OrangeFren.com - instant, KYC-free, exchange comparison

[OrangeFren]

What I mean is the numerous accusations here on the forum. For example,
fixedfloat holding my funds $1000
🚓 🚨 FixedFloat Scammed Me Too 🚨 🚓
Fixedfloat is scamming me for 8000+ EUR IMPORTANT PSA!
FixedFloat.com stole my funds

I'm familiar with all, but one of those cases.

• in one the user got refunded
• in another the user didn't follow FF's ToS and had their client deposit straight into FF
• and in the last one I'm familiar with the user simply sent stolen coins to FF and is lying

Generally whenever we hear of situations like this we reach out to the exchange in question and try to get the full story. We do this even when the user isn't one of ours. In fact we do this so often that many services are quite tired of it . It's also not uncommon for us to delist them as we wait for a reply. As a result we receive information that isn't public, incl. communications with law enforcement agencies.

To be clear - none of the services we list advertise that they will process coins they believe have been stolen. Some will freeze and ask for info (for instance FF - hence the warning on our site), some will refund you without any questions asked.

BTW we recently asked FF for a guarantee that they won't freeze $5M coinjoined BTC from one of our users and they provided that guarantee and processed the funds with no issues. So even coinjoined BTC is (sometimes) (if you get our help first ) OK.

For Exolix, I experienced their KYC policy differently after direct communication.
I wrote about it in another discussion.

Their answer did not convince me that my funds are safe with them in terms of freezing or that they will ask for KYC at some point.

support team says:In this case, everything depends on the specific exchange deposit (translated)
support team says:At the moment the address does not have extremely high risk cases (translated)

Did Exolix know you were one of our users?

[LoyceV]

I'm familiar with all,
~and is lying

So you're also familiar with the fact that FF is lying?

They lied. That should tell you everything you need to know:

The funds remain frozen at our addresses, and when the frozen funds are seized by the authorities, they are also sent from our addresses.

That's not true. You say the funds "remain frozen", but that can't be since you've mixed them already.
The first transaction was mixed in this transaction and that same output was used to sent to another address. The second transaction was mixed in this transaction and also sent to another address. None of the funds were frozen in your wallet, you're normally using them to pay other people.
To summarize: if those funds came from criminal activity as you claim, you've now sent it to other innocent users who now own those "tainted" Bitcoins.
It sounds very much like you only care about "taint" when it's convenient for you.

That's blockchain evidence.

[OrangeFren]

I'm familiar with all,
~and is lying

No, sorry, I meant the user is lying in this case. Thanks for pointing it out, it wasn't clear on my part.

That's blockchain evidence.

FF, not unlike many other services, doesn't freeze a specific UTXO, rather they freeze a specific amount (and hand over to LE). They can do this because any coins coming out of their BTC address are marked clean by the chain forensic services. Not unlike what eXch used to be able to do with their aggregate address.

[dkbit98]

In the past few days the most popular exchanges are:

• by amount of swaps: FixedFloat
• by volume: Exolix

Bare in mind this does change quite often, until very recently Majestic Bank was the most popular in terms of volume.

Is there any way to see similar stats directly on Orangefren website?
Maybe adding additional information in Exchanges section, in addition to supported coins, fees, kyc and OF Guarantee amount.

One more question is about FinchPay exchange.
Are there any OF guarantees and NO-kyc up to 500 euros when purchasing coins with fiat currencies?

They can do this because any coins coming out of their BTC address are marked clean by the chain forensic services. Not unlike what eXch used to be able to do with their aggregate address.

Government addresses are also always magically ''clean''  

[OrangeFren]

Is there any way to see similar stats directly on Orangefren website?
Maybe adding additional information in Exchanges section, in addition to supported coins, fees, kyc and OF Guarantee amount.

There is! Some exchanges have a green tag to mark them as popular among our users in recent weeks, but that's only on the result page:

One more question is about FinchPay exchange.
Are there any OF guarantees and NO-kyc up to 500 euros when purchasing coins with fiat currencies?

Unfortunately, no.

Government addresses are also always magically ''clean''  

Good point!

[examplens]

I'm familiar with all, but one of those cases.

I listed only some random cases. I've seen many similar accusations in other places, such as Reddit, X, etc...
I don't see that they have gained enough trust for me to give them personal information, even if we add the case that LoyceV points to, it can be considered as not a very good choice for exchange.

Of course, that's just my opinion. And I just conclude that the reason they are the most popular with you is that they generally always offer the best rate, so they are the first result in the search on Orangefren.

Did Exolix know you were one of our users?

I know that there are privileges for your users, but I intentionally accessed as an ordinary, random user. Their support seemed rather uncertain to me, because I received some conflicting information from them. OK, they corrected themselves later, but things like this shouldn't happen.

Also, if it is possible on the basis of cooperation with you, to approve the transaction without KYC or at least to return the funds if the user does not want to give them KYC, why don't they apply this to all users?
I have nothing against your deal, it's a great thing, but obviously, their arbitrariness is a KYC requirement, not some kind of obligation according to the law

[OrangeFren]

I listed only some random cases. I've seen many similar accusations in other places, such as Reddit, X, etc...
I don't see that they have gained enough trust for me to give them personal information, even if we add the case that LoyceV points to, it can be considered as not a very good choice for exchange.

Of course, that's just my opinion. And I just conclude that the reason they are the most popular with you is that they generally always offer the best rate, so they are the first result in the search on Orangefren.

If you have suggestions on how we could fine-tune the warning to make it clearer to our users what to expect then I'll be happy to do so! I'll add that with our current warning that we have - most complaints regarding FF are from people who aren't our users. Meanwhile our users are doing thousands of swaps with FF and either getting almost no issues or opting not to tell us about them for whatever reason.

Did Exolix know you were one of our users?

I know that there are privileges for your users, but I intentionally accessed as an ordinary, random user. Their support seemed rather uncertain to me, because I received some conflicting information from them. OK, they corrected themselves later, but things like this shouldn't happen.

Also, if it is possible on the basis of cooperation with you, to approve the transaction without KYC or at least to return the funds if the user does not want to give them KYC, why don't they apply this to all users?
I have nothing against your deal, it's a great thing, but obviously, their arbitrariness is a KYC requirement, not some kind of obligation according to the law

"Ordinary" users get a different rate, different limits and different liquidity from Exolix. The site even takes longer to load for them . The rate our users get is slightly worse on most days, but still half of the next-best never-KYC option. When we reached our agreement with Exolix we reached a conclusion that having no shotgun-KYC was more valuable to our users than a slightly better rate which would match FixedFloat anyways and thus offer no tangible benefit to our users. This extra fee is what allows them to return coins they don't like.

[LoyceV]

They can do this because any coins coming out of their BTC address are marked clean by the chain forensic services. Not unlike what eXch used to be able to do with their aggregate address.

Government addresses are also always magically ''clean''  

At the risk of being slightly off-topic, and assuming you don't mind the bump: this is an interesting observation! I'd say we can even stretch it a bit further, and make "taint" disappear exactly the way it does in fiat money: if a criminal has gained a $100 bill by criminal means, that money becomes clean the moment he spends it in a restaurant for a meal. Nobody would blame the restaurant owner as long as he doesn't know he's doing business with a criminal.
Back to the above: by this observation, the "dirty" Bitcoin becomes "clean" the moment it hits an exchange. If we extend that a bit, I'd argue it becomes clean the moment it's received by someone who has nothing to do with any crime. That's how fungibility works, and that's how it should work in Bitcoin.

[OrangeFren]

this is an interesting observation! I'd say we can even stretch it a bit further, and make "taint" disappear exactly the way it does in fiat money: if a criminal has gained a $100 bill by criminal means, that money becomes clean the moment he spends it in a restaurant for a meal. Nobody would blame the restaurant owner as long as he doesn't know he's doing business with a criminal.
Back to the above: by this observation, the "dirty" Bitcoin becomes "clean" the moment it hits an exchange. If we extend that a bit, I'd argue it becomes clean the moment it's received by someone who has nothing to do with any crime. That's how fungibility works, and that's how it should work in Bitcoin.

I agree and to some extent this is already how AML checks in BTC are done. For instance if you send tainted BTC to FF and they freeze the swap and ask where you got it and you show them you bought the BTC on Bisq then FF will return you the coins.

Stats for searches on OrangeFren.com in May 2025

XMR: 41.94%
BTC: 24.34%
LTC: 11.19%
ETH: 7.25%
USDT: 4.84%
USDC: 3.67%
SOL: 1.60%
BTCLN: 0.90%
ZEC: 0.76%
DAI: 0.47%
TRX: 0.37%
BCH: 0.30%
XRP: 0.29%
TON: 0.21%
SUI: 0.19%
BNB: 0.15%
ADA: 0.12%
ZANO: 0.12%
DASH: 0.10%

[dkbit98]

I agree and to some extent this is already how AML checks in BTC are done. For instance if you send tainted BTC to FF and they freeze the swap and ask where you got it and you show them you bought the BTC on Bisq then FF will return you the coins.

I wonder what would happen if everyone started using Silent Payment addresses and PayJoin V2 (both available in Cake wallet) when sending and receiving Bitcoin?
It would be much harder for anyone to enforce silly AML rules, so smaller exchanges and services need to help with adoption.

Stats for searches on OrangeFren.com in May 2025

Even poor buggy s0l is used more than Lightning Network  

[LoyceV]

I wonder what would happen if everyone started using Silent Payment addresses and PayJoin V2 (both available in Cake wallet) when sending and receiving Bitcoin?

I don't think Silent Payments matter: that only increases privacy when you publish the address in public. If you deposit to a Silent Payment Address on an exchange, the exchange will still know your address because that's where your deposit ends up on-chain.

It would be much harder for anyone to enforce silly AML rules, so smaller exchanges and services need to help with adoption.

It's the first time I read about Payjoin. It sounds a lot like Coinjoin, but with different input and output amounts instead. Didn't some exchanges assume funds from Coinjoin are "bad" already? Even though it's good for privacy, it makes it much harder to answer the questions they might ask.

[OrangeFren]

I wonder what would happen if everyone started using Silent Payment addresses and PayJoin V2 (both available in Cake wallet) when sending and receiving Bitcoin?

I don't think Silent Payments matter: that only increases privacy if you publish the address in public. If you deposit to a Silent Payment Address on an exchange, the exchange will still know your address because that's where your deposit ends up on-chain.

That's correct. Silent Payment "addresses" look like this (it's actually our donation address):

Code:

sp1qqdc8q7l7arsfpzjv4t64he83nw8uu5zqf70n6tx32ky92fhzq0t3yqca4njs8kjumzkz8587y3a96rz8dckr2dpfsul9tpsaasagh2s63cj36azq

You might notice this is not a Bitcoin address, but it's all the info a sender needs to calculate the actual Bitcoin address using their own UTXOs they want to send. And since every donor has their own UTXOs they'll all calculate different Bitcoin addresses.

It would be much harder for anyone to enforce silly AML rules, so smaller exchanges and services need to help with adoption.

It's the first time I read about Payjoin. It sounds a lot like Coinjoin, but with different input and output amounts instead. Didn't some exchanges assume funds from Coinjoin are "bad" already? Even though it's good for privacy, it makes it much harder to answer the questions they might ask.

Payjoin txs aren't identifiable as such on the blockchain. They appear as "normal" 2-in 2-out txs.

[LoyceV]

Payjoin txs aren't identifiable as such on the blockchain. They appear as "normal" 2-in 2-out txs.

I was expecting N-in M-out, right? And in that case, if one of the M-outs goes to an exchange, and they work their AML-magic on all N-ins, they'll ask questions about addresses that aren't even yours.

[OrangeFren]

Payjoin txs aren't identifiable as such on the blockchain. They appear as "normal" 2-in 2-out txs.

I was expecting N-in M-out, right? And in that case, if one of the M-outs goes to an exchange, and they work their AML-magic on all N-ins, they'll ask questions about addresses that aren't even yours.

Let's you have 2 BTC in your wallet. I have 3 BTC in mine. If you send me 1 BTC using payjoin then we will together create a tx where:

Code:

2 BTC + 3 BTC -> 1 BTC + 4 BTC

Even though I'm a receiver my coins are on the inputs side too, not just yours. Then your change is sent back to you in the outputs, and my balance is returned to me there too.

Without using payjoin the tx would be:

Code:

2 BTC -> 1 BTC + 1 BTC

The first output going to me, the second being your change.

I'm assuming we both have a single UTXO each for simplicity's sake.

Notice that I, as the receiver, got coins from you in both cases, and got coins from myself in the payjoin case. So there's no "extra" UTXOs I have to explain away.

[LoyceV]

Let's you have 2 BTC in your wallet. I have 3 BTC in mine. If you send me 1 BTC using payjoin then we will together create a tx where:

Code:

2 BTC + 3 BTC -> 1 BTC + 4 BTC

Even though I'm a receiver my coins are on the inputs side too, not just yours. Then your change is sent back to you in the outputs, and my balance is returned to me there too.

Thanks for this example, I assumed there would be more than 2 depositors (like a coinjoin), but that's not possible yet. In this example though, I see a privacy problem: I now know you owned a 3 BTC input. With a normal transaction, all I'd know is you now have 1 BTC that came from me.
It is for sure an interesting way of sending transactions. I learned something new today

[OrangeFren]

Let's you have 2 BTC in your wallet. I have 3 BTC in mine. If you send me 1 BTC using payjoin then we will together create a tx where:

Code:

2 BTC + 3 BTC -> 1 BTC + 4 BTC

Even though I'm a receiver my coins are on the inputs side too, not just yours. Then your change is sent back to you in the outputs, and my balance is returned to me there too.

Thanks for this example, I assumed there would be more than 2 depositors (like a coinjoin), but that's not possible yet. In this example though, I see a privacy problem: I now know you owned a 3 BTC input. With a normal transaction, all I'd know is you now have 1 BTC that came from me.
It is for sure an interesting way of sending transactions. I learned something new today

Correct! And you as the sender, now will have my 3 BTC in your inputs of your tx which you might have to explain away!

[dkbit98]

I don't think Silent Payments matter: that only increases privacy when you publish the address in public. If you deposit to a Silent Payment Address on an exchange, the exchange will still know your address because that's where your deposit ends up on-chain.

Do you know how Silent Payment actually work?
They have totally different format (sp1...) compared to regular Bitcoin addresses, and that means that you can't alwys make connection between sender and receiver.
Every time you receive bitcoin on same Silent Payment address coins are received in different Bitcoin address.

It's the first time I read about Payjoin. It sounds a lot like Coinjoin, but with different input and output amounts instead. Didn't some exchanges assume funds from Coinjoin are "bad" already? Even though it's good for privacy, it makes it much harder to answer the questions they might ask.

I created a topic about PayJoin V2 wallets few days ago, and this could be a game changer.
This is NOT the same thing as CoinJoin, but you can read more about it here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5545699

[LoyceV]

I don't think Silent Payments matter: that only increases privacy when you publish the address in public. If you deposit to a Silent Payment Address on an exchange, the exchange will still know your address because that's where your deposit ends up on-chain.

Do you know how Silent Payment actually work?

I do Do you?

They have totally different format (sp1...) compared to regular Bitcoin addresses, and that means that you can't alwys make connection between sender and receiver.

There's a difference between a random observer, and the sender. If I send Bitcoin to your Silent Payment address, I know exactly which on-chain Bitcoin address I send to. But anyone else who sees the Silend Payment address has no idea which Bitcoin address I sent money to.
Which is why it doesn't make sense for an exchange: there are no "observers" to hide from: nobody sees which Bitcoin deposit address they give you. Silent Payments only add privacy when "an observer" can see the address, for instance when the address is posted online in public, or even if you give the same address to different people.

Every time you receive bitcoin on same Silent Payment address coins are received in different Bitcoin address.

That's correct. But the sender knows which Bitcoin address he sends to.

[dkbit98]

Which is why it doesn't make sense for an exchange

Exchanges should be just a vehicle for more Silent payment adoption, and I am not expecting any privacy from them.

That's correct. But the sender knows which Bitcoin address he sends to.

I didn't say that using only Silent Payments you are magically going get privacy like when using Monero.
Silent Payments is just a tool if you don't want to receive all coins into one single address, and yes I know that sender will know receiver Bitcoin address.

[OrangeFren]

Last month we recorded a record amount of payments routed through our LN node⚡️

June is already in 3rd place and it's only the 7th of June!

You can buy a channel from our node on Amboss. We've sold 23 already.