Sick of AML? Kycnot.cc — swap without AML and KYC.

[TryNinja]

You're right — escrow itself doesn't directly destroy privacy. The real issue is different:

    You expose yourself to the guarantor. You have to explain who you are, where the money comes from, where you're sending it. The guarantor starts seeing your transactions and connections. That's no longer an anonymous exchange.

    The guarantor is a person. Their account can be hacked, their data can be handed to regulators, or they might not be who they claim to be. You're trusting $10k to an unknown "reputable member" you don't actually know.

    We become dependent on a third party. If the guarantor delays a decision, loses access to their wallet, or takes sides — either the client or we get hurt. And there's no one to appeal to.

That's why we chose a different path: instead of trusting one person — full client control through splitting amounts.

As for "many services with good reputation and escrow" — we're not arguing. Use the ones you trust. We don't ask for blind faith.

You only expose yourself to the guarantor after you already lost everything, and by your own choice.

If anything goes bad, the user has the choice to expose his transaction and get a refund, or move on with the full loss while keeping his privacy intact. In your case, you don't have option at all. You just lose everything if the service exit scams.

And I rather trust any escrower here like icopress, LM, SFR, than a random third party no one heard about where I need to "start small" and increase the amount I want to risk. Like we haven't seen tens of exit scams that happen after the service collects enough money... at least with a escrower, the service has something to lose.

I'm sure people from outside the forum would think the same. They can see the hundreds of deals those users have completed, and the amounts they held in their hands. That's why we have a trust feedback system.

[examplens]

But we're ready to be wrong. You say there are members who can be trusted. Fine. Give us examples. Which specific services or projects have actually deposited funds with such guarantors on this forum? Which real exchangers, exchanges, or other businesses have left collateral with an anonymous forum user?

We'll study it. If we see that this actually works and there are verified examples — we'll reconsider our position.

We are not telling you any fairy tales or making things up. There are many successful cases where escrow has helped significantly in creating trust in a service and encouraging users to test it.
For example, icopress holds 0.2 BTC as escrow for b1exh.to. You can check here
Speaking of icopress, he controls funds in escrow for two mixers, $50k and 0.5 BTC. (You can get references, but it is not allowed to promote mixers on the BTT forum)
SFR10 hold 0.02365796BTC for Sageswap. Check here
SFR10 holds 0.08632796BTC as a guarantee for splash.tf. check here
Little Mouse holds $5000 for Tomboi. Check here

These are a few cases that I could show you the fastest. Someone who has held >$100k as escrow for years, do you really think he will run away with your few thousand $?

[kycnot]

You're right — escrow itself doesn't directly destroy privacy. The real issue is different:

    You expose yourself to the guarantor. You have to explain who you are, where the money comes from, where you're sending it. The guarantor starts seeing your transactions and connections. That's no longer an anonymous exchange.

    The guarantor is a person. Their account can be hacked, their data can be handed to regulators, or they might not be who they claim to be. You're trusting $10k to an unknown "reputable member" you don't actually know.

    We become dependent on a third party. If the guarantor delays a decision, loses access to their wallet, or takes sides — either the client or we get hurt. And there's no one to appeal to.

That's why we chose a different path: instead of trusting one person — full client control through splitting amounts.

As for "many services with good reputation and escrow" — we're not arguing. Use the ones you trust. We don't ask for blind faith.

You only expose yourself to the guarantor after you already lost everything, and by your own choice.

If anything goes bad, the user has the choice to expose his transaction and get a refund, or move on with the full loss while keeping his privacy intact. In your case, you don't have option at all. You just lose everything if the service exit scams.

And I rather trust any escrower here like icopress, LM, SFR, than a random third party no one heard about where I need to "start small" and increase the amount I want to risk. Like we haven't seen tens of exit scams that happen after the service collects enough money... at least with a escrower, the service has something to lose.

I'm sure people from outside the forum would think the same. They can see the hundreds of deals those users have completed, and the amounts they held in their hands. That's why we have a trust feedback system.

We don't plan for this forum to be our only source of traffic. Our audience is any internet user, not just regulars here.

And for someone who isn't registered on this forum, the phrase "we have a deposit with user icopress" means absolutely nothing. They don't know who that is. They haven't seen their deals. They don't understand why they should trust some random nickname.

What's more, to an outsider, this looks suspicious: an unknown "guarantor" with an unknown reputation on a forum. That doesn't inspire trust — it raises questions.

That's why we're building our reputation on real transactions and reviews, not on deposits with anonymous users. Because for 99% of our clients, a forum history means nothing at all.

[kycnot]

But we're ready to be wrong. You say there are members who can be trusted. Fine. Give us examples. Which specific services or projects have actually deposited funds with such guarantors on this forum? Which real exchangers, exchanges, or other businesses have left collateral with an anonymous forum user?

We'll study it. If we see that this actually works and there are verified examples — we'll reconsider our position.

We are not telling you any fairy tales or making things up. There are many successful cases where escrow has helped significantly in creating trust in a service and encouraging users to test it.
For example, icopress holds 0.2 BTC as escrow for b1exh.to. You can check here
Speaking of icopress, he controls funds in escrow for two mixers, $50k and 0.5 BTC. (You can get references, but it is not allowed to promote mixers on the BTT forum)
SFR10 hold 0.02365796BTC for Sageswap. Check here
SFR10 holds 0.08632796BTC as a guarantee for splash.tf. check here
Little Mouse holds $5000 for Tomboi. Check here

These are a few cases that I could show you the fastest. Someone who has held >$100k as escrow for years, do you really think he will run away with your few thousand $?

We do not plan and are not going to deposit funds with forum users so they can hold our money. And honestly, what's the point for them? Holding someone else's money, taking responsibility, risking their reputation — for what? So some service can feel more comfortable? That's complete nonsense.

We don't mind that others do it. But that's not our way. We don't want third parties controlling our funds. We don't want to rely on someone else's "reputation" that could disappear tomorrow. And we see no reason why an anonymous exchanger should prove anything by handing over their money to unknown people.

You believe in escrow — great. Use services that employ it. But we work differently. And our model also has a right to exist.

[avp2306]

Regarding signing a message: yes, we can sign from an address with more than 1 BTC. But we won't do it publicly for obvious privacy reasons — that would tie our on-chain footprint directly to this conversation.

Send it privately to any trusted member or sign a letter and withdraw those coins from that address.

Without depositing funds as escrow, all your claims about reserves will be unbelievable, and it will be difficult to convince the community.

If the service isn't prepared to risk $5,000, it's not worth trying.

Right and this is the least thing he could do so that people can verify if they are telling the truth. But it seems that they don't like this idea, since they turn down this suggestion and this one make their position became more suspicious. Seems there's no way to verify their claims because they and people will provably start to doubt their intentions.

Other platform don't have a problem regarding on escrow matters and actually they entrust some funds to those trusted forum members for transparency. So yeah as what you have said if they can't risk those amount you have said for sure that no people will ever dare to try this service. For sure they go on other platform which transparent enough and know they can trust.

[kycnot]

Regarding signing a message: yes, we can sign from an address with more than 1 BTC. But we won't do it publicly for obvious privacy reasons — that would tie our on-chain footprint directly to this conversation.

Send it privately to any trusted member or sign a letter and withdraw those coins from that address.

Without depositing funds as escrow, all your claims about reserves will be unbelievable, and it will be difficult to convince the community.

If the service isn't prepared to risk $5,000, it's not worth trying.

Right and this is the least thing he could do so that people can verify if they are telling the truth. But it seems that they don't like this idea, since they turn down this suggestion and this one make their position became more suspicious. Seems there's no way to verify their claims because they and people will provably start to doubt their intentions.

Other platform don't have a problem regarding on escrow matters and actually they entrust some funds to those trusted forum members for transparency. So yeah as what you have said if they can't risk those amount you have said for sure that no people will ever dare to try this service. For sure they go on other platform which transparent enough and know they can trust.

Our approach is our approach. If someone doesn't like it — no problem. The market is big, choose any other service that suits you better. We're not persuading anyone and not proving anything. Everyone sticks with what works for them.