[ANN] SnapSwap.io | Instant Crypto-to-Crypto Exchange | Low Rates, Low KYC Risk

[snapswap.io]

Dear forum members, we are happy to introduce SnapSwap.io, a privacy-focused instant crypto exchange service which operates without account registration.


Why choose SnapSwap as your go-to instant exchange?

Our main advantage is that we do not send funds directly to liquidity partners. Instead, we accept them on our wallets, do the AML compliance checks, and then route them to exchange.
This working mechanism will significantly lower the risk of getting assets of our users frozen.
We can freely say that our exchange offers nearly 99% no-KYC exchanges.
Currently, we accept up to 75% of AML risk score. In case of a higher score, we refund your assets instantly. This process is automatic.

✅Monero Supported — We strongly support Monero and privacy coins.
✅130+ Coins Supported — BTC, ETH, XMR, USDT, USDC and most major cryptocurrencies. We plan to increase this list periodically.
✅We Offer Two Order Types — Float rate 0.5% (fee) and Fixed rate 1% (fee). Fees are quoted on the receive tab, no hidden fees.
✅Minimal User Data Collection — Please check our Privacy Policy for more details.
✅Support Available 24/7 — Telegram, SimpleX, and Email

In the coming months, we will add an affiliate program, API docs, and a new liquidity providers.
We welcome group members to try our platform and offer us improvement points.
We also welcome marketing partners — please contact us for discussion.

💡 How it works

• Select the cryptocurrency to exchange (e.g. BTC → XMR).
• Enter the wallet address to receive.
• Send a deposit.
• Receive funds directly to your wallet.

Average exchange execution time: 5-30 minutes, depending on network confirmations.


🔗 Our Links

🌐 Website: SnapSwap.io
📢 Telegram: @snapswap_io
🐦 Twitter: x.com/snapswap_io  
⭐ Reviews Trustpilot

[Apocollapse]

Again, a so called privacy oriented exchange have a rules to ask KYC whenever they want.

Since not all high risk coins will be refund (possibility of get asked to provide KYC), people have to be careful.

I'm sure this site https://www.snapswap.eu/ was your inspiration to create your exchange, the design is quite similar and the name is same, although them and your project are different.

[snapswap.io]

Hello, and thank you for your comment.

Just to clarify: like most instant exchanges, we do rely on third-party liquidity providers. However, we’ve built our own mechanism to ensure funds are not sent directly to them. Deposits are first checked for AML risk score, and only then routed further. If the risk is too high, the funds are automatically refunded to the user’s deposit address without any additional questions.

Of course, no service that uses external liquidity can realistically guarantee 100% no-KYC in every possible scenario. I think you’ll agree that this is impossible. While we minimize this risk by screening with industry-standard AML tools, there may still be rare cases where a liquidity partner freezes funds and requests additional documents. In such cases, we work together with both the user and the provider to resolve the issue as smoothly as possible.

Regarding the website you mentioned (snapswap.eu): we’ve never been inspired by or copied them. We didn’t even visit that site before launching our project. The name “SnapSwap” was chosen because it fits our vision well, is easy to remember, and represents the speed and simplicity we want to deliver.

We appreciate your feedback and welcome healthy discussion, it helps us improve.

[Zwei]

Just to clarify: like most instant exchanges, we do rely on third-party liquidity providers. However, we’ve built our own mechanism to ensure funds are not sent directly to them. Deposits are first checked for AML risk score, and only then routed further. If the risk is too high, the funds are automatically refunded to the user’s deposit address without any additional questions.

won't it be better to ask for a refund address instead of automatically refunding the funds to the user deposite address?
or at least give the user the option to choose between the two?

i mean, i can definitely imagine someone sending coins directly from a third party hot wallet (casino widthraw, payment from someone, etc...), so if you automatically refund it back to their hot wallet, the user could loss their coins.

[hugeblack]

No-KYC is a misleading statement because according to --> https://snapswap.io/app/aml-kyc Section 3 I quote the following:

KYC on Demand
We ask for identity documents only when:

a. A third-party liquidity partner requires it, or

b. We receive a valid law-enforcement or court request.
.
.
Users have 72 hours to complete KYC. Refusal keeps funds on hold until the partner or authority decides on release or confiscation.

So again, even if the transaction passes your AML test and is frozen by liquidity partner, KYC will still be required.

If you truly want to be no-KYC, it's better to bear any losses incurred if liquidity partner freezes the transaction.

You can continue to promote your service as Instant Crypto-to-Crypto Exchange. You have competitive fees, and if you can prove you're a registered company with a registration number and tax information, I don't think anyone will be bothered by KYC. However, I haven't found any legal information^[1] related to the service.


[1] https://snapswap.io/app/about

[examplens]

We can freely say that our exchange offers nearly 99% no-KYC exchanges.

If there is 1% of cases where you will ask for a KYC, then you are not a no-KYC.
First, you say that you will refund coins with too high an AML score that you cannot trade. What is correct here?

No-KYC is a misleading statement because according to --> https://snapswap.io/app/aml-kyc Section 3 I quote the following:

KYC on Demand
We ask for identity documents only when:

a. A third-party liquidity partner requires it, or

b. We receive a valid law-enforcement or court request.
.
.
Users have 72 hours to complete KYC. Refusal keeps funds on hold until the partner or authority decides on release or confiscation.

So again, even if the transaction passes your AML test and is frozen by liquidity partner, KYC will still be required.

If you truly want to be no-KYC, it's better to bear any losses incurred if liquidity partner freezes the transaction.

Just because they have a liquidity partner, they cannot be guaranteed to be no-KYC. It does not depend on them, but on the partner through whom the exchange process is carried out. They need to remove "no-KYC" from the subject line.

[snapswap.io]

Just to clarify: like most instant exchanges, we do rely on third-party liquidity providers. However, we’ve built our own mechanism to ensure funds are not sent directly to them. Deposits are first checked for AML risk score, and only then routed further. If the risk is too high, the funds are automatically refunded to the user’s deposit address without any additional questions.

won't it be better to ask for a refund address instead of automatically refunding the funds to the user deposite address?
or at least give the user the option to choose between the two?

i mean, i can definitely imagine someone sending coins directly from a third party hot wallet (casino widthraw, payment from someone, etc...), so if you automatically refund it back to their hot wallet, the user could loss their coins.

Thank you for raising this point, I completely agree with you. Let me clarify how our refund process works.

We have two scenarios where refunds may occur:

Fixed rate order expired/rate changed, if the market moved and the fixed rate is no longer valid, the user is given a choice on the order page: either continue with the current market rate or request a refund.

Compliance (AML) check failed, if a transaction does not pass screening, the order page updates in real time and asks the user to provide a refund address where funds should be returned.

So refunds are not sent back automatically to the source wallet. The user is always involved in the process through the order interface, and can decide where their coins should go.

No-KYC is a misleading statement because according to --> https://snapswap.io/app/aml-kyc Section 3 I quote the following:

KYC on Demand
We ask for identity documents only when:

a. A third-party liquidity partner requires it, or

b. We receive a valid law-enforcement or court request.
.
.
Users have 72 hours to complete KYC. Refusal keeps funds on hold until the partner or authority decides on release or confiscation.

So again, even if the transaction passes your AML test and is frozen by liquidity partner, KYC will still be required.

If you truly want to be no-KYC, it's better to bear any losses incurred if liquidity partner freezes the transaction.

You can continue to promote your service as Instant Crypto-to-Crypto Exchange. You have competitive fees, and if you can prove you're a registered company with a registration number and tax information, I don't think anyone will be bothered by KYC. However, I haven't found any legal information^[1] related to the service.


[1] https://snapswap.io/app/about

Thank you for your detailed feedback, you’re right, and we appreciate the clarification.

It’s true that we cannot claim to be a 100% “no-KYC” exchange, because in rare situations where our liquidity partners or law enforcement request documents, we have to comply. In practice, however, the vast majority of transactions (around 99%) are completed without any KYC requirements, and if an AML check fails we refund the funds automatically. Still, I agree that “no-KYC” in the title is misleading, so I will update our ANN accordingly.

We are just getting started with this project, and part of our roadmap is to officially register a company to strengthen trust and credibility. For us, being transparent with the community from the beginning is very important.

Thanks again for pointing this out, it helps us improve how we communicate and operate.

We can freely say that our exchange offers nearly 99% no-KYC exchanges.

If there is 1% of cases where you will ask for a KYC, then you are not a no-KYC.
First, you say that you will refund coins with too high an AML score that you cannot trade. What is correct here?

No-KYC is a misleading statement because according to --> https://snapswap.io/app/aml-kyc Section 3 I quote the following:

KYC on Demand
We ask for identity documents only when:

a. A third-party liquidity partner requires it, or

b. We receive a valid law-enforcement or court request.
.
.
Users have 72 hours to complete KYC. Refusal keeps funds on hold until the partner or authority decides on release or confiscation.

So again, even if the transaction passes your AML test and is frozen by liquidity partner, KYC will still be required.

If you truly want to be no-KYC, it's better to bear any losses incurred if liquidity partner freezes the transaction.

Just because they have a liquidity partner, they cannot be guaranteed to be no-KYC. It does not depend on them, but on the partner through whom the exchange process is carried out. They need to remove "no-KYC" from the subject line.

I see where the confusion comes from, and let me clarify.

There are two separate situations:

High AML risk score at deposit stage. In this case, the transaction does not continue. The coins are refunded automatically to the user once they provide a refund address. No KYC is involved in this scenario.

Transaction passes our AML check but gets frozen by a liquidity partner later, in this rare case, the liquidity partner may request documents. Since we don’t control their internal processes, KYC might be required to release the funds.

So, refunds and KYC are not the same process. Refunds apply when the order is blocked at our compliance stage. KYC may only appear if the order has already been forwarded to a liquidity partner and they freeze it.

This is why we previously described our exchange as “no-KYC” in practice, almost all transactions are completed without any documents, but I agree that “no-KYC” in the title was misleading and I already change it.

[hugeblack]

I see where the confusion comes from, and let me clarify.

You have very good fees rate but how is the exchange rate calculated? 1% fees would be very bad if exchange rate includes hidden fees.

[God Of Thunder]

First, welcome to the forum, SnapSwap!

It is good to see another Exchange, but with a slightly different mechanism. I myself always prefer exchanges with their own liquidity. As for exchanges like yours, I liked the mechanism you will use (based on what you have answered). As other members suggested, you should remove the No-KYC part since the exchange reserves the right to ask for a KYC.

For your information, many of these types of exchanges appeared in the last few years, but only a few survived because people do not feel comfortable using them. These exchanges suddenly freeze transactions and ask for documents that are impossible to provide, so I would expect something different from SnapSwap.

Still, I agree that “no-KYC” in the title is misleading, so I will update our ANN accordingly.

We are just getting started with this project, and part of our roadmap is to officially register a company to strengthen trust and credibility. For us, being transparent with the community from the beginning is very important.

Don't get upset about these questions and suggestions. I hope this will help your business a lot. You just need to hear the community's suggestions and see what they like and what they don't like.

[snapswap.io]

I see where the confusion comes from, and let me clarify.

You have very good fees rate but how is the exchange rate calculated? 1% fees would be very bad if exchange rate includes hidden fees.

Thank you for your question, happy to clarify how our fees work.

Floating rate orders, the platform fee is 0.5% plus the network fee. There are no hidden fees, the exact amount the user will receive is always shown on the “Receive” tab, and that is what will be delivered, of course for floating rate this amount can change.

For fixed rate orders, we take the current market price and adjust it by 1% to guarantee the fixed rate, plus 1% as the platform fee. This allows us to lock in the rate regardless of market fluctuations. If the market shifts by more than 1% during the order process, the user is always asked whether they want to provide a refund address to get their funds back or continue with the current market rate.

So in all cases, the fees are transparent and already included in the quoted amount. What you see on the order page is final, there are no extra or hidden fees applied.

First, welcome to the forum, SnapSwap!

It is good to see another Exchange, but with a slightly different mechanism. I myself always prefer exchanges with their own liquidity. As for exchanges like yours, I liked the mechanism you will use (based on what you have answered). As other members suggested, you should remove the No-KYC part since the exchange reserves the right to ask for a KYC.

For your information, many of these types of exchanges appeared in the last few years, but only a few survived because people do not feel comfortable using them. These exchanges suddenly freeze transactions and ask for documents that are impossible to provide, so I would expect something different from SnapSwap.

Still, I agree that “no-KYC” in the title is misleading, so I will update our ANN accordingly.

We are just getting started with this project, and part of our roadmap is to officially register a company to strengthen trust and credibility. For us, being transparent with the community from the beginning is very important.

Don't get upset about these questions and suggestions. I hope this will help your business a lot. You just need to hear the community's suggestions and see what they like and what they don't like.

Thank you very much for the kind words and for welcoming us to the forum.

I’d like to confirm once again that our platform operates exactly as we have described in the previous answers, with AML checks before routing to liquidity partners, refunds in case of high risk.
I also want to say that we’re truly happy to see that community members are checking our ANN and website carefully, asking questions, and giving us suggestions for improvement. This type of feedback's will help us grow and build a better service.

We also warmly welcome everyone to try our service make trades and share an honest review with suggestions, for UI/UX as well as technical parts. every bit of input helps us move forward and improve.

[examplens]

I’d like to confirm once again that our platform operates exactly as we have described in the previous answers, with AML checks before routing to liquidity partners, refunds in case of high risk.

OK, it's a little clearer, although this is a sensitive matter and it's not the easiest to clarify.
Let's try an example. If the AML check confirms that the score is below 75% and you continue the order, is there still a possibility that the liquidity provider will block the funds or will they work on the basis of the same information about the AML score?
Can you guarantee that all orders will be processed without additional KYC if you conclude that there is no risk through the AML check?

I also want to say that we’re truly happy to see that community members are checking our ANN and website carefully, asking questions, and giving us suggestions for improvement. This type of feedback's will help us grow and build a better service.

Of course, talking to the community is very important if you want to build any kind of respectable reputation.

[Forsyth Jones]

Hello, welcome! First of all, it's hard to find an instant-crypto-to-crypto exchange with competitive and transparent fees (as people mention). The fee factor is a huge differentiator.

For the service to become 100% KYC-free, you would need to have a considerable reserve (liquidity and solvency). This way, you won't rely on third-party AML scores, you'd handle the exchanges for the user based on your reserves. Are there any plans for this?

[snapswap.io]

I’d like to confirm once again that our platform operates exactly as we have described in the previous answers, with AML checks before routing to liquidity partners, refunds in case of high risk.

OK, it's a little clearer, although this is a sensitive matter and it's not the easiest to clarify.
Let's try an example. If the AML check confirms that the score is below 75% and you continue the order, is there still a possibility that the liquidity provider will block the funds or will they work on the basis of the same information about the AML score?
Can you guarantee that all orders will be processed without additional KYC if you conclude that there is no risk through the AML check?

I also want to say that we’re truly happy to see that community members are checking our ANN and website carefully, asking questions, and giving us suggestions for improvement. This type of feedback's will help us grow and build a better service.

Of course, talking to the community is very important if you want to build any kind of respectable reputation.

Thank you for the thoughtful follow up, this is a sensitive and complex topic, so let me explain in more detail.

If we could be completely sure that once our AML check is passed, the liquidity partner would never freeze the funds, then yes, we could call ourselves a 100% no-KYC exchange. But in reality, every liquidity provider or exchange uses their own compliance parameters and different services. AML scoring software works by maintaining large blockchain address databases and labeling them with different risk categories. Each provider builds and updates their own database, and sometimes one provider might be slower or faster than another in adding new flagged addresses. That’s why two different AML systems can give slightly different results.

Currently, we already use two independent compliance checking solutions (at a medium-to-high level). We’ve designed our service to easily integrate an unlimited number of new compliance solutions through APIs. Our plan is to expand with additional providers as the project grows, although these tools are quite costly. This process helps us minimize the risk, but I have to be honest, even if assets pass our checks, there is still a low possibility that a liquidity partner could freeze them due to differences in their databases, in our TOS this is clearly stated.

We are also in discussions with our liquidity partner to gain direct access to their AML APIs, which will allow us to align our checks more closely with theirs and further reduce this risk. But possibility that they will agree is low.
So in short, our AML checks strongly reduce the chance of a freeze, but we prefer to be transparent that the risk cannot be eliminated 100%.

Hello, welcome! First of all, it's hard to find an instant-crypto-to-crypto exchange with competitive and transparent fees (as people mention). The fee factor is a huge differentiator.

For the service to become 100% KYC-free, you would need to have a considerable reserve (liquidity and solvency). This way, you won't rely on third-party AML scores, you'd handle the exchanges for the user based on your reserves. Are there any plans for this?

Hello, and thank you for the warm welcome!

On the fees side, I’d like to mention that apart from network fees, we also cover the cost of AML solutions as well as node infrastructure. Given these expenses, I believe our 0.5% for floating rate and 1% for fixed rate remain very competitive compared to the current market.

Regarding liquidity yes, you are right, if we were to rely fully on our own reserves, we could eliminate the dependency on 3rd party AML checks. Since we already have our own system in place, technically it’s not too difficult to move in that direction. We do have plans to integrate DEX liquidity especially for Monero, and over time, also add our own reserves. However at the moment, our focus is on polishing the service, fixing some small bugs, and preparing our affiliate program and API docs. But I can confirm that working with our own liquidity is part of our roadmap, and possible our next big development will be exactly that.

[Apocollapse]

@OP it's not allowed to make consecutive post, if you want to reply to many users, compile it into one post.

We are also in discussions with our liquidity partner to gain direct access to their AML APIs, which will allow us to align our checks more closely with theirs and further reduce this risk. But possibility that they will agree is low.
So in short, our AML checks strongly reduce the chance of a freeze, but we prefer to be transparent that the risk cannot be eliminated 100%.

Well that means the problem are on your side I guess?

It's like whenever someone send coins to your site, you use two independent compliance checking solutions which evaluate whether the coins aren't high risk and high risk right? you should be able to evaluate the coins as strict as possible, so the liquidity partners won't flag the coins since you already flag them in the first place.

[bitmover]

So again, even if the transaction passes your AML test and is frozen by liquidity partner, KYC will still be required.

If you truly want to be no-KYC, it's better to bear any losses incurred if liquidity partner freezes the transaction.

Any exchange which truly wants to be privacy orientei and kyc free , must rely in their own liquidity only.

When they rely on thrid party liquidity, like coinbase,  binance etc it cant be privacy oriented.

[snapswap.io]

@OP it's not allowed to make consecutive post, if you want to reply to many users, compile it into one post.

We are also in discussions with our liquidity partner to gain direct access to their AML APIs, which will allow us to align our checks more closely with theirs and further reduce this risk. But possibility that they will agree is low.
So in short, our AML checks strongly reduce the chance of a freeze, but we prefer to be transparent that the risk cannot be eliminated 100%.

Well that means the problem are on your side I guess?

It's like whenever someone send coins to your site, you use two independent compliance checking solutions which evaluate whether the coins aren't high risk and high risk right? you should be able to evaluate the coins as strict as possible, so the liquidity partners won't flag the coins since you already flag them in the first place.

Hello, and thank you for your comment and also for pointing out the correct way to use quoting. I’ll make sure to follow that going forward. Regarding your question I see why it might look like the issue is "on our side", so let me clarify a bit.

We already use two independent AML providers to check every deposit, but the reality is that no two AML systems are identical. Each provider builds and maintains its own database of blockchain addresses, updates it at its own pace, and applies slightly different risk-scoring rules. Because of this, it’s possible that a transaction passes our checks but still gets flagged later by a liquidity partner who uses a different provider or has different thresholds. By our testing we never had any problem sending them up to 75% of AML risk.

And this is not about being less strict, it’s simply that databases are not universal. Even very "strict" scoring with one provider cannot guarantee the same result across another system. That’s why we’re in discussions with liquidity partners to gain access to their AML APIs, so our checks can align more closely with theirs and further reduce this risk.
So our AML process already minimizes risk as much as possible, but it cannot be eliminated 100% because different providers rely on different datasets.

So again, even if the transaction passes your AML test and is frozen by liquidity partner, KYC will still be required.

If you truly want to be no-KYC, it's better to bear any losses incurred if liquidity partner freezes the transaction.

Any exchange which truly wants to be privacy orientei and kyc free , must rely in their own liquidity only.

When they rely on thrid party liquidity, like coinbase,  binance etc it cant be privacy oriented.

Thanks for your input, you are right. I’ve already edited the title to clarify this point. As I mentioned above, using our own liquidity and DEX integration is part of our long-term roadmap. For now, we’re focused on improving the service step by step, while being transparent about the current limitations. At this stage we offer an instant crypto exchange service similar to many on the market, but with an improved mechanism.

[examplens]

And this is not about being less strict, it’s simply that databases are not universal. Even very "strict" scoring with one provider cannot guarantee the same result across another system. That’s why we’re in discussions with liquidity partners to gain access to their AML APIs, so our checks can align more closely with theirs and further reduce this risk.
So our AML process already minimizes risk as much as possible, but it cannot be eliminated 100% because different providers rely on different datasets.

If the transaction is already on hold with you while it is being checked, why can't you ask the LP to also check the AML score before you take any action, regardless of the refund or continuation of the swap?
You know that some of the most useful liquidity providers often do not release funds even after the client passes the KYC procedure?

[God Of Thunder]

If we could be completely sure that once our AML check is passed, the liquidity partner would never freeze the funds, then yes, we could call ourselves a 100% no-KYC exchange. But in reality, every liquidity provider or exchange uses their own compliance parameters and different services. AML scoring software works by maintaining large blockchain address databases and labeling them with different risk categories. Each provider builds and updates their own database, and sometimes one provider might be slower or faster than another in adding new flagged addresses. That’s why two different AML systems can give slightly different results.

The explanation makes sense. But the community is more careful with this type of exchange because of what exemplens asked in his latest post above. The liquidity provider still doesn't release the funds after the user completes the KYC. In such cases, the exchange that operates the business gets the negative flag, not the liquidity provider. So, you have to be careful with it.

Reputation is everything in this business. Once you ruin your reputation in a community for such a reason, people may check your reputation, and you are unlikely to get any customers from that specific community.

We also warmly welcome everyone to try our service make trades and share an honest review with suggestions, for UI/UX as well as technical parts. every bit of input helps us move forward and improve.

I am afraid that most people do not want to try new services until they get good feedback or build some reputation. If you are looking for honest feedback and reviews with suggestions, I would recommend launching a short review campaign in this forum. I am a campaign manager who can help you run a campaign that fits your budget. Please expect a private message from me.

[hugeblack]

You have very good fees rate but how is the exchange rate calculated? 1% fees would be very bad if exchange rate includes hidden fees.

For fixed rate orders, we take the current market price and adjust it by 1% to guarantee the fixed rate, plus 1% as the platform fee. This allows us to lock in the rate regardless of market fluctuations. If the market shifts by more than 1% during the order process, the user is always asked whether they want to provide a refund address to get their funds back or continue with the current market rate.

You didn't get my point, so let me quickly compare the fees:
For Bitcoin and most cryptocurrencies, exchage rate are not the best, but they are good for XMR.

200 USDT ---> BTC:

0.00166074 BTC  (https://snapswap.io/)
0.0017357 BTC (StealthEX)
0.0017472 BTC (SwapSpace)
0.00174867 BTC (DAI/ https://splash.tf/)

200 USDT ---> XMR
 
0.7241104 XMR  (https://snapswap.io/)
0.0.71977663 XMR (StealthEX)
0.0.727896 XMR (SwapSpace)
0.72359120 XMR (DAI/ https://splash.tf/)

If you can get more competitive fees, this service would be an excellent choice.

[snapswap.io]

And this is not about being less strict, it’s simply that databases are not universal. Even very "strict" scoring with one provider cannot guarantee the same result across another system. That’s why we’re in discussions with liquidity partners to gain access to their AML APIs, so our checks can align more closely with theirs and further reduce this risk.
So our AML process already minimizes risk as much as possible, but it cannot be eliminated 100% because different providers rely on different datasets.

If the transaction is already on hold with you while it is being checked, why can't you ask the LP to also check the AML score before you take any action, regardless of the refund or continuation of the swap?
You know that some of the most useful liquidity providers often do not release funds even after the client passes the KYC procedure?

Thank you for your question. Unfortunately liquidity providers only run their AML checks once they actually receive the funds, it’s not possible to have them pre-check coins.

In the rare cases where a liquidity partner does require KYC, we work together with both the partner and the user to solve the issue. Normally, once the requested documents are provided, the funds are released. I fully understand that this is not ideal, which is why we’ve built our system to minimize such cases as much as possible.

If we could be completely sure that once our AML check is passed, the liquidity partner would never freeze the funds, then yes, we could call ourselves a 100% no-KYC exchange. But in reality, every liquidity provider or exchange uses their own compliance parameters and different services. AML scoring software works by maintaining large blockchain address databases and labeling them with different risk categories. Each provider builds and updates their own database, and sometimes one provider might be slower or faster than another in adding new flagged addresses. That’s why two different AML systems can give slightly different results.

The explanation makes sense. But the community is more careful with this type of exchange because of what exemplens asked in his latest post above. The liquidity provider still doesn't release the funds after the user completes the KYC. In such cases, the exchange that operates the business gets the negative flag, not the liquidity provider. So, you have to be careful with it.

Reputation is everything in this business. Once you ruin your reputation in a community for such a reason, people may check your reputation, and you are unlikely to get any customers from that specific community.

We also warmly welcome everyone to try our service make trades and share an honest review with suggestions, for UI/UX as well as technical parts. every bit of input helps us move forward and improve.

I am afraid that most people do not want to try new services until they get good feedback or build some reputation. If you are looking for honest feedback and reviews with suggestions, I would recommend launching a short review campaign in this forum.

Hello, and thank you for your thoughtful feedback.

You are absolutely right that reputation is everything in this space. That’s why we focus on being transparent and sharing detailed information about how we handle the exchange process. As I mentioned earlier, our long-term focus is to rely more on our own liquidity and DEX integration.

I am a campaign manager who can help you run a campaign that fits your budget. Please expect a private message from me.

I really appreciate your offer, though I’ve already spoken with Royse and we’ll be starting a campaign with him soon.

Right now we’re focused on fixing some post-launch bugs, but campaigns are definitely in our plans and I agree that building reputation through reviews is very important.

Thanks again for the advice and for reaching out.