Topic: SCAM EXCHANGE MONITOR: BestChange (Read 1446 times)

That should be the case, of course Best_Change must be responsible for what partners like (OpenChange) do, to their users.

What is certain is that complaints about the behavior of partners on the Best_Change web have often happened, I don't know for sure the rules made by Best_Change against partners, before they register and operate on Best_Change, in fact user complaints continue to exist every year, unpleasant and detrimental, the actions of partners on the Best_Change web.

---

I think to prevent the same thing from happening again in the future, I suggest the Best_Change team, learn a little from Binance, even though Best_Change is already operating earlier than Binance, I think the way Binance accepts broker partners, is very professional, they prioritize Reputation and crypto users.

For example:
Of course, after all the problems are resolved, no one is harmed, they are responsible for everything.
Of course BestChange didn't let the exchange run away without solving the problem.
I think some strict rules are worth implementing in the future.

Surely this does not learn from the mistakes they have made, remove current problem exchanger, maybe if maintained, not only you, everyone here will blame them, enter the black hole for the second time.

We are not “happy” with this practice, but you need to take it into account that in some cases we do allow withholding commissions or fines according to the terms of the exchange, provided that this is clearly described in the rules of the exchanger, is clearly communicated to the user and there is no possibility to manipulate the wording. The maximal amount of a “fine” accepted in OTC-segment and by us is not more than 10 percent of the transaction. You also need to take it into account that if this practice happens more and more often in an exchanger, we will raise a question about a full delisting of the service, that’s why they won’t violate this option although they have it in almost any questionable situation.
In this specific case a blatant violation of the exchanger’s rules happened, the user had been informed but deliberately send a risky operation and refused to pass KYC-procedure necessary by the conditions of this service.
The very practice of fine although being very unpopular among users, often has real grounds for its existence. This is due to the increased risks of blocking part of the receipts or even the entire exchange service account in the custodial wallet they use. Thus, they try to reduce their losses from potential sanctions for such transfers in the future.



Most likely, the user was generally satisfied with such a compromise decision and removed it on his own accord, we don’t track such situations. We have just checked actions of our moderators on the page of OpenChange and the last removal of a review was in November 2021,  due to a high risk of a “positive feedback” to be fake.
Such conclusions can be made against the backdrop of this comment:


We check many parametres, including the legal aspects of their legitimacy, before adding exchangers in our listing. The fact that we are not legally bound with them doesn’t mean that we do not know anything about them or that they are illegal.


For a general user, it does not matter in what country this or that exchanger is registered. The aspects you describe are written in the rules of exchange, you either agree with them and finish the transaction, or refuse and leave the website with unacceptable for you conditions. There is nothing extraordinary in the service conditions of the exchanger. We make sure that various conditions and rules do not go beyond the boundaries of reasonable and legal.



In the context of the current generally accepted norms, we do not see anything reprehensible and illegal in the actions of OpenChange, so the question of their exclusion has not yet been raised. And the questions of whether this or that practice is ethical, are very subjective. However, we don’t exclude the possibility of their removal, if the community (and not several people on bitcointalk) will decide that this practice in this context is incorrect
And if this is a "trick question", then would like to disappoint all conspiracy theorists, our relationship with exchangers in no way depends on the number and size of fines, we do not receive "kickbacks" from this. Commission rewards are formed only from their standard income on the difference in the value of assets, and not from other methods of financing. Therefore, we are not "happy", deep down we are "sad" from such a practice, but these are the general rules of the OTC market.



Differences between objective and subjective are in the presence of supporting facts. If you conducted some kind of investigation (at least a formal one), then in theory you could call your position objective. But based on your personal feelings, you can only write a subjective position. This is not an insult or belittlement of your merits, this is just a statement of the fact that what you described is your own feeling based not on any facts, but only on thoughts about it. And thoughts, in fact, are erroneous, but this is already beyond the context of the discussion of objectivity and subjectivity.



We guess you misunderstood us. We were saying that we almost never delete negative reviews and claims, because they are the most painful points of communication. Even when exchangers “beg” us, saying that the reviews have no ground and they are “cute and cuddly”. Everyone has a right to speak, even if somebody does not like this opinion. We can only “clear” the message from the most offensive expressions and blatant lie, without touching upon the essence of the message.
As for fake positive reviews, we regularly delete them in big numbers. It’s hard to tell who exactly ordered these reviews  - the beneficiary, manager, careless operator or even competitor, that’s why we do not have punishment for such fake reviews, however, it would be wrong to leave this on our website, that’s why we remove this.
We do not reveal the number of deletions and specific exchangers, this is internal information which can be misinterpreted, but this does happen, and in larger scale than we would like to. But this is like in the rest of the internet —the reviews are a circumstantial parameter of evaluation today, although we do our best to leave only maximally objective and confirmed ones on our website.


Do you worry about that?


What, according to you, has our service done to deserve the “red tag”?
In this specific case, as we described earlier, the user agreed with the exchange rules before making the operation, and he one-sidedly decided that he may not fulfill them only because, according to his evaluation, they are not just, this is a serious violation not only of exchange rules, but also of logic and ethical norms.
If somebody isn’t satisfied with the rules of the service, it would be logical to avoid this service and not to impose it with your rules and make scenes, isn’t it?

This is really so, and we have enough of being their “lawyer”, we will try to invite them into this subject for a discussion, so that they would reply for their practice themselves. And so that you ask them, not us, your questions about the details of what has happened.

In terms of compliance with the rules adopted in the OTC community, they did not commit any formal violations. At the same time, Janyah201 himself violated a number of principles of the exchanger, but the bitcointalk community stood up to protect him, because it’s so easy to share the position of the “victim” - everyone can be in his shoes, and this “bourgeoisie” is guilty of all sins in advance - “all they do is stealing money." This one-sided position is very biased and condones "consumer terrorism" when, under the pressure of risk to OUR reputation, you want to influence other entities that are not under our control in any way. But at the same time, we really have some reserve of power for influence, which you want to use for your own selfish purposes, threatening our reputation.
What do you want? So that we delist the exchanger because you and a few other users do not like their rules and practices? What is it, if not dyspathia? Maybe we are wrong, but it looks extremely ugly. With this logic, should we list only a dozen of those who will please the regulars of the forum? Will you send us an agreed list?
Let's be objective and not cross the line of common sense. We do have influence on the exchanger, but why should we follow the logic of a few people from this topic, and not the rules that have been established over a decade of exchangers’ work? Because you're threatening us with a few "red tags"? Such behavior does not suit the forum and the local community, we hope that most of the participants in the discussion do not adhere to such logic and are able to devide the facts.


Thank you for your opinion. As for the feedback system, we are already trying to modernize what we have. But a complete qualitative change in the feedback system itself (something similar to trustpilot) will not happen until our entire system is updated. We have been doing this work for a long time already, but we are not able to give the exact timing of implementation - maybe six months, maybe a year.

As for listing rules, we will discuss with representatives of exchangers the possibility of toughening some aspects of listing for their colleagues and competitors, as well as if it is right to use “fines” as a practice. We’ll see what can be done about it to find a consensus between bitcointalk and exchangers communities.

If we all come to the conclusion that OpenChange did exceed its authority and abused its position, then a decision will be made to exclude it and/or force them to adapt the rules of service in order to continue cooperation.

I don't think that negative feedback for BestChange would be correct use of trust system, because they didn't do any transaction directly between openchange and it's customer.
It would be much more correctly to first give them neutral feedback and see if they update their review system in something that isn't misleading.
I left my neutral feedback today and I think LoyceV has done something similar, so I am hoping to see improvements soon.
We don't want to see things like openchange scam behavior happening again.

The way I see it the non-transparent feedback system is an intricate part of the reason why Best Change users click affiliate links on their website. Whether it deserves a red-tag or not, without Best Change effectively vouching for exchange websites (including Open Exchange) via their trust/feedback system (and then making money from them with their affiliate links), others that ended up losing financially under dubious Terms and Conditions could have avoided those loses.

Best Change still have time to do the right thing.

You are right @Best_Change, already mentioned and promised, they will review and be more careful to include 'exchanges' on their web.


Because I haven't reviewed and checked about Best_Change exchange in a long time, so not 100% know what exchange Best_Change put on their web/has good or bad reputation, which they receive and register.

If what @Janyiah201 said is true, this is very far from what @Best_Change said, at that time.


I can only hope, @Best_Change, is well received in this forum, with them correcting their past mistakes and really prioritizing exchanges that have a good reputation and can be trusted, not the other way around, this is about Best_Change's own web reputation, don't ever fall into a hole a second time, reputation is important for crypto exchange companies.

I think there will be quite a few red tags if Best Change doesn't take action, and I am referring to delisting the scam exchange. I wouldn't red tag Best Change if the scam exchange doesn't give a refund.

It seems highly unlikely there will be a full refund at all. Best Change have stated they are not financially responsible for their affiliates stealing from Best Change customers. As for Open Change, they have stolen 10% of the deposited funds (around $500 at the time) and they will probably not return it even if Best Change ask them to.

Best Change has diverted their customers to 3rd parties for exchanging their funds therefore Best Change has to look at the manner in which it is conducting business with affiliates. Best Change should define what their future plans are regarding safeguarding their customers from the dubious Terms of Service of their affiliates and how they intend to distance themselves from known scam affiliate exchanges otherwise they risk receiving multiple negative tags.

I don't call it scam but bad business practice  lack of morals and greed for the referral commission.
I bet the revenue will be the same if they didn't use the shady behavior for the reviews. Or if they get extra for doing that shady behavior not sure