Allow me to focus on
this case: the user wanted to exchange Bitcoin for Monero, and the exchange confiscated 10% of his funds. This has nothing to do with fiat currencies, it's clearly not AML and I bet there are no authorities involved.
@Best_Change: Is confiscating 10% acceptable to you? And if so: based on which laws in which country?
Are you happy that the exchange (Open Change) you are affiliated with have confiscated 10% of the funds of your client because he was diverted to their website as a result of clicking a link on your Best Change website?
We are not “happy” with this practice, but you need to take it into account that in some cases we do allow withholding commissions or fines according to the terms of the exchange, provided that this is clearly described in the rules of the exchanger, is clearly communicated to the user and there is no possibility to manipulate the wording. The maximal amount of a “fine” accepted in OTC-segment and by us is not more than 10 percent of the transaction. You also need to take it into account that if this practice happens more and more often in an exchanger, we will raise a question about a full delisting of the service, that’s why they won’t violate this option although they have it in almost any questionable situation.
In this specific case a blatant violation of the exchanger’s rules happened, the user had been informed but deliberately send a risky operation and refused to pass KYC-procedure necessary by the conditions of this service.
The very practice of fine although being very unpopular among users, often has real grounds for its existence. This is due to the increased risks of blocking part of the receipts or even the entire exchange service account in the custodial wallet they use. Thus, they try to reduce their losses from potential sanctions for such transfers in the future.
However, you need to consider that the large number of solved claims means only that although there were some disagreements, but the claims what solved in favor of the client (otherwise they would stay red, if necessary, with our claim).
The current feedback on OpenChange from OP says that OpenChange have selectively scammed 10% of his deposit. They have cancelled the claim and so it appears neutral. I would say this has absolutely not been solved in OP's favor, since OpenChange have stolen 10% of his coins, and yet, the feedback is neutral.
Any user, if they wish so, can read all the history of reviews, we don’t remove them, we only don’t focus attention on them.
Speaking of removing claims, what happened to OP's original feedback on OpenChange, which had them cancelling his claim 20+ times? Why has it disappeared?
Most likely, the user was generally satisfied with such a compromise decision and removed it on his own accord, we don’t track such situations. We have just checked actions of our moderators on the page of OpenChange and the last removal of a review was in November 2021, due to a high risk of a “positive feedback” to be fake.
Such conclusions can be made against the backdrop of this comment:
I'm finished here.
But we don’t have any legal binding with these services where users exchange their funds
But you've just said that all these exchanges are "100% legal". How can you claim that if you have no idea whether or not they are legal?
We check many parametres, including the legal aspects of their legitimacy, before adding exchangers in our listing. The fact that we are not legally bound with them doesn’t mean that we do not know anything about them or that they are illegal.
in the gateways of which AML filters are installed.
AML laws and regulations differ around the world, and neither you nor OpenChange have been forthcoming about what jurisdiction they are based in, which third party payment processor they are using, and which jurisdiction that third party is based in. I've got to say though, I'm not aware of any jurisdiction which says "If you think money is illicit, keep 10% for yourself."
For a general user, it does not matter in what country this or that exchanger is registered. The aspects you describe are written in the rules of exchange, you either agree with them and finish the transaction, or refuse and leave the website with unacceptable for you conditions. There is nothing extraordinary in the service conditions of the exchanger. We make sure that various conditions and rules do not go beyond the boundaries of reasonable and legal.
Are you happy to continue listing Open Change on your website and are you happy to continue your affiliation with them knowing what their Terms and Conditions consist of?
I don't call it scam but bad business practice lack of morals and greed for the referral commission.
I bet the revenue will be the same if they didn't use the shady behavior for the reviews. Or if they get extra for doing that shady behavior not sure
In the context of the current generally accepted norms, we do not see anything reprehensible and illegal in the actions of OpenChange, so the question of their exclusion has not yet been raised. And the questions of whether this or that practice is ethical, are very subjective.
However, we don’t exclude the possibility of their removal, if the community (and not several people on bitcointalk) will decide that this practice in this context is incorrect And if this is a "trick question", then would like to disappoint all conspiracy theorists, our relationship with exchangers in no way depends on the number and size of fines, we do not receive "kickbacks" from this. Commission rewards are formed only from their standard income on the difference in the value of assets, and not from other methods of financing. Therefore, we are not "happy", deep down we are "sad" from such a practice, but these are the general rules of the OTC market.
This is your subjective evaluation, not based on any real data, just your opinion in the “vacuum”.
My opinion and evaluation is
objective because I am not the owner of BestChange website like you, and I was not involved in confiscation of coins like other member who reported this problem.
Let me clarify that I see no justification in keeping green positive review with
I love this exchange comments, and removing red color for anything with negative conotation.
Please understand that majority of people share my opinion in this case, and it's nothing personal against BestChange.
If you don't respect this than we have a problem, and you are the one being subjective, not me.
Differences between objective and subjective are in the presence of supporting facts. If you conducted some kind of investigation (at least a formal one), then in theory you could call your position objective. But based on your personal feelings, you can only write a subjective position. This is not an insult or belittlement of your merits, this is just a statement of the fact that what you described is your own feeling based not on any facts, but only on thoughts about it. And thoughts, in fact, are erroneous, but this is already beyond the context of the discussion of objectivity and subjectivity.
Speaking of removing claims, what happened to OP's original feedback on OpenChange, which had them cancelling his claim 20+ times? Why has it disappeared?
I am interested to hear about this as well, since BestChange said they don't delete any feedback... unless this is also classified information...
We guess you misunderstood us. We were saying that we almost never delete negative reviews and claims, because they are the most painful points of communication. Even when exchangers “beg” us, saying that the reviews have no ground and they are “cute and cuddly”. Everyone has a right to speak, even if somebody does not like this opinion. We can only “clear” the message from the most offensive expressions and blatant lie, without touching upon the essence of the message.
As for fake positive reviews, we regularly delete them in big numbers. It’s hard to tell who exactly ordered these reviews - the beneficiary, manager, careless operator or even competitor, that’s why we do not have punishment for such fake reviews, however, it would be wrong to leave this on our website, that’s why we remove this.
We do not reveal the number of deletions and specific exchangers, this is internal information which can be misinterpreted, but this does happen, and in larger scale than we would like to. But this is like in the rest of the internet —the reviews are a circumstantial parameter of evaluation today, although we do our best to leave only maximally objective and confirmed ones on our website.
Best Change has changed the title in his reply and it appears in yours as you have quoted him.
Do you worry about that?
I will probably go first and leave a red tag unless there is a full refund within 48 hours.
What, according to you, has our service done to deserve the “red tag”?
In this specific case, as we described earlier, the user agreed with the exchange rules before making the operation, and he one-sidedly decided that he may not fulfill them only because, according to his evaluation, they are not just, this is a serious violation not only of exchange rules, but also of logic and ethical norms.
If somebody isn’t satisfied with the rules of the service, it would be logical to avoid this service and not to impose it with your rules and make scenes, isn’t it? At least they have the opportunity to put pressure on the Exchange mentioned.
This is really so, and we have enough of being their “lawyer”, we will try to invite them into this subject for a discussion, so that they would reply for their practice themselves. And so that you ask them, not us, your questions about the details of what has happened. In terms of compliance with the rules adopted in the OTC community, they did not commit any formal violations. At the same time, Janyah201 himself violated a number of principles of the exchanger, but the bitcointalk community stood up to protect him, because it’s so easy to share the position of the “victim” - everyone can be in his shoes, and this “bourgeoisie” is guilty of all sins in advance - “all they do is stealing money." This one-sided position is very biased and condones "consumer terrorism" when, under the pressure of risk to OUR reputation, you want to influence other entities that are not under our control in any way. But at the same time, we really have some reserve of power for influence, which you want to use for your own selfish purposes, threatening our reputation.
What do you want? So that we delist the exchanger because you and a few other users do not like their rules and practices? What is it, if not dyspathia? Maybe we are wrong, but it looks extremely ugly. With this logic, should we list only a dozen of those who will please the regulars of the forum? Will you send us an agreed list?
Let's be objective and not cross the line of common sense. We do have influence on the exchanger, but why should we follow the logic of a few people from this topic, and not the rules that have been established over a decade of exchangers’ work? Because you're threatening us with a few "red tags"? Such behavior does not suit the forum and the local community, we hope that most of the participants in the discussion do not adhere to such logic and are able to devide the facts.
I can only hope, @Best_Change, is well received in this forum, with them correcting their past mistakes and really prioritizing exchanges that have a good reputation and can be trusted, not the other way around, this is about Best_Change's own web reputation, don't ever fall into a hole a second time, reputation is important for crypto exchange companies.
Thank you for your opinion. As for the feedback system, we are already trying to modernize what we have. But a complete qualitative change in the feedback system itself (something similar to trustpilot) will not happen until our entire system is updated. We have been doing this work for a long time already, but we are not able to give the exact timing of implementation - maybe six months, maybe a year.
As for listing rules, we will discuss with representatives of exchangers the possibility of toughening some aspects of listing for their colleagues and competitors, as well as if it is right to use “fines” as a practice. We’ll see what can be done about it to find a consensus between bitcointalk and exchangers communities.
If we all come to the conclusion that OpenChange did exceed its authority and abused its position, then a decision will be made to exclude it and/or force them to adapt the rules of service in order to continue cooperation.
