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.

[kycnot]

At KYCNOT we don't ask for documents, this is a pure no-KYC and no-AML exchange. No checks on where your coins come from. If you need to exchange crypto without going through KYC, then come to us, our list of cryptocurrencies is large and we're constantly expanding it. And we're not some shady crypto exchange without identity verification with a catch, but a proper exchange.

[kycnot]

Friends, those who exchange crypto often know how annoying those endless selfies are. At KYCNOT we don't ask for anything, we are a true anonymous crypto exchange. The fee is 0.2%, we support many exchange directions, from Bitcoin to altcoins. Basically, we are like a crypto exchange without AML and KYC, but without all that bureaucracy.

[PrivacyG]

What people call us
Some say we’re just another exchange without AML check.
True. But that’s only the surface.
We don’t just skip AML checks — we don’t look at coin status at all.
Red, green, yellow — it doesn’t matter.
Transaction arrives → swap happens. No blocks. No freezes. No stupid questions.
We are not an exchange with order books.
We are a crypto exchange no KYC — simple, private, fast.

Why KYCNOT and not another platform like b1exch?

Real anonymity
You give us one coin. We give you another.
Nobody can link your input to your output — because inside, Monero mixes everything into a cocktail.
This is a crypto exchange without verification in its purest form:

All this talk about Privacy and Anonymity and your platform does not even work with no Java Script.  Why?

Processing time: 1 to 140 minutes. Not days. Not weeks.
We never hold funds for no reason.

What is the reason a transaction may be processed in as long as 140 minutes?

TOR domain for max privacy, No logs for those who leave no traces, Direct non-custodial wallets.

You did not share any TOR domain.

You give us one coin. We give you another.
Nobody can link your input to your output — because inside, Monero mixes everything into a cocktail.

You get clean coins, Zero AML risk, Funds come from major exchange reserves, not shady wallets.

If 'inside, Monero mixes everything into a cocktail' then how would the coins be either 'dirty' or why does it even matter where they come from?  How can you prove a 'Monero cocktail' started from a major exchange reserve?  It would be impossible to prove anyway.

Just go to https://kycnot.cc/en/
 - pick direction
 - send funds
 - receive clean coins.

Are you related to KYCnot.me?  Why did you choose such a familiar name?  Some would run away as it looks like any other phishing link, others would come to you falsely thinking you are part of KYCnot.me.

-----

You come to the original Bitcoin forum to promote your own 'Anonymous' platform and you do not even trust community members known for escrowing probably millions of Dollars for dozens of other exchanges but ask the community to blindly trust you and hand out their thousands of Dollars for swapping.  This is not how it works.  If you come into a community not trusting it, do not expect a warm welcome.  In fact,

What stops such a "respected member" from seeming trustworthy today, then taking a large sum and disappearing tomorrow? Nothing. The profile gets abandoned — and that's it. Who will find them? Who are they accountable to?

This is particularly the scenario some of us imagine you have planned out.  You wrote it your self.

Who will find you?  Who are you accountable to?  The 'respected member' is at least RESPECTED and has a history.  You have none.

Are you ready to trust 10,000 USDT to someone whose only guarantee is 5000-20000 forum posts? That's not reputation. That's an illusion of security.

Who in their right mind would be ready to trust 10,000 USDT with someone whose only guarantee is 'starting small and finding out'?  That is an exit scam waiting to happen.

[kycnot]

What people call us
Some say we’re just another exchange without AML check.
True. But that’s only the surface.
We don’t just skip AML checks — we don’t look at coin status at all.
Red, green, yellow — it doesn’t matter.
Transaction arrives → swap happens. No blocks. No freezes. No stupid questions.
We are not an exchange with order books.
We are a crypto exchange no KYC — simple, private, fast.

Why KYCNOT and not another platform like b1exch?

Real anonymity
You give us one coin. We give you another.
Nobody can link your input to your output — because inside, Monero mixes everything into a cocktail.
This is a crypto exchange without verification in its purest form:

All this talk about Privacy and Anonymity and your platform does not even work with no Java Script.  Why?

Processing time: 1 to 140 minutes. Not days. Not weeks.
We never hold funds for no reason.

What is the reason a transaction may be processed in as long as 140 minutes?

TOR domain for max privacy, No logs for those who leave no traces, Direct non-custodial wallets.

You did not share any TOR domain.

You give us one coin. We give you another.
Nobody can link your input to your output — because inside, Monero mixes everything into a cocktail.

You get clean coins, Zero AML risk, Funds come from major exchange reserves, not shady wallets.

If 'inside, Monero mixes everything into a cocktail' then how would the coins be either 'dirty' or why does it even matter where they come from?  How can you prove a 'Monero cocktail' started from a major exchange reserve?  It would be impossible to prove anyway.

Just go to https://kycnot.cc/en/
 - pick direction
 - send funds
 - receive clean coins.

Are you related to KYCnot.me?  Why did you choose such a familiar name?  Some would run away as it looks like any other phishing link, others would come to you falsely thinking you are part of KYCnot.me.

-----

You come to the original Bitcoin forum to promote your own 'Anonymous' platform and you do not even trust community members known for escrowing probably millions of Dollars for dozens of other exchanges but ask the community to blindly trust you and hand out their thousands of Dollars for swapping.  This is not how it works.  If you come into a community not trusting it, do not expect a warm welcome.  In fact,

What stops such a "respected member" from seeming trustworthy today, then taking a large sum and disappearing tomorrow? Nothing. The profile gets abandoned — and that's it. Who will find them? Who are they accountable to?

This is particularly the scenario some of us imagine you have planned out.  You wrote it your self.

Who will find you?  Who are you accountable to?  The 'respected member' is at least RESPECTED and has a history.  You have none.

Are you ready to trust 10,000 USDT to someone whose only guarantee is 5000-20000 forum posts? That's not reputation. That's an illusion of security.

Who in their right mind would be ready to trust 10,000 USDT with someone whose only guarantee is 'starting small and finding out'?  That is an exit scam waiting to happen.

Because we offer better rates. Lower fees, no hidden charges, and no KYC. No freezes, no stupid questions. Just fast and honest crypto swaps.

What does JavaScript have to do with it? Are you using a website or a terminal? JavaScript handles the interface — buttons, forms, rate updates. Without it, the site just won't work properly. It has nothing to do with anonymity. All data you enter is not stored. No logs. No IP addresses saved.

Blockchain network congestion or low transaction fees — we have no control over confirmation speed. Once confirmed, we swap instantly.

nuqgbjiw6ua3axyhda5z22mzgyxubghxh2twftsnslphmwgpxlov4gyd.onion

You're right — in Monero, you can't trace anything. That's the whole point. So when we say "clean sources," it's just about where we get the liquidity before Monero. After Monero, it doesn't matter — dirty and clean don't exist anymore.

We chose the name simply because "KYC NOT" means exactly what we stand for — NO KYC. It's not about any other service. It's just a clear, honest name that says what we do. No hidden meaning, no relation to anyone else.

We do trust the community — just not with our money. There's a difference.
We respect what escrow members do. We're not saying they are scammers or untrustworthy. We're saying that handing over our funds to a third party, no matter how reputable, goes against the very idea of a private, non-custodial exchange.
We trust the community enough to be here, to answer questions, to offer our service, and to build our reputation through real transactions — not through deposits with forum users.
But trusting the community does not mean we have to participate in every tradition or scheme that exists here. We have our own model. It's different. And that's okay.
We don't expect blind trust. We expect nothing. Those who like our approach — welcome. Those who don't — there are plenty of other options. No hard feelings.
And let's be honest — out of 1,000 services presented on this forum, at most 10 actually deposit funds with forum users as escrow. The rest don't. So why are we being singled out for not doing something that 99% of services here don't do either?

Reputation is built over time, not through escrow with forum users. Most of the popular services today never held escrow anywhere, and never needed to.

[Z-tight]

And let's be honest — out of 1,000 services presented on this forum, at most 10 actually deposit funds with forum users as escrow. The rest don't. So why are we being singled out for not doing something that 99% of services here don't do either?

Reputation is built over time, not through escrow with forum users. Most of the popular services today never held escrow anywhere, and never needed to.

You have made your points very clear, i cannot say they are entirely wrong, even though i don't agree with some of them. Take note that no user here is trying to coerce you into depositing funds into escrow, it is simply a recommendation that can increase your userbase. If users see you are willing to 'risk' something, they could also be willing to take the risk in using your service. I mean, 0.2% fee is already "suspicious', plus you cannot even show proof of reserves.

However, you don't want to do that and it is fine. So good luck in building your reputation here, but i do not recommend this service for now.

[PrivacyG]

What does JavaScript have to do with it? Are you using a website or a terminal? JavaScript handles the interface — buttons, forms, rate updates. Without it, the site just won't work properly. It has nothing to do with anonymity. All data you enter is not stored. No logs. No IP addresses saved.

I am very concerned that you do not want to 'expose your selves' to anyone and can not even provide a signed message, you operate an Onion domain but you do not even know why Java Script is a security risk.  And you are even saying Java Script has NOTHING to do with Anonymity?!  Seriously?

No I am not using a terminal, not in the sense of browsing a website using a terminal.  But I AM using Tor and I have mine set on Safest Security level at all times.  And considering you do not seem to not know yet, which is again concerning, Safest Tor Browser Security level means no Java Script allowed.  What does Java Script have to do with it?  I do not know.  Look it up.  It should be you who knows considering you are claiming to offer 'Real Anonymity'.

What you are asking, which is for us tot blindly trust you while you are giving exactly zero information about any thing for Privacy reasons, sounds exactly like bait or a honey pot.

Also.  The platform I am currently advertising in my Signature and Avatar works with no Java Script.  Very properly in fact.

You're right — in Monero, you can't trace anything. That's the whole point. So when we say "clean sources," it's just about where we get the liquidity before Monero. After Monero, it doesn't matter — dirty and clean don't exist anymore.

Then what is the point of claiming where the liquidity BEFORE Monero came from if it is not even possible to prove its source nor does it even matter?  Is it just a misleading marketing gimmick?

We do trust the community — just not with our money. There's a difference.

Then why should the community trust you with theirs?

But trusting the community does not mean we have to participate in every tradition or scheme that exists here. We have our own model. It's different. And that's okay.
We don't expect blind trust. We expect nothing. Those who like our approach — welcome. Those who don't — there are plenty of other options. No hard feelings.
And let's be honest — out of 1,000 services presented on this forum, at most 10 actually deposit funds with forum users as escrow. The rest don't. So why are we being singled out for not doing something that 99% of services here don't do either?

Reputation is built over time, not through escrow with forum users. Most of the popular services today never held escrow anywhere, and never needed to.

You are making your platform and your self look suspicious and you put up enough red flags for us to consider this a future exit scam.  This is why you are being 'singled out'.

We chose the name simply because "KYC NOT" means exactly what we stand for — NO KYC. It's not about any other service. It's just a clear, honest name that says what we do. No hidden meaning, no relation to anyone else.

Why did you not name it 'nokyc.cc' then?  It would have not been a question if there was no very well known website around with an almost identical name.

-----

Take note that no user here is trying to coerce you into depositing funds into escrow, it is simply a recommendation that can increase your userbase. If users see you are willing to 'risk' something, they could also be willing to take the risk in using your service.

Hell.  They do not want to 'risk' working with a Bitcoin Talk member who has a significant history of escrow services but they want the Members to risk working with a no name platform that promises things they do not even seem to understand.

Imagine this.  Not wanting to use an escrow for a deal because 'what if they run away' so they ask you to send first!  Where have I read this before!