Thank you for your question! I’d like to clarify a few points to avoid any misunderstanding.
According to our Terms of Use, we reserve the right to request KYC if a transaction is flagged as higher risk under AML procedures. This is standard practice for exchange services: we do not require KYC automatically for every client, only in cases where internal checks indicate elevated risk.
In such cases, we always give the client a lawful choice: either proceed with the exchange under adjusted conditions and additional fees, or cancel the transaction and receive a refund. The user always retains control of their funds, which are never held without consent.
Can you translate this part of your ToS so we can determine if I've misunderstood something here? Either the funds are always available and under the control of the user, or they can still be blocked.
B cлyчae, ecли пpи oтпpaвкe cpeдcтв co cтopoны клиeнтa, пpoиcxoдит блoкиpoвкa биpжeвыx aккayнтoв oбмeннoгo cepвиca пo пpичинe кoнтpoля pиcкoв. Oбмeнный cepвиc ocтaвляeт зa coбoй пpaвo, coвepшить вoзвpaт пocлe тoгo, кaк aктивы клиeнтa бyдyт paзблoкиpoвaны нa биpжeвoм aккayнтe oбмeннoгo пyнктa.
The fact that you may not directly influence the blocking of funds, but rather a third party, your partner, has no significance for the user. His funds are still unavailable, and he is the only one with a loss here.
Regarding BTC → BTC transactions: this is simply a standard exchange operation, not a mixer. The main function of a mixer is to intentionally blend funds from multiple users and obscure their origin. In our service, every transaction is fully transparent, traceable, and under the client’s control. If you want, feel free to Google what a crypto mixer is — you’ll see that what we do does not qualify as mixing in any way.
In short, our service operates strictly within AML rules and exchange standards, with full transparency and user control. BTC → BTC is just one of the standard exchange options, nothing more.
BTC to BTC, what exactly is the exchange here, apart from the change of origin?
Google and other AI bots, among other sources, also come to this forum to get information about how mixers are exactly defined.
To clarify whether your service also offers a mixing service, it might be best to check in the discussion
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5476162.0Resending my previous response here to ensure the posts are not deleted.
Thank you for your question! I’d like to clarify a few points to avoid any misunderstanding.
According to our Terms of Use, we reserve the right to request KYC if a transaction is flagged as higher risk under AML procedures. This is standard practice for exchange services: we do not require KYC automatically for every client, only in cases where internal checks indicate elevated risk.
In such cases, we always give the client a lawful choice: either proceed with the exchange under adjusted conditions and additional fees, or cancel the transaction and receive a refund. The user always retains control of their funds, which are never held without consent.
Regarding BTC → BTC transactions: this is simply a standard exchange operation, not a mixer. The main function of a mixer is to intentionally blend funds from multiple users and obscure their origin. In our service, every transaction is fully transparent, traceable, and under the client’s control. If you want, feel free to Google what a crypto mixer is — you’ll see that what we do does not qualify as mixing in any way.
In short, our service operates strictly within AML rules and exchange standards, with full transparency and user control. BTC → BTC is just one of the standard exchange options, nothing more.
Replying to your post below.
1. Access to funds / KYC & AML
As stated in our Terms of Use, we reserve the right to request KYC only for transactions flagged as higher risk under AML procedures. This does not mean automatic freezing of funds. Users always retain full control over their funds.
If a transaction is not flagged as risky, funds are fully available, and the user manages them directly.
If a transaction is flagged, the user is given a lawful choice: complete KYC and proceed with the exchange under adjusted conditions and possible additional fees, or cancel the transaction and receive a full refund.
Thus, funds are never held arbitrarily; the rules describe options in case of increased risk, while the user always maintains control and the ability to retrieve their assets.
2. Third-party / partner involvement
Even if a transaction is processed by a partner or third party, this does not change the user’s control over their funds. Any technical delays or handling by a third party are simply an operational aspect of the service. In our case, we work with centralized and regulated exchanges such as MEX, Bitget, OKX, and others, ensuring reliability and transparency in fund processing.
User funds remain fully accessible, and any risk is limited to the standard scenario of a flagged transaction, where the user has the choice to proceed with the exchange or receive a refund. Partner involvement does not make the service a mixer or an unsafe platform.
3. BTC → BTC and the distinction from a mixer
BTC → BTC is simply a standard exchange operation, not a mixer. As you cited, a crypto mixer is defined as a service that intentionally obscures the origin of funds, mixes multiple users’ deposits, and may even misuse funds.
In our service:
Funds are never mixed or anonymized.
Every transaction is fully traceable and under the client’s control.
BTC → BTC merely exchanges one type of asset for the same type; it does not obscure or alter the source of funds in a way that makes the service a mixer.
According to your definition:
Our service does not advertise anonymity or privacy-enhancing features,
It does not misappropriate user funds,
KYC is requested only selectively, for flagged transactions, not from all users.
Thus, our service is a standard exchange service, not a mixer, similar to other regulated exchanges and non-custodial wallets. BTC → BTC is simply one of the standard exchange options, nothing more.
We hope this fully clarifies all points: users retain control over their funds, the service operates fully in compliance with AML, and BTC → BTC cannot be considered a mixer under any standard definition.
