Topic: Need more opinions about bestchange red trusts. - page 2. (Read 956 times)

There is a flag created on BestChange profile supported by some respected members.  

What this can be other than a personal issue?

I haven't read everything, but if this is true, I'd say the negative feedback should be removed. This might also help motivate others to do the right thing in a similar situation in the future.
If it becomes clear negative feedback is there to stay even after fixing the accusations, users might be less willing to do the right thing.

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.

I haven't read everything, but if this is true, I'd say the negative feedback should be removed. This might also help motivate others to do the right thing in a similar situation in the future.
If it becomes clear negative feedback is there to stay even after fixing the accusations, users might be less willing to do the right thing.

The issue has been resolve and as @best_change explanation it's just frozen account and the money has been claimed by the owner. So I really believe that my fellow DT should remove or at least make their feedback a neutral one, and the flag that has been created should be deleted or at least should be oppose by other DT.

BEWARE - this user has no history on the forum but created a signature bounty without escrow

Furthermore, this user watched from the sidelines WITHOUT entering the conversation when users discussed bestchange. Instead this user sent PMs to its supporters rather than have an open transparent debate therefore not definitely not trustworthy.

promoting fraudulent exchange sites, see References

And then came the Sergey incident where his money was held by changehero, again they were on spotlight even more that the actual culprits who were holding Sergey's money. I think some people where trying to prove a point of their earlier negative feedback about not using escrow, something like 'you see? i told you so'

Also as examplens said, you are affiliated with them because you are wearing their signature. You are paid to make this post as well. They may not have asked you to post this, but you have and are being paid by doing it.

OP, I did not see that you are leaving feedback and support/oppose the flag.

You wearing Bestchange signature, so you are affiliated with them. Like me of course, and our opinions can always be considered as a paid shill.

..
Am not affiliated with bestchange project. This is not the reputation thread of bestchange. I aim to start the discussion again about it as no one seems to care about the red marks in its reputation even the manager himself who is, until now, mainly focusing on doing his job in a professional way.
I am wearing their signature since three weeks and still see how difficult to rate bestchange from different opinions (negative to neutreul) made for almost the same reason. Does there a valid reason for the actual negative trusts and flag?
I will close the topic once get a clear response .

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 .