SCAM EXCHANGE MONITOR: BestChange

[Janyiah201]

They promote themselves as:

BestChange.com is a free online service that helps to find exchangers with the best currency rates.

And they state this:

Every exchanger presented on our website has been thoroughly checked before listing, and the BestChange team constantly monitors exchangers' services quality. This minimizes risks when making financial transactions in exchangers listed on our website. Should an exchanger fail to properly fulfill its obligations, a number of measures would be taken against it which stimulate the exchanger to solve the issue as fast as possible.

Actually, they list only exchangers with referral program and all they care are their referral earnings. 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.

Today I have found that there are many exchangers listed there with more "comments" then positive reviews, but they are still listed.

Some exchangers, like Changelly, next to it's name have icon which shows:"This exchanger can require verification of client's documents", meaning that they might ask for KYC.

But when other exchangers who does not have this icon ask for KYC, freeze the money, like in MY CASE, they won't do anything and they will take exchangers side because they are the ones who are paying them.

They have multiple domains:
bestchange.com
bestchange.ru and mirror bestchange.net



Profile links:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1073450
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1978649

Threads on Bitcointalk:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3309245
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5179115

Signature campaign:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217201.0

[1714310275]

1714310275

[1714310275]

1714310275

[1714310275]

1714310275

[1714310275]

1714310275

[LoyceV]

Unfortunately, BestChange supports the anti-Bitcoin idea of "taint", and like most (or all) companies that do so, they don't state that on their website.
It was brought up here:

Don’t you think exchangers that do not follow AML should be excluded from your site? Or at least marked as untrustworthy.
Today netex24 exchanger sent me tainted btc. And obviously service which i wanted to top up blocked my account.
I checked transaction via AML bot:
 
Risk Score: 50% Medium risk transaction
Medium risk
Exchange ML Risk Veryhigh - 100%

My stance:

tainted btc

What's that? Are you saying Bitcoin isn't fungible?

Coin validation proposed to offer as a service to trace coins and try to give you a rating about how the history of the coin from your point of view and to offer that as a service to businesses. I think this could be quite dangerous because it goes back to that 17th century court case where now you could receive a coin that is perfectly valid at the time that you receive it, but a few weeks later a crime is uncovered and now your coin is tainted. So if this coin validation service is advicing many of the merchants where you would want to spend your coin at, it's tainted and now the merchant would refuse to accept your coin. That's a strange experience for you; you're holding a coin that you might have to sell at a discount to get rid of it. The aggregate effect of this might create a run on the bitcoin price. So it reopens this long-set legal principle that currency or currency units are all equal.

service which i wanted to top up blocked my account.

The solution is simple: don't use services that tell you your Bitcoin is different than another Bitcoin.

tainted btc

What's that? Are you saying Bitcoin isn't fungible?

I mean they sent dirty btc which involved in money laundering.

What I meant is: there is no "dirty" Bitcoin. A Bitcoin is a Bitcoin. You shouldn't let anyone tell you some Bitcoins have lower value than other Bitcoins.

BestChange's stance:

@rokuen
Thank you for the signal, we will certainly investigate the matter to find out all the details and if necessary, will take measures to prevent this in the future. The exchanger you named is one of the largest on over-the-counter and such appeals are the matter of exception.

In any case, your situation requires our involvement. We will certainly get in touch with the service representatives to find out the technical details of your transaction and offer them to change the counterparty, if necessary, if they use some compromised custodial service to store bitcoin.

Please send us the transaction address and, if possible, the order number in this service, so that we could check the information in blockchain and request the details from netex24.

BestChange supports the (crazy) idea that 1BTC≠1BTC, which is a huge threat to Bitcoin and it's users.

[Poker Player]

I don't see much future for this scam accusation from what the OP says, You can question the way they operate, but they are not a scam.

Looking at the other thread, I see that what happens is that the exchange freezed the funds that passed via Chip Mixer, which brings us to the central issue that is being discussed lately in the forum:

Unfortunately, BestChange supports the anti-Bitcoin idea of "taint", and like most (or all) companies that do so, they don't state that on their website.

Leaving aside the unfairness of this, do you see much future for a business model that is dedicated to obscure the origin of funds for "privacy"? I see it as having the same future as crypto ATMs that let you withdraw tens of thousands of non-kyc Euros in a relatively short time "for privacy".

Comprare/Vendere Bitcoin senza KYC: Bancomat Bitcoin rispettosi della Privacy

Translated: Buying/Selling Bitcoin without KYC: Privacy-Friendly Bitcoin ATMs.

As of today they require KYC for any transaction, any amount.

I believe that politicians are not aware of what mixers are, otherwise they would be banned or forced to operate differently, like ATMs.

[goldkingcoiner]

Bad business practices and horrible morals is not what constitutes a scam, although we sometimes wish it did. So basically there is no ground for a scam accusation nor will anyone do anything about this. Sorry to have to tell you that.

The best thing you can do is spread your message about their bad practices and hope that people stop using their services. They have social media channels, I presume? Thats where you can show their userbase what they really are.

But be careful not to go too far and give them an excuse to accuse you of something like libel....

[NeuroticFish]

Unfortunately Bitcoin is not fungible. Unfortunately, since the history of each and every input is viewable by anybody, various businesses can easily become picky in where your coins are coming from or what you are doing with them.

BestChange's case is not unique. Afaik some bigger exchanges may be doing the same. BestChange could mark these exchanges they redirect to, in a way or another, but... there will still be some who fail to read the signs and such classification may also not be great for the business.
What has happened to OP is pretty much not unique also.

I don't understand why people don't read everything thoroughly before sending their money here and there.
I don't understand why people don't test new services with smaller amounts of money, which don't have the potential to "hurt the budget" much in case things go wrong.


Since the service OP was using has stated that it uses KYC/AML, it's somewhat at the limit between scam/stealing and not (although I guess that there's a bigger chance they keep those funds instead of sending them to the authorities). I would certainly avoid them, but I'm hesitant in calling them scammers.
OP should have been taking more precautions and avoid them earlier.

[icopress]

Since the service OP was using has stated that it uses KYC/AML, it's somewhat at the limit between scam/stealing and not (although I guess that there's a bigger chance they keep those funds instead of sending them to the authorities). I would certainly avoid them, but I'm hesitant in calling them scammers.
OP should have been taking more precautions and avoid them earlier.

Knowing the mentality of the country in whose jurisdiction such a legal exchanger is opened, I can say with 100% probability that not a single confiscated amount will be transferred to the authorities under any circumstances. Those legal legal clippings they refer to are a formality, as the letter of the law requires them to do so. Not to mention the nominee directors of this exchanger (as is often the case).

Therefore, if the funds are not returned to the user at the address from which they came, I will consider this precedent as a fraud. This is even quite ironic and somewhat similar to the fact that a gray office confiscates the user's supposedly gray money, referring to the law.

Well said

This brings another interesting question: what happens to "tained" Bitcoins once a service decides they're "tainted" (based on completely arbitrary criteria)? I wouldn't be surprised if they use this as an excuse to keep funds for themselves, AKA stealing. It's not as if they know Bob stole the Bitcoins from Alice, and they return them to Alice. So what's the plan after announcing some Bitcoins as "tainted"?

Also, I'm concerned about what LoyceV said and what i've seen for myself.

Note that the feedback has been bumped 48 times: BestChange allows the exchanger to cancel the claim (this happened 20 times). Then, Janyiah can renew the claim (which happened 19 times). That alone is very shady: imagine if any user on Bitcointalk could turn their negative feedback into neutral just by clicking it.

[NeuroticFish]

Those legal legal clippings they refer to are a formality, as the letter of the law requires them to do so.

Yep, this is most probably correct.

Therefore, if the funds are not returned to the user at the address from which they came, I will consider this precedent as a fraud.

Indeed, let's see what happens in the next few days. If they still keep the funds, the situation becomes clear.

Note that the feedback has been bumped 48 times: BestChange allows the exchanger to cancel the claim (this happened 20 times). Then, Janyiah can renew the claim (which happened 19 times). That alone is very shady: imagine if any user on Bitcointalk could turn their negative feedback into neutral just by clicking it.

This is indeed a system that can be abused by the exchanges. Not good.

[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.

We don’t have a notion of a “negative review” on our website, the red marks unsolved financial claims to the service. Maybe it’s not the most obvious UX-design, but our service is over 15 years old, out of which for 13 years it has been exactly in this design and loyal users know about this feature.

Some exchangers, like Changelly, next to it's name have icon which shows:"This exchanger can require verification of client's documents", meaning that they might ask for KYC.

But when other exchangers who does not have this icon ask for KYC, freeze the money, like in MY CASE, they won't do anything and they will take exchangers side because they are the ones who are paying them.

The icon is obligatory only if KYC is obligatory for every (or for the absolute majority) of transactions. It there are random KYC-check for transactions with high level of AML-risk, we don’t make exchangers set this icon. However, we always urge users to get acquainted with the exchange rules before the operation, after coming to the exchanger’s website.

Unfortunately, BestChange supports the anti-Bitcoin idea of "taint", and like most (or all) companies that do so, they don't state that on their website.

BestChange supports the (crazy) idea that 1BTC≠1BTC, which is a huge threat to Bitcoin and it's users.

Please understand that AML does not threaten the integrity of bitcoin ecosystem as such, but it only limits the work with gateways between the traditional financial system and the crypto world. Whether you want it or not, but if you wish to exchanger bitcoin to dollars or rubles, you have to be so kind as to comply with the rules for handling fiat currencies, and they imply a tough policy of AML legislation in many countries of the world. With that, if you make deals within the crypto community nobody and never will censor your operations, this is the essence of decentralization.

Meanwhile, you want to shift the principles of decentralization to centralized services, such as exchanges, exchangers and simple shops operating in KYC-enabled jurisdictions. This position is quite popular and understandable, but it is fundamentally wrong and contrary to the laws of many countries.
Use bitcoin within cryptocurrency ecosystem, and don’t try to exchange it to fiat currency, then you won’t have to complaint at “AML-discrimination”.

Knowing the mentality of the country in whose jurisdiction such a legal exchanger is opened, I can say with 100% probability that not a single confiscated amount will be transferred to the authorities under any circumstances. Those legal legal clippings they refer to are a formality, as the letter of the law requires them to do so. Not to mention the nominee directors of this exchanger (as is often the case).

When funds are frozen on an AML basis, the jurisdiction of the exchanger itself rarely plays a role, because they often follow instructions from the custodial service that they use to receive and store cryptocurrency. Such services are subject to all international AML legislation of the countries in which they operate (in fact, all world). Therefore, your references and hints are inappropriate.

Note that the feedback has been bumped 48 times: BestChange allows the exchanger to cancel the claim (this happened 20 times). Then, Janyiah can renew the claim (which happened 19 times). That alone is very shady: imagine if any user on Bitcointalk could turn their negative feedback into neutral just by clicking it.

This is indeed a system that can be abused by the exchanges. Not good.

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.

[icopress]

\When funds are frozen on an AML basis, the jurisdiction of the exchanger itself rarely plays a role, because they often follow instructions from the custodial service that they use to receive and store cryptocurrency. Such services are subject to all international AML legislation of the countries in which they operate (in fact, all world). Therefore, your references and hints are inappropriate.\

The jurisdiction to which the exchanger is subject is currently completely independent of the international legal AML rules (due to sanctions).

[LoyceV]

We don’t have a notion of a “negative review” on our website

These are the options:

Positive Comment Complaint

This sure looks like negative feedback to me!

the red marks unsolved financial claims to the service.

The problem is that the service can decide when it's "resolved". And, no surprise, they all "resolve" everything!

it was implemented for the sake of protection from "consumer terrorism"

That's a lousy excuse. Every services on the planet can receive unwarranted negative reviews somewhere on the internet. That makes it up to the customer to decide how they value reviews. Giving the service the power to censor reviews makes the reviews utterly useless and worse: misleading.

Please understand that AML does not threaten the integrity of bitcoin ecosystem as such, but it only limits the work with gateways between the traditional financial system and the crypto world.

Of course I know Bitcoin itself will still work. That's not the point.
AML doesn't mean you can confiscate someone's funds because a previous owner may have committed a crime. That is what fungibility means. AML also doesn't mean an exchange can return the funds after receiving KYC documents.

[DireWolfM14]

We don’t have a notion of a “negative review” on our website, the red marks unsolved financial claims to the service.

Why not?  I've never used your service, but is it an advertising service for exchanges, or is it a service to help customers find an exchange for their needs?  If it's the latter then you should certainly have reviews, if it's the former then you're just shilling for the AML/KYC scammers like Freewallet and your service is absolutely useless.

The icon is obligatory only if KYC is obligatory for every (or for the absolute majority) of transactions. It there are random KYC-check for transactions with high level of AML-risk, we don’t make exchangers set this icon. However, we always urge users to get acquainted with the exchange rules before the operation, after coming to the exchanger’s website.

I won't say this is intentionally misleading, but it's definitely misleading nonetheless.

Please understand that AML does not threaten the integrity of bitcoin ecosystem as such, but it only limits the work with gateways between the traditional financial system and the crypto world.

I'm calling BS on this.  Bitcoin was intended to put individuals in control of their wealth, and take control away from governments and institutions who've bastardized the financial industry to keep masses beholden to their services, and therefor subject to their fees and control.  The fact that we have the commonly used term "Financial Industry"  in our vocabulary is a testament to their bastardisation of money.  What "industry?"  What do they actually produce?  What value do they add to the lives of normal citizens?

Allowing governments and their "financial institution" cohorts to apply their restrictions on bitcoin only allows them to continue their policy of using finances to enslave the populous.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Maybe it’s not the most obvious UX-design, but our service is over 15 years old, out of which for 13 years it has been exactly in this design and loyal users know about this feature.

Problem. People who are not your regular users, they easily misleads. Isn't it better to have an improved UX if you feel it's not enough. New visitors will have better understanding.

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.

This is a better idea and this is how it was supposed to. I am glad that you are working on it. Looking forward to see the update.

Use bitcoin within cryptocurrency ecosystem, and don’t try to exchange it to fiat currency, then you won’t have to complaint at “AML-discrimination”.

What's wrong to send the coins back to the address it came from if the sender do not agree to AML/KYC. I personally do not see any problem since he did not convert it from crypto to fiat.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Only just saw this thread, but I've said exactly what is being discussed here in the other thread OP opened: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5404704.msg60491521#msg60491521

It is incredibly unethical that exchanges are simply allowed to nullify any claims against them, even if those claims are unresolved, and retain a 100% positive rating on BestChange.

We don’t have a notion of a “negative review” on our website, the red marks unsolved financial claims to the service.

If the exchange in question is the one deciding when a claim is resolved, without any independent verification, then the whole system is utterly meaningless.

When funds are frozen on an AML basis, the jurisdiction of the exchanger itself rarely plays a role, because they often follow instructions from the custodial service that they use to receive and store cryptocurrency. Such services are subject to all international AML legislation of the countries in which they operate (in fact, all world). Therefore, your references and hints are inappropriate.

OpenChange should then inform OP of which custodial service is holding his coins or which law enforcement agencies his coins are being handed over to, so can pursue other avenues to reclaim them. Allowing OpenChange to repeatedly close his claim despite it being unresolved is incredibly shady.

[dkbit98]

We don’t have a notion of a “negative review” on our website, the red marks unsolved financial claims to the service. Maybe it’s not the most obvious UX-design, but our service is over 15 years old, out of which for 13 years it has been exactly in this design and loyal users know about this feature.

That would mean that all other (positive) reviews available for exchanges are just solved financial claims?
I don't think your explanation is good enough, because I can clearly see people praising service, saying communication was great, and we can also see love messages...

The icon is obligatory only if KYC is obligatory for every (or for the absolute majority) of transactions. It there are random KYC-check for transactions with high level of AML-risk, we don’t make exchangers set this icon.

You need to add information for ALL exchanges with random kyc check may be performed and coins could be confiscated.
Alternative option is to say that all exchanges could ask for kyc.

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.

So what happens if I create bunch of fake positive reviews and ''attack'' your system like that?
Why don't you consider that to be abuse in the same way like you consider ALL negative reviews?
For example, I could hire bunch of people to make minimal transaction and write 100 or more positive reviews for openchange or any other exchange I want.
You can't control this manually and delete every negative review like you are doing now.

[LoyceV]

OpenChange should then inform OP of which custodial service is holding his coins

At first, I didn't think BestChange is to blame, but I'm more and more leaning towards them covering for scammers.
Just like, apparently, exchangers ask customers to deposit to addresses they don't control. That's very shady!

Allowing OpenChange to repeatedly close his claim despite it being unresolved is incredibly shady.

BestChange helps scammers to hide the truth. I'm starting to think this may deserve a Newbie warning Flag:

Due to various concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money. (This flag will only be shown to guests/newbies.)

@BestChange: any chance you can make your business more customer-centered? If an exchange has negative reviews: show them! Make it 4/128/512 instead of 0/132/512. That looks much more honest.
Also: since you've mentioned "AML legislation" a few times, why are you advertising exchangers with only an email address to identify them? Example:

Openchange.cash's Contact page shows an email address. No phone number, no company address, no country of origin.

Despite this, the anonymous site demands KYC from their customers. I don't think that's right.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

@Best_Change, speaking about the reviews


I was not able to look in details when I visited the site earlier but then I noticed there are no negative (red) reviews for any exchange.
This is tricky. A part of Neuromarketing. Nothing wrong with Neuromarketing but your approach is misleading. You are giving the users a look that there are all positive about the exchanges you list.

An internet user who do not have time to look at every details for different sites, do not know how different exchange sites function in details, mostly they are your visitor. They see everything good about all the site you listed. It does not always raise in mind that why there are no negative for the sites listed, they check for the best exchange rate. They see reviews but easily miss the part of no negative review, eye balls are are always on the numbers of positive reviews. They do not see any negative for the selected exchange too because eye balls are always in the positive ones. They make the exchange.

So, even you are saying this is not the best UX but this is obviously misleading approach.

I do not think loyal visitors which you think regular apply for site like yours. In a site like this (listing sites) internet users do not spend much time. They know the site exists, visit, find the service, leave the site. Almost all the users in your site do not really need to know how the site functions entirely. They only see the first page and the data left on the table. It is important that you present your data correctly.

I am not blaming you for anything. A service always can not serve everyone as the client expects. Thing can go wrong sometimes which is absolutely fine when there is intention to make it correct. I think you really need to improve this feedback part and be real. Right now this is not a real feedback system, not from the look of it.

[jamyr]

@BestChange: any chance you can make your business more customer-centered? If an exchange has negative reviews: show them! Make it 4/128/512 instead of 0/132/512. That looks much more honest.

If they only keep positive feedbacks as "reviews" then thats plain shilling. Just my opinion.

A suggestion:

Before cancelling claims, how about asking the customer if he agrees to cancel his claim or how about having a buffer like number of days so if the customer failed to respond if he/she agrees to void his claim, it will not be a dead end.

[Poker Player]

OpenChange should then inform OP of which custodial service is holding his coins

At first, I didn't think BestChange is to blame, but I'm more and more leaning towards them covering for scammers.
Just like, apparently, exchangers ask customers to deposit to addresses they don't control. That's very shady!

Allowing OpenChange to repeatedly close his claim despite it being unresolved is incredibly shady.

BestChange helps scammers to hide the truth. I'm starting to think this may deserve a Newbie warning Flag:

Due to various concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money. (This flag will only be shown to guests/newbies.)

@BestChange: any chance you can make your business more customer-centered? If an exchange has negative reviews: show them! Make it 4/128/512 instead of 0/132/512. That looks much more honest.
Also: since you've mentioned "AML legislation" a few times, why are you advertising exchangers with only an email address to identify them? Example:

Openchange.cash's Contact page shows an email address. No phone number, no company address, no country of origin.

Despite this, the anonymous site demands KYC from their customers. I don't think that's right.

I agree with this 100%. @Best Change, you know I have a good opinion of you, at least so far, and I also think this case can't just be left at that.

[o_e_l_e_o]

BestChange helps scammers to hide the truth.

Out of curiosity, I clicked through some other exchanges they list with a perfect 100% feedback rating. Here's an example: https://www.bestchange.com/exwallets-exchanger.html

With 8 pages of feedback, and 30 pieces of feedback per page, this exchange has ~240 pieces of feedback. It is rated 0/57, meaning it has ~183 claims against it which it has simply cancelled and therefore do not show up in its ratings. It is incredibly misleading, and I agree, bordering on scam territory, for BestChange to allow these exchanges to simply nullify any and all complaints against them without any kind of resolution or verification the complaint has been settled.

A cynical person might suggest that BestChange allow this to happen since they are paid commission from all these exchanges, and so it is in their own interest to continue allowing users to be scammed by them despite a huge number of red flags.

[Poker Player]

A cynical person might suggest that BestChange allow this to happen since they are paid commission from all these exchanges, and so it is in their own interest to continue allowing users to be scammed by them despite a huge number of red flags.

But do you think if this was the case, during many years nobody would have complained on the forum until now? There are quite a few people on the forum who regularly use Best Change services.