Topic: About Bestchange [again] - page 2. (Read 4113 times)

As am wearing the signature of BestChange since the biggenning of its campaign, i have been always inteested about the open accusations against the reputation of the project representer who is also managing the campaign.
I posted three days ago after the update about the case been resolved with the accused exchange and many DT users reviewed their feedback, but some others still not. I post this to bump the topic and get more opinions about the actual situation of BestChange .

Actual flag and red trusts are all about "promoting fake scam project" and have this thread as a reference. Now that the case is resolved, only one user has changed his feedback from negative to netreul notification and i think other users didn't yet notice that the issue with changehero has been resolved and that their feedbacks are no more appropriate. All the feedbacks about not using an escrow have been removed after the campaign paied first week .
Let's see what will happen next .

Returning funds is good but they also have to pay him interest to compensate inflation. They held funds for over 90 days for no reason. They owe him additional $157.

Now that the Changegero.io issue "seem to have been resolved" what happens to the Newbie flag that is massively supported on their profile?
What happens to the "non use of trusted escrow" feedback that was left now that they have paid the first week(i think)?

logfiles , I think you're missing that Veleor is not a newbie.

Changegero.io returned money to Sergey (see above)

Thanks from me to all english users who were active in helping ordinary people to get justice with bit services. This is how should work in our crypto community!

As about myself, i will keep my tag on bestchange but will rewrite it and make it neutral.

Этo нe xopoшaя нoвocть, этo axyитeльнaя нoвocть, дpyзья! Я для ceбя cдeлaл дecятки вывoдoв из этoй cитyaции. Oбмeнникy ChangeHero нe мeшaлo бы eщe кoмпeнcиpoвaть тe вeдpa вaлepьянки кoтopыe мнe пpишлocь пить, нo я paд, oчeнь cильнo paд чтo cитyaция нaкoнeц peшeнa.

Oбмeнникy ChangeHero oчeнь coвeтyю бoльшe нe мopoзитьcя, измeнить дизaйн caйтa в cooтвeтcвии иx peaльныx пpaвил и в дecятки paз ycкopить paбoтy cepвиca. Bы нaнecли бoльшoй yдap cвoeй peпyтaции, нo нe cлилиcь, cдeлaли вoзвpaт. У вac eщe ecть шaнc вoccтaнoвить ceбe peпyтaцию, нo пoвepьтe, cepвиc вaм нyжнo кapдинaльнo пepepaбoтaть, c тaким пoдxoдoм вы дaлeкo нe yйдeтe.


BCEM КTO ПOДДEPЖИBAЛ OГPOMHAЯ БЛAГOДAPHOCTЬ. BestChange, cпacибo зa тo чтo paзpeшили cитyaцию! Пoдcкaжитe кaк cнять флaги кoтopыe я нacтaвил? Bcex ocтaльныx тoжe пpoшy cнять c BestChange флaги пo мoeй пpoблeмe.

Official statement from ChangeHero regarding the case with Sergey M.

On 27/10/2019 supposedly Sergey M. (hereinafter - “the User”) has made two transactions with the web interface of the ChangeHero service (hereinafter - “the Service”).

The first transaction was made at 15:15:12 on 27/10/2019. Exchanged 50 USDT20 to XMR. Finished at 15:52:43.
The second transaction was made at 17:11:44 on 27/10/2019. Exchanged 21,010 USDT20 to XMR. The transaction was automatically put on hold due to AML-system being triggered.

Sequence of interactions with the user
 
The interaction with the User was happening as follows:
On 27/10/2019 at 20:28 the User contacted the Service’s support team through the chat asking for a refund of his assets because he refused to pass the user verification procedure known as KYC (“Know Your Customer”). At 21:04 he was provided with the support team’s email address, where further communication was occuring;
On 29/10/2019 at 15:55, after consulting with legal experts, the Service has decided to continue verification of the User until the circumstances are completely clarified;
On 01/11/2019 at 14:53 after the User’s inquiry, the Service affirmed the refund is possible only after completing the KYC procedure;
On 09/11/2019, as a reply to the previous letter, the User sent an email with his ID, proof of source of part of his funds and screenshots of his exchange account attached to it;
To confirm the User’s identity, on 21/12/2019 a Skype call was made after being repeatedly postponed, through the User’s fault as well.

During the Skype call, the User was asked a few standard questions, which, in our opinion, could serve as a proof of ownership over the funds:
Which cryptocurrency wallet was used by the User to send the funds to the Service;
Which cryptocurrency wallet was used by the User to receive the funds exchanged by the Service;
Why did the User exchanged his funds not directly on the exchange (at the time of transactions, the rates on the exchange were more favorable);
For what activities does the User utilize his exchange account, from which the funds were sent to the Service.
The User was not able to provide an answer to any of these questions and disconnected from the call, claiming he would call back in 15-20 minutes.

To get more information on the case, during a few days from 21/12/2019 until 17/01/2020 the Service sent inquiries to the exchange from which the funds were sent. The information received from the exchange representatives can be summarized as follows:
The funds were indeed sent from their exchange account;
The account shows the signs of “allegedly suspicious activity”;
There were no official inquiries from law enforcement regarding this account.

Closing the case

According to the Terms of Use, on 31/01/2020 at 13:39:43 the Service has made a refund to the outgoing Address 0x975f422840ed3729a5b95a60e454e0826b719f4a, Hash: 0x207cc2a75781aecc9b08d6f7e7bfeadce53ff85c7ee509cc79ea8da1b8477d9f. The address will be blacklisted by the Service, and the User or any further operations connected with this address will be blocked.

Despite the unjustified accusations, all the time since the start of the incident, the User’s funds were on hold on the Service’s payin address, were not sent or used in any other transactions.

Concluding the case

ChangeHero is a non-custodial exchange solution. It does not withhold its users’ assets and balances. It does not require obligatory sign-up.

The Service’s team adheres to the policy of opposing illegal activities, such as fraud, money laundering, as well as suspicious operations and transactions. The Service’s policy will not be changed despite the attempts to influence it through public activities, private e-mail and messaging, Service’s partners etc.

The Service is going to review the communication flow with its customers who refuse to undergo KYC and to resolve similar future cases within 24 hours.

The Service is going to review its Terms of Use to make the conditions of using the Service more clear and understandable to the Users.

The team is sincerely sorry that some of these unjustified accusations and reputation damage were dealt to the BestChange and Indacoin services that have no connection to the transactions in question. We express our gratitude to BestChange and Indacoin for adhering to their Terms of Use and not pressuring ChangeHero to refund the assets in question.

<...> Also, on an important note, as we said in another thread, the exchanger did not take away the user’s money or embezzle it; it has just frozen it to conduct an investigation, because the transaction was marked as suspicious. Therefore it's too early to speak about scam in this situation.

Thanks to Veleor, lets look what bestchange writing in their FAQ:

~~~

PS:
C BestChange oпpeдeлeннo пaлкy мы пepeгнyли, в тoм чиcлe и пo мoeй винe. Пo peшeнию пpoблeмы пpилoжy вce ycилия чтoбы иcпpaвить этo

Bestchange trying, as we would say in russian "И pыбкy cъecть, и нax*й cecть" (i will be appreciated for any analogy in english about this aphorism\catchphrase).

No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

.......

2.5. Пoльзoвaтeль пpeдyпpeждeн o тoм, чтo Aдминиcтpaция Caйтa нe нeceт oтвeтcтвeннocти зa пoceщeниe и иcпoльзoвaниe им внeшниx pecypcoв, ccылки нa кoтopыe мoгyт coдepжaтьcя нa caйтe.

THE OPERATORS'S TOTAL CUMULATIVE LIABILITY FOR ANY AND ALL CLAIMS IN CONNECTION WITH THE WEBSITE WILL NOT EXCEED FIVE U.S. DOLLARS ($5.00). USER AGREES AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY ARE AN ESSENTIAL BASIS OF THE BARGAIN AND THAT THE OPERATORS WOULD NOT PROVIDE THE WEBSITE ABSENT SUCH LIMITATION.

I have removed their previous negative while I look into the current state of events (which are unrelated to why the negative was given). Do note that I was being threatened with a flag[1] unless I comply, not that this was the reason for complying.
~snip~

---

[1] I don't see how someone has a "right to give a flag" if I don't comply with a rating review in time.
Publicized PM because cases are on-going and I don't want to keep this in my box.

Actually they are confusing flag with trust rating. By giving flag, they surely meant giving red trust if red trust for not paying campaign participants isn't removed.

Actually they are confusing flag with trust rating. By giving flag, they surely meant giving red trust if red trust for not paying campaign participants isn't removed.

I have removed their previous negative while I look into the current state of events (which are unrelated to why the negative was given). Do note that I was being threatened with a flag[1] unless I comply, not that this was the reason for complying.

[1] I don't see how someone has a "right to give a flag" if I don't comply with a rating review in time.
Publicized PM because cases are on-going and I don't want to keep this in my box.