Topic: SCAM EXCHANGE MONITOR: BestChange - page 2. (Read 1337 times)

I will probably go first and leave a red tag unless there is a full refund within 48 hours.

Thank you for pointing that out, yes Best Change changed the title of the thread in their reply and it continued when I replied to their post: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60507390

I will edit my post to re-add the thread title again because Best Change should never have really changed it.

This is so rich coming from the guys who told all their members in the signature campaign that they have to either avoid discussing anything about a "special operation" or quit wearing their signature.

Facts, and not ideological differences
- a user's funds were frozen and both you and the scammer exchanged claimed it was because AML regulation, AML and FATF regulations demand that you freeze those assets and you inform the authorities which will then pursue this case
- suddenly when you face a serious backslash on the forum, AML regulations were forgotten and the SCAM exchange you're listing on your website released the funds 9contrarty to the law) taking a 10% cut, again unlawfully
- the SCAM exchange then decided to update its terms and conditions to some lunatic ones, that probably everyone who has any idea how the law works will have a heart attack from so much laughter
- you as an indexer are removing feedback you deem subjective and you're not displaying the real score those exchanges get

Since at this moment you refuse to take action against a proven lying, scamming, and unlawfully in any jurisdiction on this planet exchange, don't you think you're reaching the moment where our "subjective" evaluation might also start to take form and color, red color?


It was Best_Change that did so in their reply, which I'm also quoting but since they want to play that game I'll join

I am doing a test.

So, apparently someone has changed the title, that it doesn't appear as such from outside the tread or in the main title, but in the answers.

JollyGood, was it you?

"Re: BestChange is not a scam" appears to me from your reply.

Oh! OK. I see now. Best Change has changed the title in his reply and it appears in yours as you have quoted him.

My opinion and evaluation is objective because I am not the owner of BestChange website like you, and I was not involved in confiscation of coins like other member who reported this problem.
Let me clarify that I see no justification in keeping green positive review with I love this exchange comments, and removing red color for anything with negative conotation.
Please understand that majority of people share my opinion in this case, and it's nothing personal against BestChange.
If you don't respect this than we have a problem, and you are the one being subjective, not me.

I am interested to hear about this as well, since BestChange said they don't delete any feedback... unless this is also classified information...

And the jurisdiction according to your opinion is...... ?
And the jurisdiction according to the exchanger is.... ?

Are you happy that the exchange (Open Change) you are affiliated with have confiscated 10% of the funds of your client because he was diverted to their website as a result of clicking a link on your Best Change website?

Are you happy to continue listing Open Change on your website and are you happy to continue your affiliation with them knowing what their Terms and Conditions consist of?

Speaking of the 10% loss of funds to the client that you introduced to Open Change, can you state the commission you received from Open Change from the 10% they stole?

And do you not see the problem with allowing every exchange to nullify all negative feedback against them, regardless of whether or not the issue has actually been resolved? And if the user in question reopens the claim, the exchange can just silence it again and again and again?

What investigation? They immediately stated that mixed coins were "100% stolen" which is an impossible conclusion to reach, and then refused to elaborate whatsoever on how they reached that conclusion. There was no investigation.

So having an exchange freeze your money with no legal basis is only subjectively wrong, rather than objectively wrong?

I would say if the exchange ever asks for KYC, then it should be labelled as such.

Exactly. And allowing the exchange to turn negative feedback in to neutral feedback without actually solving the issue, without moderation, and without limits, is misleading and untrustworthy.

The current feedback on OpenChange from OP says that OpenChange have selectively scammed 10% of his deposit. They have cancelled the claim and so it appears neutral. I would say this has absolutely not been solved in OP's favor, since OpenChange have stolen 10% of his coins, and yet, the feedback is neutral.

Speaking of removing claims, what happened to OP's original feedback on OpenChange, which had them cancelling his claim 20+ times? Why has it disappeared?

Except Google's terms explicit state that they do not screen, vet, or otherwise verify search results and can hold no responsibility for search results. Your site states the following:
But you've just said that all these exchanges are "100% legal". How can you claim that if you have no idea whether or not they are legal?

AML laws and regulations differ around the world, and neither you nor OpenChange have been forthcoming about what jurisdiction they are based in, which third party payment processor they are using, and which jurisdiction that third party is based in. I've got to say though, I'm not aware of any jurisdiction which says "If you think money is illicit, keep 10% for yourself."

Allow me to focus on this case: the user wanted to exchange Bitcoin for Monero, and the exchange confiscated 10% of his funds. This has nothing to do with fiat currencies, it's clearly not AML and I bet there are no authorities involved. @Best_Change: Is confiscating 10% acceptable to you? And if so: based on which laws in which country?

I am not going to go into ideological questions, as it seems to me that at some point mine would be closer to yours than those of others who criticize in the forum, but I am going to quote myself from the other thread:


Can you explain why you still list this "service"?

This is your subjective evaluation, not based on any real data, just your opinion in the “vacuum”. Sometimes we delete hundreds of positive reviews per week, although recently we manage to bring it to exchangers that it is useful to fake reviews, and it lessens the number of fake reviews, correspondingly, it lessens the number of deleted reviews. As for claims, they are almost never deleted, except for the cases when they are fully biased and do not contain anything but lies; even from objectively misleading reviews, we try to delete just a piece of information containing lies and offensive words, leaving their essence on our website.

What you do not like personally, is that instead of “red” they become “white” doesn’t say that they are fully deleted, it’s a false idea about our website. All information is available for reading by anyone.

This is an internal classified information. But generally speaking, in the majority of cases we know about the exchangers’ beneficiars more than they would like.


This is a very controversial story because it is based on ideological differences. In a human way, we do not see anything wrong with crypto-anarchism and all its tools, but as an organization we are obliged to adhere to generally accepted norms. And in the case of exchanging cryptocurrency for fiat currencies, it loses most of its decentralized advantages.

Whether the community likes it or not, this is a reality that we all have to face. So far, cryptocurrencies are far from creating a full-fledged full-cycle economic system and imposing their principles on the world community. In a sense, today bitcoin is just a "side chain" of the US dollar, in the gateways of which AML filters are installed.

It's unfortunate that the Bestchange trust feedback is mostly from
people who joined the signature compaign and bragging about how they got paid for spreading Bestchange across bitcointalk.
The only trust feedback about the service Bestchange provide is a red one .
Wich I agree too. Letting exchanges remove the bad claims it's not good. And no morals in practicing your business

You saying you give option to users to reopen their claim or bad feedback for a business after a business removed it
How many of your users knows about this tactics ? Do they get notified by email if exchange removed the claim so they open it again ?
It's a stupid business model for your referral commission

Simply because this issue is not new and in-fact there’s already neutral feedback for reminding that there’s already same scenario happened in the past. His issue is still not concluded yet and Bestchange should be given a time to properly defend themselves or to make improvement to there operation to give more security all there customers that relying on there review for using best exchange as there business name itself.

Trying to catch up on this thread. I still don't understand why there isn't a a neutral feedback from DT referencing this discussion, even if just their replies to the situation, so as to warn others that feedback of exchanges is largely determined by exchanges, or that funds sent via a mixer may be frozen by associated exchanges. It seems like quite a relevant topic for users to be aware of imo, without needing a red tag.


I'm not convinced this is a relevant analogy. Google don't claim their links are "reliable and trusted". In fact, they regularly warn their users the opposite of this, that search results can lead to dangerous links and are not verified as safe. While I don't believe you are partly responsible for financial loss by directing to affiliate websites, there is a responsibility none the less to avoid the continuation of financial loss.

Even Google actively encourages users to report phishing websites. Sure they only deal with 20% of them it seems, but they no doubt do so as they could be held accountable if phishing websites were reported and they didn't do anything about it - especially if they were monetising from ads. Assuming you also monetise from your affiliated websites, surely there is some responsibility here to deal with these claims, even if not legal.


So because Google can profit from fraudsters, does that justify others to, including yourselves? Not really. It just means Google can afford to profit from fraudsters, as the financial consequences are merely cost of doing business with them. I don't see how Google getting away from this means that others should. You said yourself Google are slow to deal with these situations, similar to yourselves perhaps?


I think this is where part of the contradiction lies. You claim to simply be an information resource, and your t&c no doubt emphasises you're not responsibility for financial loss, but yet this information being presented as "reliable and trusted" places a heavy bias on the information you are providing. Hence it's nothing like a search engine, which does not claim searches are reliable nor trusted. Even just the information bias being removed would eradicate a lot of issues users have at present it seems, then your defence of simply being a search engine like Google would become legitimate.

When you list an exchange do you ask KYC from the exchange owner?

What is acceptable then? Confiscate the coin?
The user said that it was from mixer. Using mixer does not mean it is black money. People use mixer to break connection of their coins, mostly when they do not want a trace back.

I would personally interpret it differently. Would interpret it based on merit of their argument.whoever supportrd or opposed it.
I might not show how I interpreted though, or maybe I will. Who knows
Maybe coz I'm an oddball,
See the democracy in the forum, is a very good thing. People will have different opinion on something.

I still see BestChange to be the best reference for exchangers , though I said they were shilling(in a way, maybe not intentional).

You sure you didn't consider it based on my comment. LoL
(trying to lighten the tension a bit)
No idea TrustPilot had that feature. I got the idea whilst reading something about the lightning network basics or was it lightning network FAQs, (HTLC or Hashed TimeLock Contracts) in particular.

as the wearer of their signature, it is obviously necessary for me to write my position on this whole matter. So here is.

I personally do not see Best_Change's deliberate participation in any kind of fraud here. they do monitoring, they don't pressure anyone to use any service or even they can't guarantee that all trades will go perfectly. there are many third parties that are not under the control of BestChange. I saw in several places where they clearly indicated that they are not financially responsible for any transaction.
looking at it this way, BestChange has almost no responsibility for any transaction that takes place at the exchangers on their list. (maybe this way of seeing the situation is not the best)

Someone mentioned that this is not the first case against BestChange and one of their partners, that's true but as far as I know, most of them are solved positively mostly thanks to the authority that has BC at exchangers.

I definitely agree that the current user rating system on their service is more than bad. In a way, it is completely centralized to the detriment of ordinary users and to protect exchangers. negative experiences with some exchangers are still experiences and it is necessary that other potential users see them. even if a problem is solved, I may want to avoid that service after reading about all other experiences.
this is a big lack of the BestChange platform and over time it can cost them their hard-earned authority.

Regarding the active Openchange case, I would like to see what possible sanctions will be taken against them.
I followed the Janyiah201 case, management by Openchange commenting on the BestChange site, and it is an understatement to say that it was unprofessional and impudent (unfortunately, everything has been deleted   )
Now they declared the case solved, but they kept 10% of the value? For what? a transaction that never happened?
so do they still deserve to stay on this monitoring or even without any negative(true) comment?

So, JollyGood this is my short statement and for now, I still haven't considered leaving the signature campaign, at least not for the reasons that you state as sufficient.

otherwise, if all the members of the BestChange signature campaign would report here, and if the majority would give them support, how would it be interpreted? Paid and biased support on the forum?
 

---

wasn't there already a discussion about this in the BestChange ANN thread about these exchanges? They gave a clear indication that it was only an informative listing.
and it is clearly indicated on the site itself. For example https://www.bestchange.com/binance-exchanger.html




as mediators, you are trying to make a compromise between your clients and their users, but it seems that it does not provide the same quality to both parties. Your rating system looks more like solved or unsolved, but the user experience cannot be considered black or white. you have to provide more.

But how can we know what jurisdiction they use if they didn't disclose this information anywhere on their website, and they didn't say what third-party exchanges they are using?

In case with openchange this was not temporary freeze of funds for investigation, they wanted to confiscate 100% of coins (without kyc), until customer said he will reveal their sensitive information in public.
Now they are holding 10% of his coins, and it's clear there was no investigation at all.

I think that 99% of forum members involved in this discussion thinks that BestChange review system is currently misleading and needs to be improved, so we can't all be wrong about that.
It's not misleading at all to say that some exchanges are asking for kyc more often than others, and isn't this the main reason why most people are using BestChange in the first place?

I would like to see some statistic with number of positive feedback being deleted, but I am sure number of those is much less compared to closed deleted negative reviews.
If I post 100 positive and 100 negative reviews, I am sure that 100 negative reviews would be deleted, and more positive reviews would stay.
This is how your feedback system works, and hiring more workers wont really fix this issue.

Thank you for your subjective opinion on the matter, but firstly, it isn’t so. Secondly, please re-read our post. We have made it clear that what matters is not the jurisdiction of the exchanger, but jurisdiction of the custodial service they use for receiving and storing cryptocurrency.


Absolutely correct, that’s why we don’t remove reviews with at least to some extent grounded negative opinion, but just on our service they have “white background”. And red highlights relevant financial claims. Due to the fact that the system automatically switches an exchanger with several claims off, we allowed them to lift claims on their own (as, generally speaking, the option for the users to re-open the claim if, according to them, the financial question hasn't been solved).

Firstly, the point is not about confiscation in this context, but about freezing for the time of investigation. Secondly, it is only your subjective attitude to justice. In a human way, we understand you, and we would also not want any services, including banks and brokers, to freeze any funds, but the financial world is what it is, and we comply with the rules of the world community, not groups of crypto-enthusiasts from the forum, although we would like the opposite.


We do not draw the line between neutral reviews and negative reviews as such. This is the website’s peculiarity implemented 13 years ago, in the future we would try to divide review not on three categories like now, but into many more categories. We understand that sometimes psychologically one wants to leave “something red” and not a usual neutral review with your indignations.


This would be misleading. If this policy would be implemented in a limited number of services, but in reality, this happens very often, that’s why we would need to put mark on 90 percent of exchangers, which contradicts the principles of marking. We mark only those services that do something untypical.
Very nice remark, and on the level of personal support we support your wishes, however, until the shops sell goods for bitcoin without its obligatory conversion to dollars to pay for the taxes in dollars, we cannot fully speak about the “future” of financial system.

The problem is that many services do not have this functionality. The majority of custodial services accept and send funds from different wallets. Moreover, even if you allow that the exchanger will use “proxy-addresses” for cold storage, they would need subtle technical settings to forcibly specify what inputs to be used as outputs, as the majority of “wallets” do not have these functions by default.
What you describe would be a wonderful future for these situation, but given the conditions that this practice will be possible thanks to the improved software. Under the current conditions, the tactic you’ve described, turns exchangers into bictoin-mixers, this is unacceptable.

We did write earlier that this is a little bit old-fashioned functionality due to limited number of employees, not the number of our employees has increased sufficiently to manually control any reviews. Considering your hypothetic situation, most likely soon we would delete all the fake reviews, because moderators regularly check reviews marked as suspicious on a regular basis. We check over dozen of various technical parameters, besides professional linguistic analysis, to remove the majority of fake reviews, both positive and neutral, paid for by competitors of this or that exchanger.


Trustpilot uses something similar, we are also considering a similar mechanism, but so far it is difficult to implement in the current system (inner code of the site). It may be realized in the updated version, and so far we can only limit for the exchanger the number of attempts to lift the claim without our participation, so that they use this function wisely and not abuse it.

This is not exactly like that. Besides “solved claims” users can leave simple neutral reviews without negative feedback. But the situations you describe do take place. However, you need to consider that the large number of solved claims means only that although there were some disagreements, but the claims what solved in favor of the client (otherwise they would stay red, if necessary, with our claim). Any user, if they wish so, can read all the history of reviews, we don’t remove them, we only don’t focus attention on them.
In simple terms, some minor disagreements of clients in the past, which were solved in their favor, won’t increase risks of losing funds of the current clients, therefore, we ignore this factor. Anything more serious is being controlled by our moderators manually, and if the violations are serios, we can remove the exchanger form the listing temporarily or forever, depending on the degree of violation.

Following your logic, if I visit a phishing website through Google, they bear financial responsibility for my loses?  Sounds absurd, isn’t it? But you allow these statements in our address, because you want it this way. If you want to whitewash google saying that they don’t accept funds from fraudsters, do google that information. We can even share our case, when for many weeks we were trying to no avail to remove via their slow support a phishing of our service which was in the google Ads.

Of course, this in no away justifies financial claims that happen from time to time due to real loss of funds, and we are truly sorry for the victims in these or those situations. But we don’t have any legal binding with these services where users exchange their funds, formally we are a simple informative resource, that is why we must not make any compensations, although from the heigh of our authority we try to put pressure on exchangers when they, in our opinion, are wrong, to return the funds to the victims, and if necessary, in extreme cases, we transfer all the information we have to law enforcement agencies.

Information that we do no bear financial responsibility is clearly stated in several places on the website. And it is so, even if you want the opposite.

CZ has a referral program, and my guess is the other listed exchanges do the same.

One solution is to never send them a large amount. That gives a slightly lower exchange rate and more transaction fees, but you won't risk having everything at once frozen.

I would agree on this one with you, and I am not blaming BestChange for scamming anyone, but I think they could be misleading customers with their reviews.
Can you imagine if Trustpilot would only have positive feedback, what would be the point of that website?

I am not even sure how websites get's listed both on BestChange and similar websites like TrustPilot, and we can clearly see big exchanges there like Binance, Kraken, Bittrex, etc.
I don't think CZ or other owners would paid anything to BestChange for listing there or they gave them some percentage, but than again only they have few negative reviews on BestChange website.

I think that BestChange needs to make major rework or their review system, or things like this will continue to happen in future.
Today it is issue with KYC, tomorrow it can be with something else, and there is no way to see real history of solved/unsolved problems with exchanges.

I used them as well before and I had good experience, but if same thing happened to me with 0.25 BTC I wouldn't be happy about it.