SCAM EXCHANGE MONITOR: BestChange

[LoyceV]

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.

You can't seriously expect someone to send KYC-documents to an anonymous exchange with just an email address, right?

Developing your thought, it turns out that if KYC requirement would come from an exchanger that had openly specified its address, it would be “more legal”?

Probably, assuming the exchange follows local (national) regulations. At least you'd know who you're sending your personal data to. I also know my data will be much better protected when I send it to a company in for instance Switzerland, than when I send it to a company in, as you call it, “former USSR”.

If this case, if the user would refuse to go through verification and would agree to instead receive 90 percent of payout, then it would be OK for you?

I don't think the user can freely agree to this, it sounds a lot like: "if you don't accept 90%, you get nothing".

for security reasons, the exchanger does not advertise its details?

That sounds shady. What are they trying to hide?

We are not their lawyers; you can ask this question directly to their representatives. We hope that they soon will visit this topic.

I take it you don't know who and where they are either? If they post here, I'll ask them.

With regards to our personal attitude to this, understanding the specifics of legal position of exchangers on the territories of “former USSR”, we do not require them to openly show this information, although we encourage those who are open to doing it.

So you're saying their operations might be illegal in their country? That's not really a surprise if they're hiding behind just an email address, demand personal documents, and unlawfully confiscate funds.

a credit limit or overdraft.

That's not relevant here. OP didn't borrow money from them.

If you had at least some idea of how law enforcing authorities work

That's not needed for a civil case. You know just as well as I do that going to local police saying "this website stole my magic internet money" won't lead to an international manhunt. It will just be another statistic and end there.

if an exchanger suddenly pulls an exit scam, I wouldn't blame BestChange for that. But if BestChange keeps recommending them after the fact, they deserve to be blamed.

This would have good grounds, if this episode would be quite clearly considered as scam. But this is one of the many different positions.

You seem to be the only one who thinks the site didn't scam OP.

We cannot seriously review the case with the fine of about $500 for an exchanger with the 6-year of reputation as the risk of an “exit scam”.

Correct. Until now, it's only selective scamming. The same thing applies:

of course Best_Change must be responsible for what partners like (OpenChange) do, to their users.

I partially disagree: if an exchanger suddenly pulls an exit selective scam, I wouldn't blame BestChange for that. But if BestChange keeps recommending them after the fact, they deserve to be blamed when it happens again.

Now the problem is you (Best_Change) seem to think confiscating 10% is acceptable. I (and many others) disagree. Please consider this poll:

How about a questionaire on your website:
Q. Do you think it is acceptable for an exchange to steal 10% of your deposit based on unproven criminal accusations?
A. Yes/No.

OK, I'm done with this conversation.

Good point. I'll agree to disagree on this with Best_Change

To say it is a scam exchange monitor is false based on what has been discussed in the thread.

Agreed. But it did make me more aware of the risks involved, and especially the review system turns out to be tricky.

[JollyGood]

Once again I want to keep the distinction between "Best Change the signature campaign that pays out on time to their participants" and "Best Change the online listing website that makes money from affiliate links". The latter is what is being discussed here and I have to say I am happy to read Best Change post detailed replies trying to engage with concerned members regardless of whether there is disagreement therefore credit to you.

Having said that I reject several of the statements made by Best Change which appear to biased as they try  to justify siding with an exchange over the user they referred via an affiliate link. Also I and am deeply concerned by some of the business practices implemented by Best Change which I have mentioned in the recent past. Other members have stated their own concerns.

I asked this question earlier but it remained unanswered as a direct reply therefore can Best Change provide a clear answer. Regarding the 10% that was stolen by Open Change from the OP (which amounted to around $500), did or will Best Change receive any affiliate payment for it?

Information that we do no bear financial responsibility is clearly stated in several places on the website. And it is so, even if you want the opposite.

Speaking of the 10% loss of funds to the client that you introduced to Open Change, can you state the commission you received from Open Change from the 10% they stole?

[examplens]

Once again I want to keep the distinction between "Best Change the signature campaign that pays out on time to their participants" and "Best Change the online listing website that makes money from affiliate links".

what's wrong with making money through affiliates?
I plan to run some services based on affiliate profit, Is there a possibility that I'm in trouble because of that?

I asked this question earlier but it remained unanswered as a direct reply therefore can Best Change provide a clear answer. Regarding the 10% that was stolen by Open Change from the OP (which amounted to around $500), did or will Best Change receive any affiliate payment for it?

I would say that you have already received an answer to this and similar questions, you probably missed it.

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.

[zasad@]

I saw few threads against Best_Change in the past. If my memory is correct, I do not think the feedback manipulation never was in anyone's mind before. If they had the same feedback system where there are no negative were visible then it proves my argument of eyeballs on only the positive random rating numbers. I think our brain is designed not to pay attention in flat numbers.

0/20, 0/10, 0/50, 0/32, 0/87 if these are some feedback data presented on a table to quick look then you are lost on the numbers that are changing at the right but while you are lost on those numbers, you are not really paying attention on why in the left all are 0.

I also remember some threads, resolved positively, but although you are replying to me, you are not answering my point: there are quite a few people on the forum using Best Change regularly. What are the chances of none of them being scammed over the years if Best Change have been twisting the rating system so people can be scammed and they just cash in a commission.

I believe that in this, o_e_l_e_o and I have a quasi-ideological opposite position. For him companies in general are evil and do anything to make money, including scam people.

What I know more closely are small and medium companies and I say that a company that does not treat its customers well does not last long in business. I don't even take into account scam because in the physical world a small or medium company that scams ends up with its owner in jail.

Another thing would be big megacorporations.

I have been using this service for a long time, my friends and I exchanged a lot of cryptocurrencies there.
If you are interested in negative points, then:
very rarely there were delays with exchanges, there were even situations when the exchanger blocked large amounts, because its crypto exchange blocked this transfer.
All problems were solved, but mostly 99.9 % of exchanges occur without problems.

Here my friend will change bitcoins in the ledger, he thought it was a decentralized service. Coins are locked.
Even if it were a decentralized service, you should not change large amounts at a time.

[lovesmayfamilis]

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.

I've seen reputations on Bitcointalk destroyed for less.

For some reason, I think that this is the reason for all this hysteria.

It is not clear where so much trust in a newcomer comes from. And why so many attacks on a site that has existed for more than 15 years?

Has anyone heard the proverb "an old friend is better than two new ones?" Or is it no longer relevant today?

I will also add that I have been using this exchanger longer than I learned about bitcoin, that is, more than 10 years. No one has ever deceived me, although the exchange was not in bitcoin. Nevertheless, the trust is great.

Since Best_Change explains the same thing about the terms of the service, where there are rules and the freedom to NOT use this service multiple times, I see this conversation between the blind and the deaf. No one just wants to hear anything.

[dkbit98]

OpenChange has been working for six years before the forum members of bitcointalk decided that the exchanger is not sufficiently ethical with regards to fines for non-compliance with their rules by users.

They may exist for six years or more but something obviously changed in recent years and some exchanges became more strict with their kyc rules.
Solution for them is to find better exchanges, maybe p2p trading or something else, even if that means that transactions could be slower and have higher fees.
Instead they choose to use quick method that is much more risky.

Would we have this case if Janyah201 had opened the rules of the service before the transaction, seen their KYC requirement for high-risk transactions, said “nope, this isn’t for me” and would go search for another service?

I probably would not use this exchange after reading their terms, but it's their own responsibility to check coins before they send them to some third party exchange.
For me it was not very clear from their website that openchange was only serving as mediator between third party exchange and their customer.
I hope lesson is learned for both sides.

[DireWolfM14]

OpenChange has been working for six years before the forum members of bitcointalk decided that the exchanger is not sufficiently ethical with regards to fines for non-compliance with their rules by users.

They may exist for six years or more but something obviously changed in recent years and some exchanges became more strict with their kyc rules.
Solution for them is to find better exchanges, maybe p2p trading or something else, even if that means that transactions could be slower and have higher fees.
Instead they choose to use quick method that is much more risky.

This episode of Scam Exchange along with Wasabigate is making it clear that bitcoin is going through some growing pains.  It's actually a good sign from the perspective of mass adaption, but if exchanges are going to continue pushing their made-up AML policies on consumers, things won't end well for said exchanges.  More and more people are starting to shy away from custodial wallets and AML/KYC exchanges, and gravitating to the p2p exchanges like Bisq.

Hell, I fell for the CoinBase ISO and I'm still stock holder, but my friends and family are getting tired of me screaming "BISQ" when ever any centralized exchange is mentioned.

Would we have this case if Janyah201 had opened the rules of the service before the transaction, seen their KYC requirement for high-risk transactions, said “nope, this isn’t for me” and would go search for another service?

Who cares?  If it wasn't Janyah201 it would have been someone else.  Janyah201 isn't the one who abused his power to bludgeon consumers with AML fantasies, it was Openchange, the company you're promoting and defending.  This is the beginning of the end for any exchange that opperates the way Openchange did in this circumstance, and if you don't change your policy of putting exchanges above clients, it's the beginning of the end of BestChange as well.

[user210822]

That thread thrilled me so much I could not hesitate to use this exchange! Got lucky. Everything went smooth. Now, pardon my offtopic, I've listened to one podcast and it gave me a hint about "why in the first place there was the Red Flag around this OP"! Am I wrong?