💥 Pablo.Cash - Instant Anon Exchange | No KYC | Fess 0.6% | Dep $325,000

[MarryWithBTC]

Welcome to the forum Pablo.cash

Seeing your username, I chuckled, what cam to my mind was Pablo Escobar.

Seeing how much you invested in escrow validates my instinct that you are as rich as Pablo Escobar.

Meanwhile, the funds are escrowed, you can provide the privacy we want, your fees are low; you started a signature campaign, nothing more... we can do business.

Congratulations and I wish you success.

[coupable]

I made a quick search about BC. You are right. It has lost much of the credibility of that great monitor it had years ago. The main reason I could conclude is that BC lists scam exchangers. Many users complain they lost money using an exchanger BC recommends, but BC doesn’t delist that exchanger. I think it would be better for Pablo Cash not to cooperate with BC, as it might damage your reputation.

I was in the BC signature campaign for a long time, so I can say that I followed their work all that time (and later). The conclusion is that they have significantly declined in quality. Honestly, they aren't recommended for either exchanges or users.

I remember that period well, and I remember you too, because I was also one of those who took part in that BC signature campaign managed by BC representative himself. All what I can recall from that period is the good reputation accumulated over the next few years. This is why I still recommend it as a good monitor.

Sorry Pablo.cash for the off-topic. We found it somehow important to clarify about this monitor as it might help you and others to think twice before using BC.

[PrivacyG]

Pablo Cash recently faced an absurd accusation involving over 1.4k XMR. The representative provided a clear explanation, and I also believe the claim to be baseless, as the accuser was evasive and refused to provide the letter of guarantee. https://x.com/pabloexch/status/2114528262647108094

I have a neutral opinion about this story considering none of the parties can prove any thing.  But if this story actually happened, sending 1.4 THOUSAND Monero to a custodial platform and not even bothering to save the guarantee is insanity!

The letter of guarantee is important.  But what is even more important is splitting that up in to smaller transactions so if any thing ever goes wrong, you lose only a fraction and not all.  It is funny that even Pablo Cash them selves recommended to do this a month ago,

We are still at the beginning of building our reputation and are not targeting large exchanges yet. If you need to exchange a larger amount, you can split it into smaller, sequential orders, waiting for each payout before sending the next. To limit exposure, keep each order within the applicable deposit amount-not the combined $23k, as coverage terms differ between platforms.

[Zwei]

As a reminder, always save or download the letter of guarantee file provided before sending funds to an exchange, this applies whether you are trading via desktop or mobile, especially when dealing with privacy coins. This will serve as the most valid piece of evidence in the event of a dispute; otherwise, your claim may be dismissed as fabricated.

i would like to add, as important as it is to save the letter of guarantee, it's as important to verify it before sending any funds. a not so honest exchange could try to pull a quick one and give you the wrong one by "mistake".

Pablo Cash recently faced an absurd accusation involving over 1.4k XMR. The representative provided a clear explanation, and I also believe the claim to be baseless, as the accuser was evasive and refused to provide the letter of guarantee. https://x.com/pabloexch/status/2114528262647108094

$900k is a lot of money, but the burden of proof is on the accuser, and so far he has failed to prove anything.
you know, even if pablo.cash did take his 1400 XMR, but with no letter of guarantee to prove he sent them the coins, nothing happened as far as i'm concerned.

but he might have just been careless and didn't save it. or it's a smear hit job from a competitor, or he was trying his luck to mumbo jumbo his way to get the escrow fund, considering the dispute is on exploit where pablo.cash has the highest escrow deposit... we can only speculate.

The letter of guarantee is important.  But what is even more important is splitting that up in to smaller transactions so if any thing ever goes wrong, you lose only a fraction and not all.  It is funny that even Pablo Cash them selves recommended to do this a month ago,

We are still at the beginning of building our reputation and are not targeting large exchanges yet. If you need to exchange a larger amount, you can split it into smaller, sequential orders, waiting for each payout before sending the next. To limit exposure, keep each order within the applicable deposit amount-not the combined $23k, as coverage terms differ between platforms.

you would think that would be common sense by now for anyone using privacy exchanges, but apparently not.

[examplens]

$900k is a lot of money, but the burden of proof is on the accuser, and so far he has failed to prove anything.
you know, even if pablo.cash did take his 1400 XMR, with no letter of guarantee to prove he sent them the coins, nothing happened as far as i'm concerned.

but he might have just been careless and didn't save it. or it's a smear hit job from a competitor, or he was trying his luck to mumbo jumbo his way to get the escrow fund, considering the dispute is on exploit where pablo.cash has the highest escrow deposit... we can only speculation.

idk. but how realistic is it for someone to send $900k without any checking or saving a letter of guarantee?
I am inclined to believe that it is really manipulation by competitors or similar reasons. if someone only wanted to extort money in this way, he would probably stay within the escrowed amount.

[avp2306]

$900k is a lot of money, but the burden of proof is on the accuser, and so far he has failed to prove anything.
you know, even if pablo.cash did take his 1400 XMR, with no letter of guarantee to prove he sent them the coins, nothing happened as far as i'm concerned.

but he might have just been careless and didn't save it. or it's a smear hit job from a competitor, or he was trying his luck to mumbo jumbo his way to get the escrow fund, considering the dispute is on exploit where pablo.cash has the highest escrow deposit... we can only speculation.

idk. but how realistic is it for someone to send $900k without any checking or saving a letter of guarantee?
I am inclined to believe that it is really manipulation by competitors or similar reasons. if someone only wanted to extort money in this way, he would probably stay within the escrowed amount.

Right, since who in the right mind will use that amount without grabbing the letter of guarantee? For sure those people depositing such large amount have great experience using mixer. Since they provably won't do any large transaction if they don't know how to use this sites.

So same as your assumptions, I think there's some competitor out there got pissed on their existence.

That's why they made this controversy to discourage people to use their site.

Also for sure people's opinion will change once they can bring enough proof of their claims. If they are just posting a pure statement, I guess many people here will not going to believe their accusation.

[PrivacyG]

idk. but how realistic is it for someone to send $900k without any checking or saving a letter of guarantee?

It really depends on the type of customer.  I personally have a bad habit of never saving the letter of guarantee either, but I never spent that much in a single transaction to know if I would do it then.  I hope I would be smart enough in that situation, as it involves an entirely different level of risk.

[hosemary]

I just came across this thread and noticed there are multiple escrows with good amounts of funds.

I have questions for the escrows.

The service terms say that "The user is responsible for confirming that the transaction and the source of the assets are lawful."
What will you do if the funds are blocked because the service deemed the source of assets unlawful and the user asks you for a refund? Will you use your own judgments?
I'm not saying Pablo.Cash will block the funds. I'm just considering the worst-case scenario.

And how can you make sure that the user hasn't made the same request to Exploit or RuTOR? As far as I know, the escrows they have outside the forum work independently. Will you contact them every time somone makes a request?

[Rengga Jati]

Seeing your username, I chuckled, what cam to my mind was Pablo Escobar.

Seeing how much you invested in escrow validates my instinct that you are as rich as Pablo Escobar.

The same goes for the symbol. Look at my avatar. It does bear some resemblance, but that’s probably coincidental.

Indeed, Pablo.cash is currently building its reputation, which is a crucial aspect. The team acknowledges that establishing a solid reputation serves as a vital foundation for the platform's growth. Furthermore, the volume of funds in escrow serves as a clear indicator of the significant effort they are putting in.

Pablo Cash recently faced an absurd accusation involving over 1.4k XMR. The representative provided a clear explanation, and I also believe the claim to be baseless, as the accuser was evasive and refused to provide the letter of guarantee. https://x.com/pabloexch/status/2114528262647108094

$900k is a lot of money, but the burden of proof is on the accuser, and so far he has failed to prove anything.
you know, even if pablo.cash did take his 1400 XMR, but with no letter of guarantee to prove he sent them the coins, nothing happened as far as i'm concerned.

Yeah, regarding to it, actually Pablo.Cash has provided a detailed response to the post. Their team explained that maintenance was being carried out in response to a global issue involving PHP2Shell vulnerabilities. They also assured users that their support team remained active during this maintenance period to address any concerns.

But, upon investigation, the team could not locate an order ID matching the one mentioned in the post. As members here commented, the accusation appears to be groundless. It is quite strange, for a claim involving such a large sum. There is no detailed evidence provided. Just screenshot of questionable authenticity. That said, platforms like this will inevitably face challenges and occasional technical hurdles from time to time.

[Pablo.Cash]

coupable, examplens

Thank you for sharing your experience regarding BestChange. We have noted both viewpoints. Before considering any cooperation, we will independently review its current policies, dispute handling and reputation.

Chilwell

Thank you for taking the time to translate our thread into Pidgin. We appreciate your support and contribution.

MarryWithBTC

Thank you for the warm welcome and good wishes. The name may be memorable, but our priority is to earn trust through reliable exchanges, transparent terms and continued escrow protection.

RGBTC, PrivacyG, Zwei, examplens, avp2306, Rengga Jati

Thank you for the balanced discussion. We agree that users should download and independently verify the PGP-signed letter of guarantee before sending funds and split large exchanges into smaller sequential orders.

Regarding the 1,400 XMR allegation, we found no matching order and received neither a valid letter of guarantee nor verifiable transaction evidence. We have provided a more detailed response on X/Twitter at the link shared above.

The arbitration on Exploit regarding this dispute has concluded, and the case has been closed in our favour.

PrivacyG, we strongly recommend saving the guarantee even for smaller orders. It takes only a moment and can be decisive in the event of a dispute.

hosemary

Your questions to the escrow providers are valid, and we do not want to answer on their behalf. From our side, Pablo.Cash does not perform AML/KYC source-of-funds screening or block funds based on a risk score. The quoted clause only means that users are responsible for ensuring that their transactions comply with applicable law.

You also raised an important point regarding duplicate claims submitted to independent escrow providers. We are clarifying the exact procedures with all providers, including how claims will be cross-checked before compensation is paid. Once everything is confirmed, we will update our deposit post so users are not misled.