Forget about exchanger search! Use BestChange!

[internetional]

Do you already know how to save your time and use the correct exchanger that offers you the best rates, tiny commissions and profitable conditions? If you don’t, we want to introduce BestChange.com. You will be glad to use easy and fast service to find the best exchange rates! Save your time and money with us.

Am I correct in understanding that you do not monitor exchangers where the exchange rate depends on the transaction amount? If so, relying solely on your service to find the truly best rate seems insufficient. If you do monitor them, what transaction amount is the rate shown in your listings based on?

[hulkyjamkal]

I don’t recommend using this to anyone. If you don’t want to lose your money, don’t click on links from this “aggregator.” Bestchange allows exchange services to violate their own listing rules on the monitoring platform, and the whole thing looks like collusion with fraudulent exchangers.

Layer 1. Pre-listing vetting

I suspect that no actual verification is being carried out. It is easy to add exchangers linked to ones that have already been removed from the rankings.

 Layer 2. Continuous monitoring

Systematic violations of BestChange’s rules are ignored by BestChange itself, even when they have been reported to them many times.

 Layer 3. User reviews

Genuine reviews are lost among the mass of fabricated ones. The only thing BestChange can do is remove the reviews for a few days, after which the manipulation continues.

 Layer 4. Complaints and resolution history

No one will ever get any help from BestChange. They always remove—or try to remove—any complaint or negative review. Perhaps they will stop doing so only after one of the exchangers carries out an exit scam.

[logfiles]

<...>

Could you please share a link to your issue here if you already created the complaint on Bestchange? What is the exchanger in question?

What I know about their review system is that it doesn't really protect the complainant that much and if you are used to reading the tradition reviews that we know about (positive being positive and negative being negative) then you are going to have hard time understanding their review system.

[hulkyjamkal]

<...>

Could you please share a link to your issue here if you already created the complaint on Bestchange? What is the exchanger in question?

What I know about their review system is that it doesn't really protect the complainant that much and if you are used to reading the tradition reviews that we know about (positive being positive and negative being negative) then you are going to have hard time understanding their review system.

https://www.bestchange.ru/bitsz-exchanger.html?review=3881288


Regarding the first point

https://web.archive.org/web/20260507053554/https://www.bestchange.ru/bitsz-exchanger.html — snapshot from May
https://web.archive.org/web/20260616091336/https://www.bestchange.com/bitsz-exchanger.html — snapshot from June 16

What we can see in the snapshots is that there is no AML tag, while the page also states that the exchanger has official registration.

https://www.bestchange.com/bitsz-exchanger.html — the AML tag is now yellow and, miraculously, the official-registration badge has disappeared!

How is this even possible?
I can see only two possible explanations:
1. No verification was carried out when the exchanger was added.
2. They deliberately displayed the badge despite knowing that the exchanger had no official registration.
From my point of view, both scenarios constitute clear fraud on the part of the monitoring platform, because BestChange itself claims otherwise and thereby deceives its own users.

The situation with the AML tags is similar. BestChange has a gray AML tag with the text “not specified,” meaning that no AML tag has been assigned. Yet, for some reason, BestChange was not displaying this information at the time the exchange was made.


Regarding the remaining points

I sent several emails to support@bestchange, explaining in detail that the exchanger was violating the following clauses of the “Conditions of exchanger participation in the monitor” (https://www.bestchange.com/wiki/rules.html): Nos. 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11 (this clause directly contradicts their own rules), as well as clause No. 8. The reviews are clearly being manipulated and may be paid for, although I doubt this—given the minimum exchange amounts, the whole situation looks highly suspicious.

The only thing BestChange did regarding the reviews was delete some of them or temporarily prohibit their publication. After that, the fake reviews returned in the same volume. This is clearly visible on the exchanger’s page: https://www.bestchange.com/bitsz-exchanger.html & https://www.bestchange.ru/bitsz-exchanger.html

I would also like to emphasize that I am ready to provide a screenshot from my email or demonstrate the screen showing my personal data being sent back to me by a third party that has no connection whatsoever with either the KYC/AML verification process or the exchange’s compliance department. At the same time, the exchanger continues to claim everywhere that it shares data only with the KYC/liveness provider (amlbot) and the exchange’s compliance department.

BestChange is definitely aware that this exchanger shares customers personal data with third parties, because BestChange itself sent me the email containing that information. Did they take any action? No. They did not even suspend the exchanger’s participation in the monitoring service.

The most cynical part of the situation is this: it was BestChange that pointed out to me that I had agreed to the exchanger’s rules, after which I began undergoing KYC, submitting documents, and so on. In other words, I agreed to rules that were clearly legally invalid, and BestChange insisted that I was nevertheless required to follow them, even though those rules were essentially drafted in a semi-fraudulent manner. The situation came to a standstill when the exchanger seriously distorted the words of the exchange’s compliance department—and that was also when they leaked my personal data. If they can so easily send customers data to one third party, they can send it to any other third party as well. What do you think BestChange is suggesting to me? Do you think they were as principled as they were at the beginning and told the exchanger anything about violating its own rules? Of course not. BestChange is suggesting that I continue providing more personal data to people who leak it indiscriminately!

From my point of view, if BestChange applies such an inconsistent policy to similar situations, this also raises legitimate questions about its honesty and integrity—or, rather, the lack thereof.

[examplens]

...

You mixed up some things here. Bestchange cannot be responsible for any third-party platform listed on their aggregator. At no point does BC control the terms of exchange, and from that point of view you cannot blame them for anything.
Another thing is that their catalogue includes some dishonest exchanges, but that is a completely different matter.
The next thing is that you, as a user, did not do further research, but simply trusted the results that the BC search shows, and that is always a problem. There is no intermediary platform that will give you the most accurate insight into an exchange

[hulkyjamkal]

...

You mixed up some things here. Bestchange cannot be responsible for any third-party platform listed on their aggregator. At no point does BC control the terms of exchange, and from that point of view you cannot blame them for anything.
Another thing is that their catalogue includes some dishonest exchanges, but that is a completely different matter.
The next thing is that you, as a user, did not do further research, but simply trusted the results that the BC search shows, and that is always a problem. There is no intermediary platform that will give you the most accurate insight into an exchange

At the time I made my exchange, BestChange indicated that this particular exchanger had official registration, which creates a sense of trust among users. Now that a problem has arisen, this badge has disappeared. I believe this constitutes direct deception, specifically on the part of BestChange, because they claim to carry out verification before adding exchangers to the platform.

Furthermore, the exchanger’s rules state that it bears no responsibility whatsoever toward its customers. Exchangers like this should not be listed on BestChange at all. For example, imagine that you paid for a car, but the dealer included a clause in the contract stating that they bear no responsibility and may choose not to deliver the car you purchased. In any court, such an offer or contract would be declared legally invalid from the moment it was concluded, and acceptance of the offer would be annulled. It would not matter that I personally checked a box confirming that I agreed to those rules. And it’s not just this one issue—the rules as a whole are structured in this way and are essentially semi-fraudulent.

Nevertheless, BestChange insisted otherwise, and I began doing what I was instructed to do. Yet, in an analogous situation—when the exchanger violated the law, its own rules, and BestChange’s rules—BestChange itself took no action whatsoever. I believe this also says a great deal about BestChange itself.


And I fully acknowledge that this is ultimately my responsibility. However, I used BestChange when choosing this exchanger, and BestChange chose to defend this fraudulent exchanger despite its objectively documented violations of BestChange’s own rules. And BestChange publicly states that exchangers are thoroughly checked before being listed and that the platform continuously monitors their compliance with their obligations.

[examplens]

...

Once again, when an exchanger wants to be listed on Bestchange, it will do everything necessary in detail to meet the conditions. After being listed, the same exchanger slowly changes the conditions or possibly operates outside of its own rules. Certainly, BC does not necessarily have to have influence or insight into the business so that on that basis you consider them responsible for changing the ToS of an exchanger.
Many here blame BC when something goes wrong, even though none of you has done the basic research. Well, in this thread alone, many recognised shortcomings are presented, but it seems that no one reads it

[hulkyjamkal]

...

Once again, when an exchanger wants to be listed on Bestchange, it will do everything necessary in detail to meet the conditions. After being listed, the same exchanger slowly changes the conditions or possibly operates outside of its own rules. Certainly, BC does not necessarily have to have influence or insight into the business so that on that basis you consider them responsible for changing the ToS of an exchanger.
Many here blame BC when something goes wrong, even though none of you has done the basic research. Well, in this thread alone, many recognised shortcomings are presented, but it seems that no one reads it

Did you actually read my message in full? The exchanger has repeatedly violated its own rules, BestChange's rules, and the law — and BestChange is fully aware of this. No action has been taken by BestChange against the exchanger, so do you genuinely believe BestChange isn't at fault here either? I'll even entertain the idea that the official registration badge on the exchanger somehow appeared by accident and then somehow disappeared by accident (though in reality it didn't — see BestChange's own FAQ on what these badges mean), but the fact that BestChange allows this specific exchanger to keep breaking its rules is something I simply cannot explain any other way, because in effect they are covering for a fraudulent exchange operation.

A quick note: the badge FAQ explicitly says exchangers with the additional-check and official-registration icons have "the highest level of reliability" — which is exactly the point that makes an appearing-then-vanishing badge on a rule-breaking exchanger so hard to write off as coincidence. https://www.bestchange.com/faq.html

[Best_Change]

Regarding the first point

https://web.archive.org/web/20260507053554/https://www.bestchange.ru/bitsz-exchanger.html — snapshot from May
https://web.archive.org/web/20260616091336/https://www.bestchange.com/bitsz-exchanger.html — snapshot from June 16

What we can see in the snapshots is that there is no AML tag, while the page also states that the exchanger has official registration.

https://www.bestchange.com/bitsz-exchanger.html — the AML tag is now yellow and, miraculously, the official-registration badge has disappeared!

How is this even possible?
I can see only two possible explanations:
1. No verification was carried out when the exchanger was added.
2. They deliberately displayed the badge despite knowing that the exchanger had no official registration.
From my point of view, both scenarios constitute clear fraud on the part of the monitoring platform, because BestChange itself claims otherwise and thereby deceives its own users.

The situation with the AML tags is similar. BestChange has a gray AML tag with the text “not specified,” meaning that no AML tag has been assigned. Yet, for some reason, BestChange was not displaying this information at the time the exchange was made.

Thank you for your patience while awaiting our response.

The official registration badge is displayed on an exchange service's page when the service has a current and verified registration or license.

If the relevant license or registration expires, the badge is removed. We monitor the current status of exchange services and update the information displayed on the monitor whenever their registration or licensing status changes.

AML tagging was introduced on our website relatively recently. Previously, the AML tag was not displayed directly on an exchange service's page, which is why it does not appear on the archived versions of the page you provided.

However, the exchange service already had the relevant AML tag at that time. It could be viewed by hovering over the “i” icon next to the name of the exchange service. For reference, please see the screenshot: https://bc.to/AmQIFv

Therefore, the fact that the AML tag now appears directly on the exchange service's page reflects a change in how this information is displayed on the monitor, rather than the tag having been assigned only recently.


Regarding the situation with your exchange order, we would like to clarify the following.

We have analyzed the crypto assets you sent to the exchange service. The results identified links to high-risk sources, specifically the Stolen Coins category. You can review the results of the AML check of your cryptocurrency address here: https://www.bestchange.com/report/a8d96b2a0476cd1ba13b53cbe5cbd2a4

Please note that the presence of such links does not, in itself, imply that you are involved in any unlawful activity. Crypto assets may pass through numerous addresses before reaching a particular user, so users may not always be aware of the full transaction history or origin of the funds they receive. AML/KYC procedures are intended, among other things, to clarify such circumstances.

AML/KYC checks enable exchange services to assess the source of funds and the associated risks. Where significant risk factors are identified, an exchange service may suspend a transaction and request additional information. Returning or transferring such funds without completing the necessary checks may also expose the exchange service to compliance and regulatory risks.

We would also like to note that exchange services may receive crypto assets either into their own wallets or into addresses provided by custodial services. In the latter case, the funds are effectively held by the relevant custodial platform. If the platform's systems identify links between the assets and high-risk sources, it may restrict transactions involving those funds, initiate an AML review, and request information regarding their source.

In such circumstances, the exchange service cannot independently access or transfer the restricted funds until the custodial platform has completed its review. The exchange service, however, remains in communication with the user, relays the relevant requests, and assists with the required verification procedures.

At this stage, the exchange service is awaiting information from you confirming the source of the funds. This information is required in order to carry out the necessary review.

For our part, we remain in contact with both you and the exchange service and are ready to assist in resolving the situation. However, the review cannot be completed without your participation and the requested information.

Please provide the exchange service with the requested information. This will allow the necessary verification procedures to be carried out and help move the matter concerning your exchange order toward resolution.