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

[XLXer]

The Ghostswap drama seems like it will never end, or it will end badly.
Here are some interesting claims related to two cases on GS, where you are also mentioned as one of the mediators in resolving them (or some still haven't).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5587469.msg67145559#msg67145559

User @criptounlocker is right about one thing. You still treat GS as "Guaranteed never-KYC regardless." Although even on their website it is now clearly declared

Swaps are executed and settled by our processing partners, who screen every transaction and may hold a flagged deposit until verification.

In the end, what is true in this whole case, and obviously there are more.

As we understand this "new" case is as old as the previous one. We've added a brief warning linking to this new message as well as removed the "never-KYC" attribute from GS for now.

We await the resolution of this case. Hopefully it happens sooner rather than later.

https://talkimg.com/images/2026/09/15/UqF0t1.png

Thank you for updating the listing and removing the "never-KYC" attribute. That was a right step.

But the warning alone does not solve the problem. GhostSwap is still active, still holding my 20.5 ETH without any timeline, and still using HitBTC as their liquidity partner.

I want to ask directly: what options do you have to restrict GhostSwap on your platform? You have already removed them once before. What can be done now — until this case is resolved?

Here is the new thread with my case: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5594222

I await your answer.

[examplens]

But the warning alone does not solve the problem. GhostSwap is still active, still holding my 20.5 ETH without any timeline, and still using HitBTC as their liquidity partner.

A warning, as such, is the first step.
Previous warnings on multiple platforms had the effect that GS still found a way to refund the 12.5 ETH case.
Now, be honest, even if there was a warning like this on OF at the time you were using GS, would it affect your decision or would you still continue to use GS?

I took a quick look at your transactions and the AML analysis of one of your addresses, and it was quite expected that HitBTC would flag it as high risk.

[XLXer]

But the warning alone does not solve the problem. GhostSwap is still active, still holding my 20.5 ETH without any timeline, and still using HitBTC as their liquidity partner.

A warning, as such, is the first step.
Previous warnings on multiple platforms had the effect that GS still found a way to refund the 12.5 ETH case.
Now, be honest, even if there was a warning like this on OF at the time you were using GS, would it affect your decision or would you still continue to use GS?

I took a quick look at your transactions and the AML analysis of one of your addresses, and it was quite expected that HitBTC would flag it as high risk.

You are asking if a warning would have changed my decision. Honestly — probably yes. If I had seen a warning about unresolved cases and KYC issues, I would have thought twice. But at that time I didn't look into the details, because "NO KYC" was written in big letters, and I had already exchanged funds there before without any problems.

I also want to add that I didn't know about OrangeFren at all. If I had known, I would have used their link, and I would have had their guarantee. But I didn't.

My main trigger for using GhostSwap was "NO KYC" — it was in the biggest letters on their website. That is what I trusted.

Regarding the AML analysis — here is what I don't understand: four transactions from the same source. Three went through. Only the third was blocked. If my address is high risk, why were the other three processed without any issue? That is the question I have not received an answer to.

I am not asking for sympathy. I am asking for my 20.5 ETH to be returned.
https://talkimg.com/images/2026/09/16/Uq3Yr1.png

[logfiles]

But at that time I didn't look into the details, because "NO KYC" was written in big letters, and I had already exchanged funds there before without any problems.

In this spaces they always say "Do not just trust, always verify first"
Ghostswap had red flags right from the time they announced themselves in this forum. Just read the first replies from forum members in their Announcement. That alone would have deterred you from using the service had you come across that thread earlier on.

Also Ghostswap using HitBTC as their liquidity provider is not the most diabolical move i have seen  in the recent times. HitBTC is probably one of the worst centralized exchanges out there and their KYC verification process is designed to make sure you don't get the funds out of the exchange. Even Binance or OKX are far much lenient and don't block accounts anyhow,

[criptounlocker]

But at that time I didn't look into the details, because "NO KYC" was written in big letters, and I had already exchanged funds there before without any problems.

In this spaces they always say "Do not just trust, always verify first"
Ghostswap had red flags right from the time they announced themselves in this forum. Just read the first replies from forum members in their Announcement. That alone would have deterred you from using the service had you come across that thread earlier on.

Also Ghostswap using HitBTC as their liquidity provider is not most diabolical move i have seen  in the recent times. HitBTC is probably one of the worst centralized exchanges out there and their KYC verification process is designed to make sure you don't get the funds out of the exchange. Even Binance or OKX are far much lenient and don't block accounts anyhow,

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5587469.msg67145559#msg67145559

So, if I understand you correctly: you admit that it is always dangerous to exchange on platforms that have no oversight at all?

In my recent explanation, I wrote that I can get any exchanger removed from BestChange if I see a violation and if they misled me. For reference — being listed on BestChange costs more than 20 ETH, and any exchanger will be ready to resolve an issue just to avoid being removed.

Take FF.io as an example. I see many complaints about them. In 4 years of my work, I had about 20 cases with FF, and I managed to get funds back in all of them. Only one case failed — because a document confirming the seizure of funds was provided. There I was powerless.

My point is: with BestChange, problems can always be resolved — if you prove that the exchanger is acting in bad faith. But here, it turns out that all these "No KYC" claims are just a decoration. Did I understand you correctly?

[OrangeFren]

But the warning alone does not solve the problem. GhostSwap is still active, still holding my 20.5 ETH without any timeline, and still using HitBTC as their liquidity partner.

A warning, as such, is the first step.
Previous warnings on multiple platforms had the effect that GS still found a way to refund the 12.5 ETH case.
[...]

Indeed.
Consider also that in a way being listed on OrangeFren.com with a big warning is worse than not being listed at all. As a matter of fact, in the past, multiple services requested we delist them rather than leave them up with a negative review and warnings.

We continue to hold a rather large guarantee deposit from GS and we do not intend on returning it to them prior to the resolution of any outstanding cases against them. I view the fact that they asked us to reduce their deposit in the UI as a promising signs since in a way they're "setting aside" funds for resolving existing cases.

[examplens]

Indeed.
Consider also that in a way being listed on OrangeFren.com with a big warning is worse than not being listed at all. As a matter of fact, in the past, multiple services requested we delist them rather than leave them up with a negative review and warnings.

I certainly confirm this. Information is still information, even if it is negative.
Directories and aggregators in your case should serve to deliver as much independent information as possible.

[OrangeFren]

Indeed.
Consider also that in a way being listed on OrangeFren.com with a big warning is worse than not being listed at all. As a matter of fact, in the past, multiple services requested we delist them rather than leave them up with a negative review and warnings.

I certainly confirm this. Information is still information, even if it is negative.
Directories and aggregators in your case should serve to deliver as much independent information as possible.

If there's no improvement we will of course delist them and then put them in our little list of services removed for scamming users. But for now they get virtually no volume and the warning is seen by many eyes.

By the way, to the user, if you reach out to us via email asking for assistance then PLEASE KEEP YOUR EMAIL WORKING:

Code:

This is the mail system at host mail.w14.tutanota.de.

I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.

For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the attached returned message.

                   The mail system

<[REDACTED BY ORANGEFREN]@tutamail.com>: host fd:ac:0:0:0:0:d:10[fd:ac::d:10] said: 554
    general failure (in reply to end of DATA command)

[XLXer]

Indeed.
Consider also that in a way being listed on OrangeFren.com with a big warning is worse than not being listed at all. As a matter of fact, in the past, multiple services requested we delist them rather than leave them up with a negative review and warnings.

I certainly confirm this. Information is still information, even if it is negative.
Directories and aggregators in your case should serve to deliver as much independent information as possible.

If there's no improvement we will of course delist them and then put them in our little list of services removed for scamming users. But for now they get virtually no volume and the warning is seen by many eyes.

By the way, to the user, if you reach out to us via email asking for assistance then PLEASE KEEP YOUR EMAIL WORKING:

Code:

This is the mail system at host mail.w14.tutanota.de.

I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.

For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the attached returned message.

                   The mail system

<[REDACTED BY ORANGEFREN]@tutamail.com>: host fd:ac:0:0:0:0:d:10[fd:ac::d:10] said: 554
    general failure (in reply to end of DATA command)

Yes, thank you. As I mentioned earlier, there were some issues with email yesterday, but it seems everything is working now, and I received your reply via email.
I emailed GS again, but as of September 14, I haven't received a reply yet.

[logfiles]

So, if I understand you correctly: you admit that it is always dangerous to exchange on platforms that have no oversight at all?

In my recent explanation, I wrote that I can get any exchanger removed from BestChange if I see a violation and if they misled me. For reference — being listed on BestChange costs more than 20 ETH, and any exchanger will be ready to resolve an issue just to avoid being removed.

Take FF.io as an example. I see many complaints about them. In 4 years of my work, I had about 20 cases with FF, and I managed to get funds back in all of them. Only one case failed — because a document confirming the seizure of funds was provided. There I was powerless.

My point is: with BestChange, problems can always be resolved — if you prove that the exchanger is acting in bad faith. But here, it turns out that all these "No KYC" claims are just a decoration. Did I understand you correctly?

You  misunderstood me... Oversight might be OK but my emphasis are on services that claim they won't bother clients by blocking their funds or asking for KYC verification which they later do anyway due to their bad choice of liquidity providers.

Bestchange had an option of improving themselves but they chose not to do so... Take a look at their announcement thread and you will notice that I have been critical on how they operate especially in the recent times.

[criptounlocker]

So, if I understand you correctly: you admit that it is always dangerous to exchange on platforms that have no oversight at all?

In my recent explanation, I wrote that I can get any exchanger removed from BestChange if I see a violation and if they misled me. For reference — being listed on BestChange costs more than 20 ETH, and any exchanger will be ready to resolve an issue just to avoid being removed.

Take FF.io as an example. I see many complaints about them. In 4 years of my work, I had about 20 cases with FF, and I managed to get funds back in all of them. Only one case failed — because a document confirming the seizure of funds was provided. There I was powerless.

My point is: with BestChange, problems can always be resolved — if you prove that the exchanger is acting in bad faith. But here, it turns out that all these "No KYC" claims are just a decoration. Did I understand you correctly?

You  misunderstood me... Oversight might be OK but my emphasis are on services that claim they won't bother clients by blocking their funds or asking for KYC verification which they later do anyway due to their bad choice of liquidity providers.

Bestchange had an option of improving themselves but they chose not to do so... Take a look at their announcement thread and you will notice that I have been critical on how they operate especially in the recent times.

Yes, now I understand your point

[OrangeFren]

ACINQ buys channel from OrangeFren.com

ACINQ, the team behind Phoenix wallet, have bought a channel from our Lightning node using Amboss's Magma yesterday.

This means peers that have a channel with our node can now enjoy a good connection with all the users of Phoenix wallet

[LoyceV]

I had not checked for LN before, so I was curious if a small amount would be possible. I checked 0.1 LTC > BTC on LN:

Code:

6.894e-05 BTC on LN

That notation can be improved

mystery swapper experiment

I assume you didn't check them all at the same moment, right? What I'd like to see, is the comparison when you deposit at the exact same moment.
Let's say a certain swap recommends exchangers A, B, C and D, in that order. Usually, when I check the sites themselves, they give slightly different rates. But what I'm really curious about, is if A will still give the best result in the real test, or that A sugar coated it on your site but B or C would have been the best in a real test.

[OrangeFren]

I had not checked for LN before, so I was curious if a small amount would be possible. I checked 0.1 LTC > BTC on LN:

Code:

6.894e-05 BTC on LN

That notation can be improved

mystery swapper experiment

I assume you didn't check them all at the same moment, right? What I'd like to see, is the comparison when you deposit at the exact same moment.
Let's say a certain swap recommends exchangers A, B, C and D, in that order. Usually, when I check the sites themselves, they give slightly different rates. But what I'm really curious about, is if A will still give the best result in the real test, or that A sugar coated it on your site but B or C would have been the best in a real test.

Thanks, changed the notation. That said, there's really no "good" notation for small fractions. Either you get many zeros that are hard to read or you get exponentials which many people aren't comfortable with either :/

We did check them all at the same time! The deposits were all one tx with many outputs, one for each service. Wouldn't be fair otherwise.


User trusts false info on other site

A user contacted us yesterday informing us he picked a swapper which was listed as not never-KYC on OrangeFren.com, but as never-KYC on Monerica and now his funds are frozen 🙃

Thankfully we were able to pull some favours with the swapper in question, and on the condition of not disclosing which service it was, they were able to refund the user.


OrangeFren SimpleX group crossed 1000 members!

Our group on SimpleX has crossed 1000 members!

You can join it here: link

[LoyceV]

there's really no "good" notation for small fractions.

I like spaces instead of dots/commas for large numbers (to avoid international confusion). Maybe that works for decimals too: 0.000 042 25 BTC. It's not perfect though, Bitcoin should have had 9 decimals for this to work.
Never mind, right after I posted this, the number was cut in half by a line break.

Either you get many zeros that are hard to read or you get exponentials which many people aren't comfortable with either :/

Ever since I started in Bitcoin, I've prefered "mBTC". That solves all comma problems (unless you're buying a jet). But for some reason there are still people who don't get this either.

We did check them all at the same time! The deposits were all one tx with many outputs, one for each service. Wouldn't be fair otherwise.

Great!

How about 0.00004225 BTC? Making everything past the 6th decimal gray can work for any amount:
8.57105727 BTC Never mind, when I see it, it looks terrible

[dkbit98]

OrangeFren this might not be main purpose of your website, but I have newbies asking in private me how they can spend their coins in real life.
It might be a good idea to create new section with easy to understand links to websites that accept payment in bitcoin and other coins.
I am excluding crypto cards and VPNs, since this are already listed on OramgeFren.

OrangeFren SimpleX group crossed 1000 members!

SimpleX is not perfect and it has it's flaws, but I like it more than other alternatives, and I managed to get few people to sign up and use it for communication.

[OrangeFren]

Either you get many zeros that are hard to read or you get exponentials which many people aren't comfortable with either :/

Ever since I started in Bitcoin, I've prefered "mBTC". That solves all comma problems (unless you're buying a jet). But for some reason there are still people who don't get this either.

I too preferred it for a while. We're in this awkward time when 1 BTC is too big and 1 sat is still too small

OrangeFren this might not be main purpose of your website, but I have newbies asking in private me how they can spend their coins in real life.
It might be a good idea to create new section with easy to understand links to websites that accept payment in bitcoin and other coins.
I am excluding crypto cards and VPNs, since this are already listed on OramgeFren.

Good idea. We recently partnered with ShopinBit. They're a concierge service and can get buy a lot of stuff for you.
Their fee is 10% with a 100 euro minimum, but with our code (ORANGEFREN) you can get 50 euro off, so for purchases up to 1000 euro this drops their fee by half

[NotATether]

How about 0.00004225 BTC? Making everything past the 6th decimal gray can work for any amount:
8.57105727 BTC Never mind, when I see it, it looks terrible

Superscripts are better.

So 8.5710⁵⁷²⁷, and works well even with visually impaired readers.

[LoyceV]

So 8.5710⁵⁷²⁷, and works well even with visually impaired readers.

My brain interprets that as 2.96 * 10⁵³⁴³.

[OrangeFren]

⚠️ Cake Wallet's Yesenia Gonzalez's Telegram account was hacked and the account is now attempting to convince people to install malware

Cake knew about this for over a week, but made NO PUBLIC WARNING

Multiple of Cake's partners are already affected