Freewallet.org Flag - Please Support

[sheenshane]

I had the same problem recently but the sum of the stuck transaction was smaller. It took support a few days to solve my case. So you’d better do not worry and just give the devs some time to figure it all out.

Few days? How many days does it take? (I think you are one of them, am I right?)
In my case, it takes more than a year and you know what makes me annoyed at that shady service wallet? Their support on Gmail is just like a bot it response once to confirm your ticket issue submitted but after that, they will no longer reply. In short, lack of staff and also showing shady behavior. And now, I am not interested in my sleeping coin on their shady wallet(never trust them anymore), that is a small amount but it was so disappointing.

Supporting the raising flag as well.

[AdolfinWolf]

Few days? How many days does it take? (I think you are one of them, am I right?)
In my case, it takes more than a year and you know what makes me annoyed at that shady service wallet? Their support on Gmail is just like a bot it response once to confirm your ticket issue submitted but after that, they will no longer reply. In short, lack of staff and also showing shady behavior. And now, I am not interested in my sleeping coin on their shady wallet(never trust them anymore), that is a small amount but it was so disappointing.

Supporting the raising flag as well.

See, this is interesting.

My take is that they ask almost every customer for KYC, and only resolve the ones where the customer makes a fuss about it, or uploads documents, regardless of whether or not the customer had "fraudulent activity" going on with their account.

Which we won't know about since these people either don't care that they lost 50-500$, or don't know how to resolve it properly.

[actmyname]

See, this is interesting.

My take is that they ask almost every customer for KYC, and only resolve the ones where the customer makes a fuss about it, or uploads documents, regardless of whether or not the customer had "fraudulent activity" going on with their account.

Which we won't know about since these people either don't care that they lost 50-500$, or don't know how to resolve it properly.

Here's an alternative proposal:

Not every customer is asked for KYC.

A small percentage of the pool is "culled" and a participant thereof is asked of KYC. This percentage might comprise of some additional calculations (i.e. blockchain analysis or location-based targeting). The majority of the customers have no problem and may dismiss these complaints as angry/ignorant clients. And since the wallet's name isn't obscure, it can certainly withstand a few "minor" complaints.

Think of it this way: an outright scam with KYC will disincentivize new users from registering. A long con with a trickling increase of victims, however...What they could do is target polarized users in terms of balance.

If a user has to KYC just to withdraw $10, they might just forgo the money. At worst, they seem like they're complaining about some minute amount.
If a user has to KYC to withdraw $50,000... well, you have a chance of just outright stealing the money, if they're privacy-conscious. At worst, they complain and you allow them to withdraw. No harm done.

[suchmoon]

Look at the flailing excuses (emphasis mine):

I got the following email from them,

We’d like to inform you that our security system has detected suspicious activity on your account. In case it was a hacking attempt, we had to temporarily suspend withdrawals from your account – this way your funds will be absolutely safe, and the access will be restored once the verification procedure will be finished.

In your case, the risk-scoring algorithm has detected suspicious activity.

Our guidelines are compliant with international AML regulations and standards.
That's the main reason why this procedure is in place.

marlboroza pointed that out and some other stuff here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5164369.msg51801073#msg51801073

Sleazy AF. Not to mention that the 15 BTC case did not involve fiat (Tether is not fiat) and their AML/KYC shit is supposed to apply to direct fiat-crypto purchases.

[marlboroza]

What are the exact requirements for you to request a KYC procedure?

If you cannot outline these details (and subsequently record them in your terms of service if they are not already) then how do we know you are not selectively enforcing it in order to fill your pockets?

Some useful information and links https://www.hkma.gov.hk/eng/key-functions/banking-stability/aml-cft.shtml

If I understand this https://www.hkma.gov.hk/media/eng/doc/key-functions/finanical-infrastructure/infrastructure/svf/Guideline_on_AMLCFT_for_SVF_eng_final.pdf correctly, they have to conduct KYC procedure if amount is equal or above HK$8,000, which is cca $1,000 at the moment. I couldn't find information for cryptocurrency but I believe it should be the same procedure.

Look at the flailing excuses (emphasis mine):

I got the following email from them,

We’d like to inform you that our security system has detected suspicious activity on your account. In case it was a hacking attempt, we had to temporarily suspend withdrawals from your account – this way your funds will be absolutely safe, and the access will be restored once the verification procedure will be finished.

In your case, the risk-scoring algorithm has detected suspicious activity.

Our guidelines are compliant with international AML regulations and standards.
That's the main reason why this procedure is in place.

marlboroza pointed that out and some other stuff here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5164369.msg51801073#msg51801073

Sleazy AF. Not to mention that the 15 BTC case did not involve fiat (Tether is not fiat) and their AML/KYC shit is supposed to apply to direct fiat-crypto purchases.

They replied this:

Reveal of suspicions activity implies we'd act within the frames of the AML regulations.

If they locked funds because of suspicious activity (which they claim they did) they have to report it to authorities, they can't just say - "hey, we suspect that these funds came from criminal activity, send us your selfie and you can have your funds".

Normal answer would be "we need your personal information because under the AML regulation and law we have to enforce KYC if amount is equal or above (insert currency)x,xxx which in your case was."

Everything should be correctly stated in ToS.

[Joel_Jantsen]

My take is that they ask almost every customer for KYC, and only resolve the ones where the customer makes a fuss about it, or uploads documents, regardless of whether or not the customer had "fraudulent activity" going on with their account.

That also further satisfies my point where I asked FreeWallet to reveal their procedures of detecting suspicious activity on an account, and they never bothered to reply. The sad truth is, this is how the KYC industry works. I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with any AML regulations or that sort of legal stuff. These scumbags operate from a server located in China and are not affiliated with the government's rules & regulations in any form.

Which we won't know about since these people either don't care that they lost 50-500$, or don't know how to resolve it properly.

And there is no guarantee if the amount will be released after submitting the documents so identity theft is smoothly done.

[hacker1001101001]

I am an victim of there shit costumer support, they took more than a week to get my EOS transferred to there account. I faced a problem about the EOS memo while transferring some EOS to EOSfreewallet, as there was a space included in the memo and my EOS were sent somewhere else. I contacted the support and got a email back, which reads as follows

The memo was not written properly in your transaction as there is a space in the beggining:
https://eospark.com/tx/xxxxxx

It should be written as  "memo": "4948547030096397" (not  "memo": " 4948547030096397"). I hope that you can see the difference.

Later after some unwanted back and forth emails, I got this email.

Your request for a refund has been submitted for processing. However, it's not a matter of a couple of clicks, but rather a complex process that requires lots of time and significant human resources.

We receive several hundred refund requests every month, which creates extra load on our technical team.
Please note that the refund is a paid solution. It makes 10% of the transaction amount but not more than 30 USD.
The ETA for this operation is 60 days; the fee shall be deducted from the recovered amount as of the date when the actual refund is completed.
Thank you for your patience!

So, if you see, they do refund but as an paid solution !  

At that time, my funds were like more of an importance to me so I just agreed with whatever fees they charged. But I want to clarify this for the community that Freewallet can ask for 10% of the total funds for a wrong transaction or a manual refund.

I was happy I got my funds after weeks of efforts ( 30$ fee was cut from my total amount BTW ) but I think putting a light on such an non costumer friendly behavior is important.

A wallet service asking for KYCs to selective costumers with shit of an costumer service which would surely give you a headache. I would recommend not using this wallet and even if you use keep a headache pill beside you because they are surely gonna cause you one.

Flag supported.

[The Cryptovator]

I'd like to draw the attention of everyone in this thread that the referenced issue was closed on Friday and the customer could withdraw his funds.

So what if someone have not bothered to open thread? Will you not pay them their fund ? This isn't wise decision really. Customer could withdraw his/her fund after so many drama. So every user need make same drama if their fund has been locked. You should give chance to withdraw user fund when you are willing to locked any account due to KYC or whatever reason. So red flag and feedback's are appropriate for you since you are not just individual user like others. You are a author of a wallet and that's the reason you deserve it.

[bob123]

Another scam alert? So tired of reading stuff like that. Can’t you post some positive content, please? What wallet shall I use?

Maybe one which gives ONLY YOU the full control over the private keys ?

There are numerous proper wallets around.

It is relatively simple:
1) Don't use a wallet where you don't have full control over the private keys.
2) Don't use a wallet where some other party has access to the private keys.
3) Don't use a web wallet.

[AdolfinWolf]

<...>

Sounds plausible to me.

What you're describing also sounds exactly like the system ChangeNow.io / Changelly are/were using.

[Freewallet]

He made a conversion transaction (from Tether to BTC), using our service.

What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying KYC wouldn't apply to someone who deposits and withdraws the same currency? What about the claims of suspected hacking?

Hi,


If the hacking is suspected (which happens upon a user's request), we are putting the activity on hold until KYC is completed.

Responding to other concerns expressed in this thread, let us make it clear that we may from time to time conduct KYC procedure in case our risk-scoring system detects:

- multiple transfers of funds in and out with very short intervals;
- IP address is changed.

There are many more but we cannot list all the criteria.

[bob123]

Responding to other concerns expressed in this thread, let us make it clear that we may from time to time conduct KYC procedure in case our risk-scoring system detects:

- multiple transfers of funds in and out with very short intervals;
- IP address is changed.

There are many more but we cannot list all the criteria.

What kind of nonsense is this ?

So your 'customer' are not allowed to receive funds and forward them shortly after 
What kind of (shit-) wallet is this supposed to be?

And you guys realize that most people have a dynamic IP address?
And that a mobile wallet is supposed to be used mobile. Which implies multiple different WLAN networks and the mobile network.

IP changes are inevitable.


It seems like you are not only extremely shady, but also extremely incompetent.

[LoyceV]

If the hacking is suspected (which happens upon a user's request), we are putting the activity on hold until KYC is completed.

Can you shed a light on how often there was an actual hack going on when someone could provide correct Email confirmation, 2-factor authentication and PIN code?
Can you also explain to me how KYC is going to stop a hacker? Say I opened an account. I can already tell you "Loyce Valenzuela" doesn't have a passport. Now if you'd ask KYC, you have no way of linking my real passport to my private fake online identity. If a hacker sends you KYC-documents from someone called Mark M. Jones, how can you ever know it's not really me? Or, if I send you KYC-documents from my real name (let's use Michael D. Hood for the sake of argument), how can you ever know I'm really Loyce Valenzuela from Bitcointalk?

This post used fakenamegenerator.com for fake names.

[bob123]

~snip~

Let me guess the answer..

"bla bla bla It can not stop from funds being stolen bla bla bla but we have the identity of the thief bla bla bla"

[AdolfinWolf]

~snip~

<..>

If someone who knows what he's doing actually hacked the account, he would probably A. not set off most of these vectors (use a static residential proxy IP etc.)

And B. simply provide photoshopped or hacked docs.

So the KYC argument for the sake of protecting against "hacking" just seems utterly flawed when you can buy fake or "hacked" docs for <100$.

That's not true.

I guess i'll just take your word for it.

[hacker1001101001]

Hi,

If the hacking is suspected (which happens upon a user's request), we are putting the activity on hold until KYC is completed.

What does this even mean, you suspect hacking on user request only, I don't think OP requested you to security check his account.

Responding to other concerns expressed in this thread, let us make it clear that we may from time to time conduct KYC procedure in case our risk-scoring system detects:

- multiple transfers of funds in and out with very short intervals;
- IP address is changed.

There are many more but we cannot list all the criteria.

- There could be many reasons for an in and out multiple transfer from an wallet and that doesn't necessarily mean that a user if fraud. This looks like a total flawed way of judging.

- IP changes? Really.. It's not even a way to track anyone, most of the IPs are static and there are 100% chances of IP change with a decent user too. This is also not a way to judge suspension basically..

All of your above ways to judge an account suspension prover's that you have a very flawed judgement while detecting a hack or bad activity on any account. This also points that you could even impose unwanted withdrawal restrictions to wrong users who are using your services with clean nature. You are just wasting innocent users time by putting some unwanted KYC shit in the middle, without even checking the account activity correctly...

Your service is not even user friendly IMO.

[bitmover]

There are many more but we cannot list all the criteria.

You cannot list? So, you admit you do not have any transparency regarding taking hostage of user funds.

You may just invent a new criteria at any given time, if you just decide to hold some funds?

This is extremely shady. Why don't you list all your criteria? Or just decide to only accept new users if they do KYC.

[marlboroza]

@freewallet can you confirm or deny this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5165363.msg51836767#msg51836767 ?
In scam accusation you have stated this:

Hello,

As per our terms and conditions, we are authorized to perform the verification procedure: https://freewallet.org/terms (please read the 5th paragraph)

However, we are making sure to have our customers' accounts verified as soon as it is technically possible.

In your case, the risk-scoring algorithm has detected suspicious activity. For security reasons, we are not able to reveal all the details of this process.

Thank you for preparing the requested documents; we'll definitely get back to you today.

User transfered $190000 and exchanged them. Tried to withdraw BTC and then you performed KYC.

First, KYC should have been enforced at step 1 (user transfered 190000$ exchanged them).
Second, KYC should have been enforced at step 2 (user tried to withdraw BTC worth $190K)

I will quote this again:

[...]we are authorized to perform the verification procedure[...]

In your case, the risk-scoring algorithm has detected suspicious activity. For security reasons, we are not able to reveal all the details of this process.

It is not that you are authorized to perform the verification procedure, you are obligated to perform verification procedure for $190K. Things you mentioned in this thread, KYC because of different IP is pretty much nonsense. Things you said in scam accusation thread, that you have performed verification procedure because your algorithm has detected suspicious activity is also pretty much nonsense.

All this means that you know shit about AML regulation.

[hacker1001101001]

All this means that you know shit about AML regulation.

This is the exact point, I think they don't even have a dedicated verification team with any skills. There algorithm detecting bullshit just sounds like something made up. I don't even think they have one.

[suchmoon]

If the hacking is suspected (which happens upon a user's request), we are putting the activity on hold until KYC is completed.

Did the user referred in the OP request it? Can I request e.g. LoyceV's account to be KYCed and how would you possibly know it's a legitimate request?