Topic: Forget about exchanger search! Use BestChange! - page 5. (Read 13341 times)

Many newbies register on this forum only to create a scam accusation or reputation thread and most of them really do not try to update the thread when their case gets solved.
I think that there should be a 2 out of 3 multisig confirmation of a review. By the way, original review, i.e. if there was a negative review for a valid reason and if there was a really problem from an exchange, that should be shown on Bestchange as it was but down to that review there should be a space for the status, whether the scam accusation was solved or not. Status should be checked and confirmed by two sides. Bestchange asks to an exchange whether the case was solved or not and asks for proofs if solved, then Bestchange also asks user whether case was solved or not and asks for proof. If user doesn't come back for 30 days, this means that his issue was solved and he doesn't care about anything anymore and after the Bestchange and exchanger will confirm that issue was solved and that will be shown on a website. There can be a voting for 3 parts and there would be necessity of 2 votes to show whether case was solved or not.

According to what I have noticed on this forum, I believe it is the same on the Bestchange platform. Many users leave a complaint, but after their issue is resolved, they do not come back to correct or confirm. Their problem is solved and they are no longer interested in whether the review is accurate.

---

@Best_Change, there are certain problems with displaying images on this forum that are hosted on the ibb service. Better use talkimg.org created by joker_josue for this forum's purposes.
You can find more on the thread: TalkImg.com - Image hosting for BitcoinTalk

It is worth noting that in the vast majority of cases, users delete reviews from the monitoring site themselves. The site administration very rarely resorts to such functionality, only when serious violations occur, such as spam attacks. The more users are informed about the operation of exchange services, the better options they can choose when conducting exchange activities. As part of developing this idea, we have created special badges installed above the review's main text.
Badges are clickable and contain additional information. At the moderation stage, reviews are checked by the monitoring administration for the absence of obscene language and for several other factors.
Obscene language is replaced with a special symbol, and a corresponding informational badge is installed.

Wouldn't it be better to hide, block or shade the review instead of deleting it? Filtering some words and hiding reviews that may contain false information or manipulation will give more credibility than deleting them.

What should you do if you didn’t receive the funds for the order and can’t remember the exchanger you used?

If you lost information on the exchanger you used, there are several ways to identify the service you had visited via BestChange.

● The link to “Exchanger visit history” can be found on the BestChange main page over the table “Exchange rates.” If you follow it, you can see the history of exchanger visits from the current browser.
● Check the browser’s history for the day of the exchange.
● Look for an email sent to the address you gave when creating the order; check the “Spam” folder.
 
Afterward, you can ask your question via the contact form — https://www.bestchange.com/contacts.html, specifying the order number and the exchanger address in the format yкaзaв site.com.
The monitor’s administration will instantly contact the service to help solve your question.

I personally like this idea, but many peoples never feel comfortable with this because they never want to give their identity even on many exchanges we have to give details for the exchange but after completing this all most of the time I also personally give reviews, and mostly I give all my details about this all with may be few more like about this all but if we will be having any official thing about this mostly will reject this idea about leaving their email after posting review.

I will add that if you have used any exchanger, and it asks you to leave a review on the BestChange website, it is important to confirm it in your email after the review. Also, for the review to be visible, you need to leave your email in the review form with which you were registered on the exchanger.

Sometimes, users ask why a review can be deleted from the BestChange.com website

Let’s talk about several reasons. The main one is duplicate reviews. They are only in the way of users and moderators.

There is a number of other factors that influence deletion:

● profanities and foul language;
● information on drug and alcohol usage;
● calls for war, separatism, and class hatred;
● false information, user speculation, or any advertising;
● reviews written with the aim of manipulation, including to receive financial or other benefits.

The BestChange.com support team is always ready to help users promptly solve any questions.
If you have a question, get in touch with us by filling in the contact form — https://www.bestchange.com/contacts.html

We really appreciate your proposal. We will consider it for possible implementation. However, such an approach requires some adjustments, taking into account the specifics of working with exchange services themselves. We understand that your idea is to inform users in advance that the exchange service has already encountered problems with previous clients, and it may be advisable to refrain from using this site.
Please note that the monitoring administration closely monitors exchange services to ensure they adhere to their terms of exchange activity. We appreciate your suggestion again and will continue developing in the direction you indicated.

Indeed, their AML service might not provide information based on the decision to freeze incoming cryptocurrency funds.

From the user's perspective, a request for data seems like the most logical action. However, such information cannot always be provided directly to the user for various reasons. Nevertheless, the monitoring administration is always committed to fostering a constructive and mutually beneficial dialogue that can lead to mutual consensus. That's why we recommend our users also inform us of any AML incidents for prompt intervention.

P.S. The AML check provided on the monitoring site aims to mitigate the negative consequences of such incidents, allowing users to perform checks BEFORE executing the actual exchange.

Pop-ups are most often used for ads. Whether it is called an ad blocker or a popup blocker is less important. The purpose and principle of the work are the same, and as far as I know, usually, it is coded with JavaScript.


I followed some services on BC that had negative feedback a couple of times. There was an issue on which the exchanger had no influence, but after a while, it was positively resolved. In the meantime, that red feedback was visible. So, during those days or two of solving the problem, the same exchanger would suffer significant damage if it were displayed through alert windows to BC users. And as I said, initially they did not cause the problem.

As far as I know, Ad blockers usually block or target just ads. Maybe my wording wasn't right. We could just call it a notification or alert.  

On the flip side, this would safeguard the users if the exchanger decided to go rouge.

There could be a softer notification for an ongoing dispute that is being resolved, vs a warning for negative feedback where an exchanger maybe have not even offered a viable resolution.

Completely unnecessary for several reasons.
Pop-up windows can be disabled due to an ad blocker in the browser. So it is not a reliable method.

Also, a popup with some notification, where negative feedback is in the foreground, will most likely look like a warning. No one will certainly continue the exchange on that service. Sometimes there is red feedback, but the process is ongoing, so it would be unfair to punish the exchanger in this way, even though he is trying to solve a certain problem.

As far as I have observed on Bestchange, if the problems are frequent or there are unresolved user complaints, such exchangers will be excluded from monitoring. The possibility of someone choosing them even without such warnings is reduced.

And this new user will definitely suffer because the previous dispute will surely end with a negative review? Exchangers will earn more in the long term (almost like with bitcoin) than on short-term deceptions. Reputation is an invaluable asset for them and they are unlikely to seek delisting from BestChange. Therefore, in most cases they will try to resolve controversial situations with a positive outcome for users.

I understand that such pop-up windows will allow users to be informed in a timely manner and will give them a choice whether they want to take a little risk. But won't this complicate the system? Which will also need to monitor all current controversial issues.

Feature suggestion:

BestChange, what do you think about this?
If an exchanger had an issue such as a recent negative feedback, ongoing dispute that has not yet be resolved or being temporarily disabled. If a new user does not click on the reviews tab, they won't know about the details, they will just get redirected to the exchanger.

How about a pop-up window warning the users about a recent negative feedback or an ongoing dispute right before they get redirected to the site?

I am not sure what is the best way for AML checking, but we have often seen that some exchanger keeps the funds because their checker "recognized" a high-risk score and marked the coins as dirty. When it is necessary to present the method of analysis, the service refers to the preservation of privacy and the protection of "analytics tools" in terms of future prevention. It mostly ends with keeping the user's coins, without much explanation.

Protecting privacy and prevention, act here only as an excuse for confiscation of funds. Such a system can be applied to any transaction. It acts as a legitimate justification for stealing the user's funds.

What do you need to keep in mind when choosing an exchanger?

The first thing worth noting is that BestChange.com is not a guarantor of deals conducted between users and exchangers. We help users conduct an objective analysis and evaluation of the exchange market.

In practice, exchangers listed on the website are not under the control of the BestChange project. They are only diligently checked for the safety of work and other requirements.

Users make decisions about using exchangers based on:

● actual exchange rates;
● user reviews;
● term of work of exchangers;
● duration of listing of exchangers in the monitor.

We would also like to remind you that if users need guarantor services, we recommend contacting one of the famous services for secure deals.

The methods are standard and currently used by the most famous AML services.

The foundation of the methodology is a thorough collection and subsequent analysis of information on outgoing and incoming transactions and indirect or direct connections with various crypto addresses using clustering. At this stage of AML service development, this functionality provides users with the most accurate data on multiple crypto addresses and transactions. We have been studying this market for quite some time, so we noticed that the functionalities are almost identical from service to service. However, this aspect is more of an advantage than a disadvantage, as it encourages services to strive to create something new that competitors lack, which is a kind of killer feature. We keep our finger on the pulse and constantly search for the most advantageous and functional solutions for our users.

What are your thoughts concerning the best solution for AML checking?

Sure, we can easily understand the response about redesigning the site. There is much to be done yet, but be sure we're listening to the community's voice.

Regarding your question about a situation where your payment is stopped by one of the listed exchanges and KYC documents are requested, it's essential to understand that our AML analyzer can significantly reduce the risk of involvement in questionable transactions but cannot fully guarantee the absence of additional requirements by exchanges or financial institutions. Current standards for AML checks include advisory measures that allow you to assess potential risks preliminarily. The decision to interact with an exchange service is ultimately yours, based on the information received. In this case, the AML analyzer acts as an auxiliary link in the security of your crypto assets. If a dispute arises, you should write to our support service, where an analysis of the situation will be carried out following your request.

Our primary goal is to create the safest possible conditions for users concerning AML. We strive to provide you with tools that are convenient and contribute to enhancing the overall security of your financial transactions.

It's important to note that our AML functionality is still under testing. We are nearing the completion of this critical phase, and the testing is in its final stages. Once testing is completed, we will inform our community about implementing a solution to further increase our users' security and reliability and exchange processes on our monitor.

As for your subscription offer, we're still determining if it can be done shortly, but we get the idea and will review it once the main feature is implemented.

It would be interesting to see which method is used here during the AML check.
So far, we have seen some methods, performed with the help of AI tools, which did not turn out to be the best solution for AML funds checker.

https://www.bestchange.com/report/