in bold on the review page? It seems misleading to omit this.

Second question @Best_Change: Can you clarify the bold part in your comment?
From Janyiah's feedback:

Admin BestChange.com    June 30, 2022, 21:47
Hello!

There is no mark in monitoring about possible verification because verification is not carried out at the exchange service.
The situation with your order is another, the funds from you were not received by the exchange service and were frozen by the exchange, which requested verification, because the funds have the status Stolen 100%.

By creating and confirming your initial order, you have agreed to all the terms and conditions of the exchanger. The rule 7.7 of terms says about situations with frozen funds.
Verification is one of the most common and effective ways of following the AML and KYC policies.

In this case it is not possible to resolve this situation without providing the requested information to the exchange office.

Who is "the exchange" who didn't receive the funds but froze it anyway? You make it sound as if the exchanger doesn't own the deposit address they ask the user to send funds to (but again: they froze it anyway).

[aew]

Question @Best_Change:

If you take a look at exchangers list, most of them are with 0 (ZERO!) negative reviews, because if you post negative review they invite the exchanger to comment and all that exchanger have to to is to click "cancel claim" and your negative review becomes a comment.

Is this true? If so, that makes the review system worthless, but it does explain why there are no persistent negative reviews on any of the exchanges you've listed.
If this is indeed true, can you publish this as a warning in bold on the review page? It seems misleading to omit this.

I remember I used bestchange a year ago to exchange something from one if the sites they publish.  The site didn't send my money for a day so went and put a bad review after that the site came replied my review then automatically the bad review is gone.
All it takes to remove a bad review is just the site owners to respond no matter what automatically it will be gone.
So i guess the op is correct from my experience too.

[dkbit98]

Is this true? If so, that makes the review system worthless, but it does explain why there are no persistent negative reviews on any of the exchanges you've listed.
If this is indeed true, can you publish this as a warning in bold on the review page? It seems misleading to omit this.

This needs to be changed asap and it's impossible that rating system is showing only positive feedback from all customers for all websites, that is not happening even for best exchanges in ideal situations.
From my observation I could only found total of 9 exchanges with negative feedback from 245 exchanges, and most negatives are for big centralized exchanges (Kraken, Binance, Okex, Bittrex, Hitbtc) that don't care to reply anything.
This is unacceptable, and in my opinion openchange deserves negative feedback because they don't want to refund coins without kyc.

[Best_Change]

Avoid services that pretend there is such a thing as a “tainted” bitcoin—and in the long term, please support any competent efforts to add to Bitcoin what Dr. Back says on one of his slides:
“Idealized cryptographic ecash aims to enforce fungibility via indistinguishability rather than law... trust in mathematics over law”.

It’s correct, every bitcoin token is equal to any bitcoin token. But you are missing one important detail.
You are talking about decentralization in the context of centralized services. This is a substitution of concepts and a false idea. When it comes to bitcoin within the cryptocurrency ecosystem, no one will ever, under any circumstances, be able to censor (cancel, freeze, reject) your transactions in non-custodial wallets. But when it comes to trying to exchange bitcoin for dollars and/or buying something in KYC jurisdictions, you will have to follow the laws that apply to dollars and those jurisdictions. Bitcoin loses its decentralization as soon as you send tokens to a custodial service operating in this or that jurisdiction.

Second question @Best_Change: Can you clarify the bold part in your comment?
From Janyiah's feedback:

Admin BestChange.com    June 30, 2022, 21:47
Hello!

There is no mark in monitoring about possible verification because verification is not carried out at the exchange service.
The situation with your order is another, the funds from you were not received by the exchange service and were frozen by the exchange, which requested verification, because the funds have the status Stolen 100%.

By creating and confirming your initial order, you have agreed to all the terms and conditions of the exchanger. The rule 7.7 of terms says about situations with frozen funds.
Verification is one of the most common and effective ways of following the AML and KYC policies.

In this case it is not possible to resolve this situation without providing the requested information to the exchange office.

Who is "the exchange" who didn't receive the funds but froze it anyway? You make it sound as if the exchanger doesn't own the deposit address they ask the user to send funds to (but again: they froze it anyway).

In this case “the exchange” is a custodial service which uses OpenChange to receive funds. That’s why although practically the funds were transferred within crypto wallets, but the accrual to the inner balance of OpenChange in this custodial service didn’t happened because of the highest AML-risk.

Question @Best_Change:

If you take a look at exchangers list, most of them are with 0 (ZERO!) negative reviews, because if you post negative review they invite the exchanger to comment and all that exchanger have to to is to click "cancel claim" and your negative review becomes a comment.

Is this true? If so, that makes the review system worthless, but it does explain why there are no persistent negative reviews on any of the exchanges you've listed.
If this is indeed true, can you publish this as a warning in bold on the review page? It seems misleading to omit this.

Question @Best_Change:

If you take a look at exchangers list, most of them are with 0 (ZERO!) negative reviews, because if you post negative review they invite the exchanger to comment and all that exchanger have to to is to click "cancel claim" and your negative review becomes a comment.

Is this true? If so, that makes the review system worthless, but it does explain why there are no persistent negative reviews on any of the exchanges you've listed.
If this is indeed true, can you publish this as a warning in bold on the review page? It seems misleading to omit this.

I remember I used bestchange a year ago to exchange something from one if the sites they publish.  The site didn't send my money for a day so went and put a bad review after that the site came replied my review then automatically the bad review is gone.
All it takes to remove a bad review is just the site owners to respond no matter what automatically it will be gone.
So i guess the op is correct from my experience too.

Is this true? If so, that makes the review system worthless, but it does explain why there are no persistent negative reviews on any of the exchanges you've listed.
If this is indeed true, can you publish this as a warning in bold on the review page? It seems misleading to omit this.

This needs to be changed asap and it's impossible that rating system is showing only positive feedback from all customers for all websites, that is not happening even for best exchanges in ideal situations.
From my observation I could only found total of 9 exchanges with negative feedback from 245 exchanges, and most negatives are for big centralized exchanges (Kraken, Binance, Okex, Bittrex, Hitbtc) that don't care to reply anything.
This is unacceptable, and in my opinion openchange deserves negative feedback because they don't want to refund coins without kyc.

Thank you for having paid attention to this problem. But we would like to remind you that we don’t have “negative reviews”, we only have “financial claims”. This is why we have an automatic system that switches the exchanger off when it has several active claims. We understand that this is a somewhat old-fashioned scheme of work with financial claims, but it was implemented for the sake of protection from "consumer terrorism" in the absence of our moderators.

Currently, our staff number has increased sufficiently to process the majority of these cases manually, that’s why we are already working on changing this system — soon exchangers will have a very limited number of attempts to lift a claim on their own, without our interference. Please wait for this update, we are already thinking about all the details.

[LoyceV]

From Janyiah's feedback:

Admin BestChange.com    June 30, 2022, 21:47
Hello!

There is no mark in monitoring about possible verification because verification is not carried out at the exchange service.
The situation with your order is another, the funds from you were not received by the exchange service and were frozen by the exchange, which requested verification, because the funds have the status Stolen 100%.

By creating and confirming your initial order, you have agreed to all the terms and conditions of the exchanger. The rule 7.7 of terms says about situations with frozen funds.
Verification is one of the most common and effective ways of following the AML and KYC policies.

In this case it is not possible to resolve this situation without providing the requested information to the exchange office.

Who is "the exchange" who didn't receive the funds but froze it anyway? You make it sound as if the exchanger doesn't own the deposit address they ask the user to send funds to (but again: they froze it anyway).

In this case “the exchange” is a custodial service which uses OpenChange to receive funds. That’s why although practically the funds were transferred within crypto wallets, but the accrual to the inner balance of OpenChange in this custodial service didn’t happened because of the highest AML-risk.

I still don't get it. Does this mean Janyiah sent his Bitcoin to a third party, and not to OpenChange? Who thought this is a good idea?

[Best_Change]

From Janyiah's feedback:

Admin BestChange.com    June 30, 2022, 21:47
Hello!

There is no mark in monitoring about possible verification because verification is not carried out at the exchange service.
The situation with your order is another, the funds from you were not received by the exchange service and were frozen by the exchange, which requested verification, because the funds have the status Stolen 100%.

By creating and confirming your initial order, you have agreed to all the terms and conditions of the exchanger. The rule 7.7 of terms says about situations with frozen funds.
Verification is one of the most common and effective ways of following the AML and KYC policies.

In this case it is not possible to resolve this situation without providing the requested information to the exchange office.

Who is "the exchange" who didn't receive the funds but froze it anyway? You make it sound as if the exchanger doesn't own the deposit address they ask the user to send funds to (but again: they froze it anyway).

In this case “the exchange” is a custodial service which uses OpenChange to receive funds. That’s why although practically the funds were transferred within crypto wallets, but the accrual to the inner balance of OpenChange in this custodial service didn’t happened because of the highest AML-risk.

I still don't get it. Does this mean Janyiah sent his Bitcoin to a third party, and not to OpenChange? Who thought this is a good idea?

Formally, yes, the majority of exchangers use custodial wallets to receive the funds from the clients. And such services oftentimes have AML-checks, because they work, inter alia, with dollars and euro. This is not some kind of exception, this is a common practice for the entire OTC segment, it is rare to see the use of non-custodial wallets without automatic conversion to stablecoins, this is contrary to common sense in the principles of exchange services.

[examplens]

Let me bump this thread.

What do we conclude from the Openchange drama? I would say that BestChange needs to think about two much-needed improvements on its platform.

obviously, the rating system is not well resolved, and the removal of comments by exchangers is not the happiest solution. maybe we could discuss here the possible best feasible solution for that.
For example, I would introduce orange marks for conflicting but resolved trades. Also, maybe the red mark can have a time limit, so if the exchanger does not make any more negative "mistakes" within years or two(just for example), he will be removed. in theory, it can be considered accidental.

what you should definitely think about is the ANN thread here on the forum for all of your exchangers. So, in addition to all the conditions you set before them, force them to have a thread here as well as a communication channel. (I remember that it used to be a condition for every coin that wanted to be listed on CMC)
it can get you out of the awkward position of an intermediary.
it might even make the rating system easier for you because there would be an uncensored discussion somewhere.

[Darker45]

Let me bump this thread.

What do we conclude from the Openchange drama? I would say that BestChange needs to think about two much-needed improvements on its platform.

obviously, the rating system is not well resolved, and the removal of comments by exchangers is not the happiest solution. maybe we could discuss here the possible best feasible solution for that.
For example, I would introduce orange marks for conflicting but resolved trades. Also, maybe the red mark can have a time limit, so if the exchanger does not make any more negative "mistakes" within years or two(just for example), he will be removed. in theory, it can be considered accidental.

I think this isn't the first time that BestChange's review or feedback system is put into question. There must have already been a discussion on this sometime ago. It's just that I cannot remember if changes or improvements were made after that. But if the exchangers still have that ability to remove negative comments until now, then I guess not much has changed.

For transparency's sake, why put expiry on negative comments? It is enough that the exchange could reply "Resolved!" to that comment. And if that response is fake, then the user can also reply. If the exchange has greatly improved through the years, then that negative comment would be buried in positive comments. If nothing has improved, then similar comments would surface and a pattern is formed. But this is always good for the welfare of BestChange's clients.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

@Best_Change, May I make a suggestion.

On the website, you may create an announcement section for exchanger listings and delistings just like what you see on exchanges (announcements for coin listings) rather than making partnership announcements only on Bitcointalk. This would be very helpful in knowing and tracking when an exchanger was listed and delisted not only to members in this forum but also outsiders who may not know about the partnership announcements here.

I see so many exchangers bearing the BestChange logo, but it's hard to know whether they were listed or delisted before. Some could just be scams using your logo.

Like in this example (Crypto-go.com), the exchanger even has a link embedded under bestchange logo, but it just leads to the homepage of bestchange
Link

Code:

https://www.bestchange.com/crypto-go-exchanger.html

[examplens]

For transparency's sake, why put expiry on negative comments? It is enough that the exchange could reply "Resolved!" to that comment.

as far as I have noticed so far, it is more than important for all exchangers to have a good reputation there. "Expired" as the possibility to clean up their biography will perhaps force them to work more carefully and treat new customers better within that certain period of time.

Like in this example (Crypto-go.com), the exchanger even has a link embedded under bestchange logo, but it just leads to the homepage of bestchange
Link

Code:

https://www.bestchange.com/crypto-go-exchanger.html

I believe that all non-existent pages lead to the home page.
here there will always be exchangers who will present themselves as Bestchange's partner. I believe that few users check the truth of this statement before the exchange itself.

[BitSwapNow]

Hey bestchange is it possible to get our service added to your platform ? Thanks

[Darker45]

For transparency's sake, why put expiry on negative comments? It is enough that the exchange could reply "Resolved!" to that comment.

as far as I have noticed so far, it is more than important for all exchangers to have a good reputation there. "Expired" as the possibility to clean up their biography will perhaps force them to work more carefully and treat new customers better within that certain period of time.

Of course, that's common sense. Exchanges will always try to have a good reputation. Their business is more or less founded on it. What's at stake with a good or bad reputation is their customers themselves, therefore, their revenue itself. That's why there should be a great transparency system. Reputation is that important. Exchanges would probably even go as far as take a negative comment down even if it's real just to make it appear that they have an untarnished reputation. So this feature shouldn't be there because it's against transparency. The same goes to expiration.

[Best_Change]

obviously, the rating system is not well resolved, and the removal of comments by exchangers is not the happiest solution. maybe we could discuss here the possible best feasible solution for that.

You are misrepresenting the information a little bit. An exchanger cannot remove comments, they have a right to “lift the relevance” for a claim, and it will no longer be red, this is only it. But we are working on improving even this mechanism.

For example, I would introduce orange marks for conflicting but resolved trades. Also, maybe the red mark can have a time limit, so if the exchanger does not make any more negative "mistakes" within years or two(just for example), he will be removed. in theory, it can be considered accidental.

This is the creation of redundant entities, moreover, the way you are suggesting it, framing from competitors is very likely. In the future, we will fully renovate the systems of reviews, they will be created, considered and lifted based on completely different principles. But it will take a lot of time, the new mechanism will be launched together with the renewed design.

what you should definitely think about is the ANN thread here on the forum for all of your exchangers. So, in addition to all the conditions you set before them, force them to have a thread here as well as a communication channel. (I remember that it used to be a condition for every coin that wanted to be listed on CMC)
it can get you out of the awkward position of an intermediary.

This is a really cool idea! Our requirement to the exchanger has an item about having topics on some local Russian-speaking forums, but we need to widen this list by the local community. We will think about what sections we need to ask them to post their threads and will implement this rule in the future.

It is enough that the exchange could reply "Resolved!" to that comment. And if that response is fake, then the user can also reply.

This is exactly the principle they are working today, but the only thing that part of the users don’t like is the removal of the “red color” together with the writing “Resolved”. We are looking for a compromoise around this aspect.

@Best_Change, May I make a suggestion.

On the website, you may create an announcement section for exchanger listings and delistings just like what you see on exchanges (announcements for coin listings) rather than making partnership announcements only on Bitcointalk. This would be very helpful in knowing and tracking when an exchanger was listed and delisted not only to members in this forum but also outsiders who may not know about the partnership announcements here.

I see so many exchangers bearing the BestChange logo, but it's hard to know whether they were listed or delisted before. Some could just be scams using your logo.

Like in this example (Crypto-go.com), the exchanger even has a link embedded under bestchange logo, but it just leads to the homepage of bestchange
Link

Code:

https://www.bestchange.com/crypto-go-exchanger.html

If an exchanger was sometimes added to our monitor, even after its exclusion, its page will be available with a special mark “disabled”, for example:

Code:

https://www.bestchange.com/btcstaff-exchanger.html

Very rarely, in some exclusive cases, we can fully destroy the page of an exchanger in the listing (only our internal notes will remain), and the visit will lead to the main page of the monitor. But your case does not fit for this exclusion, we haven’t ever created a page for the specified exchanger, that is why you don’t see a record about it.
Regarding a separate list for the excluded exchangers or the websites awaiting the listing, we will think how we can implement it, and if it won’t damage our reputation or SEO. We will try to implement it, but can’t promise it.

I believe that all non-existent pages lead to the home page.
here there will always be exchangers who will present themselves as Bestchange's partner. I believe that few users check the truth of this statement before the exchange itself.

Exactly so. Although it’s hard for us to talk about the agenda of these services. Some services add a link to our monitor before listing and this is normal, this is one of the requirements to review the application. Another thing is if they openly proclaim partnership as if it has already happened, in this case this is certainly evil intention.

Hey bestchange is it possible to get our service added to your platform ? Thanks

Of course, we are always happy about the new partners. The details for minimal requirements and technical details can be found on the page https://www.bestchange.com/wiki/add.html
This page also has a link to the contact page with which you are advised to send your application. For the email subject, select “Adding a new exchanger” from the list and specify your website’s address so that the application lands in the relevant department.