BestChange asks for $3400 just to check my 50 XMR transaction

[egor994]

I am writing this to warn others, to ask for advice or assistance, and to document a case that BestChange refuses to resolve.


1. The Damage


In August 2025, I used the exchanger Myxa.cc, which I found through BestChange. I sent 6 transactions of 50 XMR each from KuCoin. Myxa.cc confirmed 5 of them. The 6th (order 6588021) was never credited. They claim they "did not receive" it.

I have an official PDF withdrawal report from KuCoin. It shows: 50 XMR, sent on 2025-08-28 22:25 UTC, to Monero address 85tHGZu16YVbrQ2mSDWgq7EhwBMAnmHmokfuEnmYZTe3c1wxshosCZcdvM8ZanZ8vSWeh714aAnMFZb J9Yw2orVbNwMoy13 (the address the exchanger gave me for payment), TxID 5ea87ecbf10e87f8ef120c35f108e41239e2a71defba30e415a90ccdcdda7632, status: SUCCESS.

I verified this TxID on a public Monero explorer. The transaction exists. The question is why the receiver does not acknowledge it.

I asked KuCoin for help. They answered my questions and provided all the documents. Myxa.cc has been claiming for a year that no deposit was received, and stopped answering emails entirely since October 1, 2026. BestChange is the one answering for them now.


2. BestChange Confirmed the Address Belongs to merch.elpay.to


I asked BestChange who owns the address. They confirmed in writing: the address belongs to the processing pool merch.elpay.to. They also stated they are "not the operator" of this wallet and have no access to it.

So Myxa.cc gave me an address they do not control. And BestChange knew this.


3. Myxa.cc Lied About Being a Lithuanian VASP


Myxa.cc publicly claimed: "there is an affiliated legal entity with 125k EUR capital, a VASP license, and an AML officer, jurisdiction: Lithuania." (Source: forum.bits.media, link: https://forum.bits.media/index.php?/topic/181762-ocтopoжнo-coмнитeльный-мyxacc-oбмeн-элeктpoнныx-вaлют/page/7/#comments)

I wrote to the Bank of Lithuania. Their official response: "Lietuvos bankas has no information indicating that the entity operating under this name has ever been registered in Lithuania."

This is not a technicality. It is a false statement about licensing. And BestChange still lists them.


4. BestChange's Excuse: $3,400 to "Check" a Transaction


BestChange told me the processor can check the transaction, but only if I pay 3,400 USDT to rebuild their server infrastructure. Or I can wait indefinitely for the server to be decommissioned, and then pay $100.

(Source: https://forum.bits.media/index.php?/topic/38436-bestchange-кaк-быcтpo-выбpaть-лyчший-oбмeнник-и-cэкoнoмить-cвoe-вpeмя/page/53/#findComment-2535175)

Think about this: a monitoring service that claims to "filter" exchangers is telling a victim to pay $3,400 to the exchanger's processor to look for their own money. The domain merch.elpay.to returns 404 Not Found — both now and a month ago.


5. Why This Matters to Users


BestChange positions itself as a trusted filter. It awards "official registration" badges. It claims to protect users. But when an exchanger lies about its license and loses 50 XMR, BestChange does not delist them. Instead, it supports the claims of an illegal exchanger who deceived me — claiming he was once a VASP, which he never was. That is a fact. And BestChange also claims they had problems with KuCoin and that KuCoin allegedly deceived them.

I posted my complaint on BestChange's own review page: https://www.bestchange.ru/myxa-exchanger-281.html?review=3404161

I also posted on Reddit and X. But BestChange files mass complaints from different accounts, and the posts get blocked. I appealed on Reddit — my post got 6,000 views in 24 hours before being abruptly removed. In the appeal, they asked me: "Why do you think your post received so many complaints?" I think this proves it was not without reason.

Be careful. If you use BestChange, know that their "filter" did not protect me. Their own listing policy says they can delist exchangers that violate rules. They have not done so.

I plan to file complaints with consumer protection authorities in the country where BestChange is registered (UAE), and with regulators around the world, because BestChange now has cash-for-crypto exchanges in many capitals and cities worldwide. Potentially, if I save even one person, that will already be good.

I also ask: if anyone has the opportunity to post my story elsewhere, I would be very grateful. I have all the evidence for what I wrote above.

[Murat]

Damn sorry for your loss.

Maybe next time Start using THORChian when doing XMR or Cross chain swaps? (XMR Coming really soon)

Too many scams these days from these non kyc exchanges.

I wonder what action bestchange have taken for their users in this case?

[egor994]

Hello. I’m not sure if posting links is allowed here, but here is my thread containing all the details and responses from BestChange (please use a translator):
 https://forum.bits.media/index.php?/topic/181762-%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9-%D0%BC%D1%83%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81-%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD-%D1%8D%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85-%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8E%D1%82/page/13/#comment-2535336


They don’t see any violations on the part of myxa.cc; they say that 3,400 dollars needs to be paid.

[The Cryptovator]

Hello. I’m not sure if posting links is allowed here, but here is my thread containing all the details and responses from BestChange (please use a translator):

They don’t see any violations on the part of myxa.cc; they say that 3,400 dollars needs to be paid.

As far as I know, bestchange is the exchange monitor site; they try to solve if something happens like this. Before I had contact with them to solve an issue, they were friendly enough to solve it, and eventually it was solved. They haven’t asked for any money from me.

So I am not getting the point of why they are asking for money to help or check the transaction. Before, they were active here and responded to this kind of allegation. But now I don’t see them much active on the forum. I will advise you not to be scammed a second time. Don’t pay anything; if you can take legal action, that will be better for you.

[egor994]

Unfortunately, I haven’t received any help from BestChange so far—only accusations.

[m2017]

In August 2025, I used the exchanger Myxa.cc, which I found through BestChange. I sent 6 transactions of 50 XMR each from KuCoin. Myxa.cc confirmed 5 of them. The 6th (order 6588021) was never credited. They claim they "did not receive" it.

It is certainly unfortunate that you’ve found yourself in this situation. But who is primarily to blame? Only your own lack of caution. Why didn’t you test the exchange service with a small initial transaction, say, 1 XMR (likewise, by dividing 50 XMR into more parts than 6 and exchanging these portions, one can wait for the exchange service to fulfill its obligations), to verify its reliability, instead of blindly trusting an exchange aggregator? In my view, it was reckless to send 50 XMR all at once (even if split into 6 separate parts).

It’s quite convenient to claim "I sent it, but it never arrived" when dealing with XMR, as it’s impossible to verify or prove otherwise on the blockchain. That is an unpleasant price to pay for privacy, unfortunately. In this case.

4. BestChange's Excuse: $3,400 to "Check" a Transaction

I am by no means justifying the service Myxa.cc or the rather strange stance taken by BestChange after all, how could it possibly be right for a clientб who has placed their trust in an aggregatorб to suddenly face additional, unforeseen expenses?

Users turn to an exchange aggregator to carry out an exchange deal, not to pay for "to rebuild their server infrastructure".

By the way, it turns out that if, at this moment, it’s impossible to confirm that the 50 XMR from OP has reached the exchange service, then, effectively, the potential scam by Myxa.cc remains unconfirmed, and Bestchange continues to keep this exchange on the list of available services on its website?

[Arhad]

That is an unpleasant price to pay for privacy, unfortunately. In this case.

If you'd read the OP's post carefully, you'd know that five of the six 50 XMR transfers went through successfully. After five successful exchanges, it's obvious the OP had no reason to doubt the sixth would go through as well.

And what "pay for privacy" are you talking about when the XMR was sent from the KuCoin CEX?

Unfortunately, I haven’t received any help from BestChange so far—only accusations.

In this situation, Myxa.cc and the BestChange aggregator still came out ahead, collecting their fees, while the OP lost 50 XMR. Now BestChange is suggesting they spend another 3,400 USDT on an investigation.

Myxa.cc is simply ignoring the OP, and BestChange's admins have moved the complaint to neutral status. BestChange customers are left without any protection and have to deal with the problem on their own.

[egor994]

In August 2025, I used the exchanger Myxa.cc, which I found through BestChange. I sent 6 transactions of 50 XMR each from KuCoin. Myxa.cc confirmed 5 of them. The 6th (order 6588021) was never credited. They claim they "did not receive" it.

It is certainly unfortunate that you’ve found yourself in this situation. But who is primarily to blame? Only your own lack of caution. Why didn’t you test the exchange service with a small initial transaction, say, 1 XMR (likewise, by dividing 50 XMR into more parts than 6 and exchanging these portions, one can wait for the exchange service to fulfill its obligations), to verify its reliability, instead of blindly trusting an exchange aggregator? In my view, it was reckless to send 50 XMR all at once (even if split into 6 separate parts).

It’s quite convenient to claim "I sent it, but it never arrived" when dealing with XMR, as it’s impossible to verify or prove otherwise on the blockchain. That is an unpleasant price to pay for privacy, unfortunately. In this case.

4. BestChange's Excuse: $3,400 to "Check" a Transaction

I am by no means justifying the service Myxa.cc or the rather strange stance taken by BestChange after all, how could it possibly be right for a clientб who has placed their trust in an aggregatorб to suddenly face additional, unforeseen expenses?

Users turn to an exchange aggregator to carry out an exchange deal, not to pay for "to rebuild their server infrastructure".

By the way, it turns out that if, at this moment, it’s impossible to confirm that the 50 XMR from OP has reached the exchange service, then, effectively, the potential scam by Myxa.cc remains unconfirmed, and Bestchange continues to keep this exchange on the list of available services on its website?

Thank you for your support. I fully agree with you — BestChange's position is completely unclear to me as well.

It is one thing when a monitor simply cannot help. It is another thing when the monitor starts defending the exchange's claims, which the blockchain confirms are false. Especially since I provided a withdrawal report for all my transactions from KuCoin. This is an official document from KuCoin; it contains my UID, my first and last name, and all the transaction hashes.

Just yesterday, Myxa.cc openly accused me of fraud and manipulation on the Bits.media forum, claiming that my transaction 'never existed.' But they completely ignore the TxID and the official KuCoin PDF that prove otherwise.

You can read their latest outburst here (use a translator): https://forum.bits.media/index.php?/topic/181762-ocтopoжнo-coмнитeльный-мyxacc-oбмeн-элeктpoнныx-вaлют/page/13/#findComment-2535404

Instead of providing the contacts of their processor (merch.elpay.to), which I requested, they are trying to shift the blame to me and KuCoin. This only confirms that BestChange's 'filter' is not working, and the exchange is trying to hide behind insults.

That is an unpleasant price to pay for privacy, unfortunately. In this case.

If you'd read the OP's post carefully, you'd know that five of the six 50 XMR transfers went through successfully. After five successful exchanges, it's obvious the OP had no reason to doubt the sixth would go through as well.

And what "pay for privacy" are you talking about when the XMR was sent from the KuCoin CEX?

Unfortunately, I haven’t received any help from BestChange so far—only accusations.

In this situation, Myxa.cc and the BestChange aggregator still came out ahead, collecting their fees, while the OP lost 50 XMR. Now BestChange is suggesting they spend another 3,400 USDT on an investigation.

Myxa.cc is simply ignoring the OP, and BestChange's admins have moved the complaint to neutral status. BestChange customers are left without any protection and have to deal with the problem on their own.

Thanks for the support; I’m trying to prove this to them and show it to all the readers.

[mod note: merged consecutive posts]

[decodx]

Thanks for the support; I’m trying to prove this to them and show it to all the readers.

I noticed from the conversation that they (BestChange) asked you for the Monero transaction key to be able to verify the transaction on the blockchain. Were you unable to get that information from KuCoin and what was their response?

I agree that it's very strange that BestChange has taken the Myxa.cc exchanger's side—effectively accusing KuCoin of lying—despite all the information you provided.

[RGBTC]

I believe the actual cost is $100; they just want you to pay 50 XMR ($3.4k at the time) ostensibly as a form of recovery fee which would then be refunded to you. In short, they don’t want to pay even a single dollar out of their own pockets.

[egor994]

Thanks for the support; I’m trying to prove this to them and show it to all the readers.

I noticed from the conversation that they (BestChange) asked you for the Monero transaction key to be able to verify the transaction on the blockchain. Were you unable to get that information from KuCoin and what was their response?

I agree that it's very strange that BestChange has taken the Myxa.cc exchanger's side—effectively accusing KuCoin of lying—despite all the information you provided.

Yes, I’m very upset that BestChange doesn’t seem to care about all the evidence I provided—all the screenshots, and so on. Myxa.cc, meanwhile, hasn’t provided anything at all. I requested information regarding the key from KuCoin, and here is what they replied:
https://imgur.com/a/AHOnbKq
Dear KuCoin user,

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the methods of checking transactions for your XMR transfers.

We understand your concern about providing evidence to a recipient who claims to have not received one of the transactions. Regarding your question about secret keys, we have to inform you that we cannot provide private transaction keys, as this would create significant security risks for our platform and users.

[egor994]

Case update on Myxa.cc (order 6588021) as of October 27, 2026.

For those not in the loop: a year ago I sent 50 XMR from the KuCoin exchange to the exchanger Myxa.cc, which I found on Bestchange. KuCoin officially confirmed the sending (there is a PDF statement with all data and TxID). But the exchanger claimed the funds did not arrive and has simply been holding them for a year.

For precise fixation, I provide the transaction data:
Address that the exchanger issued for payment: 85tHGZu16YVbrQ2mSDWgq7EhwBMAnmHmokfuEnmYZTe3c1wxshosCZcdvM8ZanZ8vSWeh714aAnMFZb J9Yw2orVbNwMoy13
TxID (transaction hash): 5ea87ecbf10e87f8ef120c35f108e41239e2a71defba30e415a90ccdcdda7632 (here you can see that the transaction reached the recipient)

But the most interesting part began when I tried to prove my case.

The exchanger demanded a Secret transaction key from me. The problem is that KuCoin, like any other custodial exchange in the world, does not issue this key for security reasons. This is a technical impossibility. The exchanger knew this perfectly well but continued to demand the impossible, even though KuCoin explained to both the exchanger and me how to check the transaction — the main thing is to have access to the wallet to which the funds were sent.

The main absurdity.

Both the exchanger and BestChange unanimously claim that the money is with some processing service (merch.elpay.to). Supposedly, to check, they need to "shut down their servers" and rebuild the infrastructure. For this, they demand payment of 3,400 dollars.

But at the same time, neither BestChange nor Myxa.cc have provided a single piece of evidence of the existence of this processing service, as if it simply does not exist. They also do not provide contacts, and the website of this processing service, which they refer to, returns 404 (unavailable) for over a month now. So, I am supposed to pay 3,400 dollars to unknown parties for a check on servers that no one has seen?

New facts from government agencies.

I received an official response from the Financial Crime Investigation Service under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Lithuania (FNTT, reg. No. 25-16431) and provided it to Bestchange. It states in black and white that from August 1 to December 31, 2025, myxa.cc was not listed as a VASP in Lithuania, whereas they previously claimed otherwise. That is, the exchanger lied about its jurisdiction and misled everyone, and BestChange turned a blind eye to this, even though BestChange has a Spanish-speaking TG channel and is trying to enter the Spanish market (the European Union, like Lithuania) and Latin America. Imagine what could await people around the world if Bestchange enters the global market; not only residents of Eastern Europe will suffer as they do now, but also people all over the world, to whom they will lie that exchangers have licenses and use schemes with "rebuilding the server structure."

BestChange has bots working on Reddit, so if anyone has the desire — write some negativity about BestChange with facts there, and your post may stay up for a day and then be deleted, because from different accounts they will file complaints against you (although in the comments there will be 100% support for you).

I am not giving up. Now the documents (BestChange's refusal, FNTT's response, KuCoin's statement) will go to the regulators of the UAE, Spain, the UK, and other countries. I will look for new options to get my funds back from this organized crime group "BestChange + Myxa.cc," which, judging by everything, have already divided my money.

If anyone has advice or resources for publicity — I would be very grateful. The combination of "exchanger + monitoring," which asks clients for 3,400 dollars for a check on non-existent servers, can affect anyone.

[decodx]

If anyone has advice or resources for publicity — I would be very grateful. The combination of "exchanger + monitoring," which asks clients for 3,400 dollars for a check on non-existent servers, can affect anyone.

What else can I say, except: keep up the fight if you are willing and able to keep up with it. And I hope you get your XMR back. But if not, it will be the negative publicity that will be the most damaging to them - they're counting on you to throw in the towel so this all gets quickly forgotten.

Certainly keep those EU regulatory complaints rolling in with the evidence attached. Regulators love paper trails that reveal fraudulent misrepresentation within their jurisdiction.

[NotATether]

$3400 just to build their server infrastructure? Are they expecting you to hire them or something?

Anyway, Bestchange has deteriorated a lot, and you shouldn't use it anymore. BitMixList is like Bestchange, but we don't show scams. All of the sites we list are honest and legit.

https://bitmixlist.org

Just a disclaimer, BitMixList is my service. But I still recommend it.

[Best_Change]

Dear forum members,

Since this case is now being discussed on yet another platform, we would like to clarify several key points. The way the situation is currently being presented creates a materially misleading impression of what actually happened.

The dispute began with a basic issue that should not be overlooked.

Before sending XMR, the order page displayed a clear warning stating that the user should make sure the sending service would be able to provide the information required to verify the transaction in the event of a dispute, including the relevant view key.

The user ignored that warning and sent XMR directly from KuCoin. It later turned out that KuCoin does not provide the required data.

Given the level of technical and legal detail the user has demonstrated throughout this dispute over the past year, it is difficult to understand why this was not checked before sending the funds. Centralized exchanges refusing to provide certain Monero verification data is not an unusual situation.
This is what made the subsequent investigation significantly more difficult.

BestChange has never claimed that KuCoin provided false information. KuCoin's records confirm that a withdrawal was made from the user's account. However, proof that funds were sent from the exchange is not the same as proof that the specific payment was received by the receiving side.

The receiving side carried out a basic check at the beginning of the dispute. Other 50 XMR transfers made by the same user during the same period were visible in the merchant system and were subsequently processed or refunded. The disputed 50 XMR payment was not found.

This is important because the main claim being repeated in this thread is also inaccurate: BestChange is not asking the user to pay 3,400 USDT to "check a transaction". Neither BestChange nor the exchanger is currently demanding payment of 3,400 USDT or 100 USDT from the user.

These amounts were mentioned only as possible technical options for a much deeper investigation described by the receiving processor.

The approximately 3,400 USDT option was not a fee for simply checking one transaction. It would require intervention in live infrastructure: taking an active server out of production, moving operations to new infrastructure, and preserving the old environment so that it could later be examined in greater depth.

The other potential option, estimated at around 100 USDT, could only be carried out after the relevant server was retired from production as part of its normal lifecycle. That has not happened.

So the narrative that "BestChange wants $3,400 just to check whether the transaction arrived" is not an accurate description of the situation.

The same applies to the payment processor issue. The user had already publicly identified "merch.elpay.to" on Bits.Media as the processor involved in this case: https://forum.bits.media/index.php?/topic/181762-ocтopoжнo-coмнитeльный-мyxacc-oбмeн-элeктpoнныx-вaлют/page/13/#findComment-2529977
Later, however, the user contacted a different service — "elpay.io" — and then used that company's response as an argument concerning "merch.elpay.to".

In other words, the discussion is first framed as though the processor is unknown. A different company is then contacted, and its response is presented as evidence.

We have already seen the same approach on another forum. It is now being repeated here.

At this point, in our view, the selective presentation of facts has become an obvious attempt to influence public opinion. Judging by some of the replies in this thread, it is working: conclusions are being drawn from assumptions that do not match the actual case materials.

The same applies to attempts to shift the discussion toward the exchanger's former jurisdiction, VASP registration, third-party publications, and other unrelated issues. None of these points proves that the disputed XMR was received.

The core technical question remains the same: was this specific incoming payment actually received by the receiving side?

The exchanger has been listed on BestChange for approximately five years. During that time, we have seen no basis to consider its operation a systematic scheme for misappropriating customer funds or to associate it with similar fraudulent practices. One complex dispute does not justify such a conclusion, particularly where the situation arose after the user sent XMR in a way that left them unable to provide verification data that had been explicitly requested in advance.

BestChange has revisited this case more than once, requested additional materials, and rechecked the information already available.

Those reviews have not established that the disputed 50 XMR was received by the receiving side.

If genuinely new technical data becomes available that allows the disputed transaction to be directly identified, or if a future technical examination establishes that the payment was received, the case can be reviewed again.

Until then, we do not intend to continue responding to repeated versions of the same arguments on different platforms.

[egor994]

Dear forum members,

Since this case is now being discussed on yet another platform, we would like to clarify several key points. The way the situation is currently being presented creates a materially misleading impression of what actually happened.

The dispute began with a basic issue that should not be overlooked.

Before sending XMR, the order page displayed a clear warning stating that the user should make sure the sending service would be able to provide the information required to verify the transaction in the event of a dispute, including the relevant view key.

The user ignored that warning and sent XMR directly from KuCoin. It later turned out that KuCoin does not provide the required data.

Given the level of technical and legal detail the user has demonstrated throughout this dispute over the past year, it is difficult to understand why this was not checked before sending the funds. Centralized exchanges refusing to provide certain Monero verification data is not an unusual situation.
This is what made the subsequent investigation significantly more difficult.

BestChange has never claimed that KuCoin provided false information. KuCoin's records confirm that a withdrawal was made from the user's account. However, proof that funds were sent from the exchange is not the same as proof that the specific payment was received by the receiving side.

The receiving side carried out a basic check at the beginning of the dispute. Other 50 XMR transfers made by the same user during the same period were visible in the merchant system and were subsequently processed or refunded. The disputed 50 XMR payment was not found.

This is important because the main claim being repeated in this thread is also inaccurate: BestChange is not asking the user to pay 3,400 USDT to "check a transaction". Neither BestChange nor the exchanger is currently demanding payment of 3,400 USDT or 100 USDT from the user.

These amounts were mentioned only as possible technical options for a much deeper investigation described by the receiving processor.

The approximately 3,400 USDT option was not a fee for simply checking one transaction. It would require intervention in live infrastructure: taking an active server out of production, moving operations to new infrastructure, and preserving the old environment so that it could later be examined in greater depth.

The other potential option, estimated at around 100 USDT, could only be carried out after the relevant server was retired from production as part of its normal lifecycle. That has not happened.

So the narrative that "BestChange wants $3,400 just to check whether the transaction arrived" is not an accurate description of the situation.

The same applies to the payment processor issue. The user had already publicly identified "merch.elpay.to" on Bits.Media as the processor involved in this case: https://forum.bits.media/index.php?/topic/181762-ocтopoжнo-coмнитeльный-мyxacc-oбмeн-элeктpoнныx-вaлют/page/13/#findComment-2529977
Later, however, the user contacted a different service — "elpay.io" — and then used that company's response as an argument concerning "merch.elpay.to".

In other words, the discussion is first framed as though the processor is unknown. A different company is then contacted, and its response is presented as evidence.

We have already seen the same approach on another forum. It is now being repeated here.

At this point, in our view, the selective presentation of facts has become an obvious attempt to influence public opinion. Judging by some of the replies in this thread, it is working: conclusions are being drawn from assumptions that do not match the actual case materials.

The same applies to attempts to shift the discussion toward the exchanger's former jurisdiction, VASP registration, third-party publications, and other unrelated issues. None of these points proves that the disputed XMR was received.

The core technical question remains the same: was this specific incoming payment actually received by the receiving side?

The exchanger has been listed on BestChange for approximately five years. During that time, we have seen no basis to consider its operation a systematic scheme for misappropriating customer funds or to associate it with similar fraudulent practices. One complex dispute does not justify such a conclusion, particularly where the situation arose after the user sent XMR in a way that left them unable to provide verification data that had been explicitly requested in advance.

BestChange has revisited this case more than once, requested additional materials, and rechecked the information already available.

Those reviews have not established that the disputed 50 XMR was received by the receiving side.

If genuinely new technical data becomes available that allows the disputed transaction to be directly identified, or if a future technical examination establishes that the payment was received, the case can be reviewed again.

Until then, we do not intend to continue responding to repeated versions of the same arguments on different platforms.

Dear BestChange,

Thank you for not deleting my thread on BitcoinTalk, unlike Reddit (where my posts are deleted by mass reports from you), X.com (where my account was blocked for mentioning my problem), and Trustpilot (where they complain about my review and ignore questions). But let's break down your arguments using facts.

1. About KuCoin and "technical data"

You write that I "ignored the warning" and sent from KuCoin. But KuCoin is a licensed exchange (MiCA, FMA). Upon my request, they provided an official statement of all my transactions. It contains my name, UID, date, time, all addresses, and the TxID: 5ea87ecbf10e87f8ef120c35f108e41239e2a71defba30e415a90ccdcdda7632. The funds were sent to the address 85tHGZu16YVbrQ2mSDWgq7EhwBMAnmHmokfuEnmYZTe3c1wxshosCZcdvM8ZanZ8vSWeh714aAnMFZb J9Yw2orVbNwMoy13 (the address your exchanger provided). KuCoin explained how to verify the receipt — you just need access to the wallet. With this statement, one could sue KuCoin if they deceived me, but that needs to be proven — simply provide proof that no deposit was received. They gave the TxID, and it can be checked.

But what did you do? Neither you nor the exchanger tried to help me verify this. You simply stated: "Without the secret key, it cannot be checked." How did you check this? Show logs, screenshots, proof, correspondence. As your client, do I have the right to this? I have proof from KuCoin. You have only words.

2. About merch.elpay.to and "manipulation"

You write that I "mislead" by first naming merch.elpay.to and then writing to elpay.io. But you gave me this link (https://merch.elpay.to/) and said the funds went through them. I wrote to elpay.io because the site https://merch.elpay.to/ is down (404), and you did not provide contacts even after several requests. Who are they? Why are you hiding their contacts? Maybe someone on this forum knows this company? I did not try to mislead anyone. I tried to find who is holding my money because you refused to help.

3. About the $3,400

You write that you are not demanding money. But this was one of the conditions of the so-called check — and I am interested: if I had paid this money, would you also tell me with words and no proof that the funds did not arrive? If I pay, how will we check, and will there be proof of the check? Is there any regulation where I won't be deceived again?

4. About VASP and the exchanger's lies

You write that you "saw no basis" to consider them scammers, but everything points to it. This is the first time this has happened to me, and I have used exchanges many times over many years. Myxa.cc ignored my requests, called me a scammer, an arbitrageur, and other words, lied about its jurisdiction, and on Bits.media claimed to be a licensed exchanger (Lithuanian VASP).

5. I am waiting for the promised contacts

Yesterday, in an email, you wrote: "We will ask the Myxa.cc administration to provide you with the available contacts of the processor." I am still waiting for these contacts. Let's finally solve this problem together. I am your client, and I am asking for help!

[dkbit98]

For me bestchange is not reliable service for several years, and I don't recommend anyone using it.
I remember few years ago when many of us complained about their stupid and rigged feedback system, they claimed they will fix i, but they never did, and this was intentional.
I dont know if information provided by OP is true or not, but for next time I would suggest sending coins from your own wallets, not from exchange accounts.

[egor994]

Case update, order 6588021 (exchanger Myxa.cc), November 5, 2026.

A brief summary of what has happened recently.

   1. The exchanger refuses to provide contacts.
    I requested from Myxa.cc the contacts of the processing service merch.elpay.to, to which the address where I sent my 50 XMR allegedly belongs. In response, they officially refused to provide them and stated that they do not have to prove anything.

BestChange wrote to me several days ago that they would request the merchant's contacts from the exchanger (data about which cannot be found anywhere on the internet), but they have been silent for several days now.

  2.  My position on the $3,400 check.
    Yesterday I sent an official request to BestChange asking them to provide the regulations for the additional technical investigation they mentioned (link to their post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5597742.msg67292747#msg67292747).

I am 100% sure that the funds reached the recipient, and I am ready to pay these $3,400 to get my 50 XMR back. But before that, I must be sure that the check will actually be carried out.

I do not want a repeat of the Lithuanian VASP situation, where the exchanger first said one thing, and then FNTT officially confirmed that they were never there. I need a clear, transparent regulation so I know what I am paying for and who exactly I am paying, instead of reading riddles from Myxa.cc.

Monero address for the record:
85tHGZu16YVbrQ2mSDWgq7EhwBMAnmHmokfuEnmYZTe3c1wxshosCZcdvM8ZanZ8vSWeh714aAnMFZb J9Yw2orVbNwMoy13

[coupable]

I am 100% sure that the funds reached the recipient, and I am ready to pay these $3,400 to get my 50 XMR back. But before that, I must be sure that the check will actually be carried out.

Why should the side asking for the money be bestchange? Would it play a mediating role again to resolve the issue? Why do you have to pay those $3400 if they find out that the exchanger has received the 50 XMR when you are not responsible for fixing their mistakes (if it is a mistake)? If you're sure the XMR was sent, I don't think it makes sense to give them more money. Also, I suggest you focus on filing a lawsuit in the UAE and other countries you mentioned.

[egor994]

I am 100% sure that the funds reached the recipient, and I am ready to pay these $3,400 to get my 50 XMR back. But before that, I must be sure that the check will actually be carried out.

Why should the side asking for the money be bestchange? Would it play a mediating role again to resolve the issue? Why do you have to pay those $3400 if they find out that the exchanger has received the 50 XMR when you are not responsible for fixing their mistakes (if it is a mistake)? If you're sure the XMR was sent, I don't think it makes sense to give them more money. Also, I suggest you focus on filing a lawsuit in the UAE and other countries you mentioned.

Thank you for your question. You are absolutely right — I shouldn't have to pay for their mistakes. I am ready to pay these $3,400 only out of desperation, because all other doors are closed.

Here is what happened in the last two days:

    The exchanger refused to provide contacts. Myxa.cc officially stated that they "don't have to prove anything" and refused to give me the processor's contacts.

    The merchant is hiding behind "B2B". Yesterday, BestChange wrote to me that the merchant (merch.elpay.to) refuses to communicate with me because they work "exclusively in a B2B format" and do not support end users.

So I have a situation where:

    The exchanger lies about its VASP license (confirmed by FNTT).

    The exchanger refuses to provide contacts.

    The merchant refuses to talk to me.

    BestChange covers them both.

I am ready to pay the $3,400, but I demand a transparent regulation. I want to know exactly what this "investigation" is and who I am paying. Otherwise, it looks like a scheme to extort money from a victim.

I have already filed complaints with 2 structures in the UAE and in other countries, and I will look for other loopholes if nothing changes. I don't understand what benefit BestChange is pursuing, but it seems to me that I will not get a transparent regulation, even if I pay these funds, I could be deceived again. If anyone has any thoughts, write — I see this kind of text.