Topic: SCAM EXCHANGE: Openchange (Openchange.cash) (PARTIALLY SOLVED) - page 3. (Read 1730 times)

Based on what/whose analysis? The coins came directly from ChipMixer, meaning it is impossible for you to say they are 100% anything (unless you are the first person ever to be able to break ChipMixer). You have absolutely no idea where those coins came from, and claiming they are "stolen 100%" is nonsense.

Your terms of service say the following:
No bitcoin is inherently "high risk". If you subjectively decide that some particular bitcoin is high risk and you don't want to accept it, then you return it to the customer and say "No thanks". You don't keep it for yourself and extort the customer in to risking identity theft.

Read carefully, at the moment the user has received the full amount.
We are not engaged in investigating theft or finding the rightful owner, this is what the crypto exchange is doing. If they approve the transaction and credit the account, we complete the order. If not, we request additional information through them.
We do not make a scam. We just exchange currencies, but sometimes users with high-risk money come along and make problems like this. For some reason, you all took his side. I absolutely don't understand why. Who can explain to me?


Funds were frozen because their risk was Stolen 100%


The user has already received all his money


We will think about it.


We use WhiteBIT and Binance


We only resend kyc identification to crypto exchange support, we don't make a decisions.


Since the user refused to provide any information, I talked to the support of the exchange and they agreed to receive at least a textual justification for the funds. The user provided this and the funds were unfrozen.


Check my username https://openchange.cash/bitcointalk.txt


Very few exchanges provide multiple addresses for deposits. We will think about it. Thank you.


Victim? It's funny. High-risk funds are sent to me, but you call the sender a victim. I can not believe this.


I want to stop this discussion. Perhaps we will revise our rules regarding AML and additional fees.

Wait, the user sent you their funds; then you somehow determined that his coins are 'dirty' / 'high risk' and sent them an email that if he wants to proceed with the exchange, the coins will be 'AML verified'? Did the user get an option to cancel the exchange and get the funds back? Because you make it seem like the user directly agreed with all of these points, but I'd appreciate if you could make it clear if they did so implicitly through your terms of service or explicitly.

Also, I will use this statement as further proof for my blacklist. I know it's hard to convince someone who bought into the belief that there are good and bad Bitcoins and that companies can arbitrarily decide what coins belong to which category; and that it's even more difficult to get a company to change action. However, I accept your opinion and therefore guarantee you a permanent entry into that list.

So you're not even an exchange; just a 'front page' that uses an exchange's API in the background?

And you keep 10% to be able to recoup those losses of yours or what? That's super sketchy and scammy behaviour.

Many times? Do you have any proof to back this up? Because all these 'dirty funds' stories seem much more like more or less elaborate ways to scam people out of their hard-earned money and those funds are never returned to supposed victims. After all: how do you know? How can you know that someone scammed me and then tried to exchange the stolen funds with your service? Do you work with the FBI or what? I doubt you do; in fact, I've never heard someone go to a blockchain analysis firm after being crypto-scammed, and it's also just not their business. If someone gets robbed, they go to the police, where they have 0 chance of getting their funds back.

---

[1] Make it clear you're not an exchange and just a front-page for another exchange and disclose who that is.
[2] Provide a support contact of that exchange so users can go there to dispute any issue with your / their service.
[3] Disclose who you are and where you are located.
[4] Drop any notion of dirty and clean coins, if you want to be taken seriously.
[5] Otherwise, make a clear statement that you're an anti-Bitcoin, anti-privacy company that believes bank notes should be tested for traces of drugs every time they're spent, which makes them basically unusable, just like the way you envision Bitcoin to be used.

Let's have an imaginary answer of your questions.

This is more practical. At least it's suggesting an action to take.

What happens if you contradict your own clauses by posting one thing here while stipulating another on your website? For that reason you should duplicate the information as it would allow others to see if it matches.


First of all, I have not seen any acceptance by the victim that Open Change have returned the 10% they stole from him because he has not been here since 4th July but let us go with that assumption. I know some forum members will follow your lead and deem this matter closed but from my vantage point I think otherwise and several members of this forum will probably think the same.

Would you be able to explain why you decided to return the stolen 10% to the victim?

Was it because of the negative publicity the whole drama brought and you were worried about long lasting damage to your Open Changebrand or was it something else?

Were you really going to return those funds to the victim if this issue was not escalated here in the forum?

Cash is also used by a minority of people for illicit activity, just like bitcoin. There's a high chance, hereby "high risk", for your bank notes to come from drugs, smuggling, guns, organ trade, child porn etc., and be therefore "dirty". Would you ever disapprove a $100 dollar bill?

Of course and it's okay, money is fungible. What is not okay is when a "professional team" dictates me what I have to consider as "tainted", "dirty" or "high risk" as it happens completely arbitrarily. It's pointless.

Section 7, as said by Little Mouse, refers to this:
I'm definitely not satisfied with those rules, and I'm the first to avoid your service, but you have a reputation to maintain here. The "if you don't like our service, go use another one" argument doesn't help the situation here (if it ever did).

You're running a seriously dangerous service which arbitrarily confiscates people's money. I'm bucking against.

Welcome to Bitcointalk and nice to see you finally joining this conversation.
Can you please tell us what third party exchanges are you using, and do you use one or more accounts with them?

He said coins are coming from Chipmixer and it's not so hard to prove that.
I don't know how you expect him to show you that he used that mixer, and I don't think this should be done.

So what happens when he send you his kyc identification, and you have totally different kyc detail for your account in third party exchange?
It doesn't make any sense that sending any documents would unfreeze your account and coins, if names from documents don't match.

It's not like I trust him or anyone else blindly, but something obviously changed quickly and you suddenly changed your decision.
If it was not because of his claims, can you explain what happened that you first refunded your customer 90% and later full amount?
After all, how can I know that you really openchange team member and not some troll who is just wasting time?

You can use other exchanges that don't have such strict rules, maybe use decentralize exchanges, or ask customers to first give you address to check if it is high risk or not.
After that you can decide if you want to accept his coins or not.

Good decision, but you need to make some changes in your website, so it things like this won't happen in future.

there are many illogicalities here.
You hold 10% of user funds to protect your own. now there is obviously no danger to your funds and you return the remaining 10% to the user.
would you have returned it even if this drama had not happened on Bitcointalk?

how will you behave in the next similar cases? Returning 100% depends on your frozen funds or if a negative story is started about your business (like this one)?
why are there even cases where you kept 10% of such funds, although, in the end, it turned out that it had no negative impact on your accounts?

I'm wondering why a 10% refund, not the full sum?
According to your ToS or rules, whatever you say, you are confiscating money because you want to prevent funds from being stolen and you are trying to get the fund back to the rightful owner as you said above. Now, since you have refunded 10% (no confirmation yet though), how will you send the full money back to the original if this fund is stolen?

Trust me, it doesn't sound like you are looking for the rightful owner. Instead, it sounds like a scam. If you were telling the truth, refunding 10% or a single cent doesn't make any sense. It seems you are trying to shut him up with the little sum.

This is what I can see in section 7.
Can you please check the bold part and say what was the reasoning of confiscating fund in this case?

Solved and stolen by you or what?

Sysadmin will do it asap.

Our personal located in Russia. We inform about the use of the crypto exchange in the User Agreement. This is insignificant information, the vast majority of users do not need it. If we include too much information on the order creating page, then clients will complain that the information is unreadable. Users will always find something to complain about.

This issue is dealt with by a professional team of crypto exchanges.


It may not matter to you, but it matters to us. Is it OK for you if you receive high-risk or dirty money? I don't think so.

You can find all the answers in section 7 of the User Agreement and our first post. Let's not duplicate information.
We write the rules in the User Agreement not for discussion. If you are not satisfied with the rules of using our service, you have the full right to use other exchangers.


I think since we gave enough justifications and made a return of 10%, this conflict can be considered solved.

This particular phrase makes no sense in this place. Do you want to define us how you recognize "dirty" funds?

Here are a few questions:

• Were the funds frozen because they were part of a mixer's transaction?
• If yes, don't you find it offensive to confiscate customer's money because they chose to protect their privacy?
• Are you willing to tell us the criteria you identify "dirty" funds?
• If not, don't you find it fraudulent from the customer's side to, not only disapprove but also confiscate their money, just because it doesn't meet your potentially arbitrary criteria?
• Had you ever thought of asking the user's inputs, so you can judge if you can accept them according to your criteria?

Thanks for joining the discussion. Can you confirm your Bitcointalk username in openchange.cash/bitcointalk.txt, so we know you're the real owner?

@Support OpenChange: Maybe you can answer some questions:
Where is your exchange located?
Who's behind it? An anonymous email address isn't enough.
Why do you use a third party's deposit address without announcing that?

This makes no sense.

Claims like this require evidence. Who's the rightful owner, and how do you find them after mixing coins?

@Janyiah201: can you confirm this?

Hello everyone! It's OpenChange.

Let we tell you our point of view.

Some user came to our website. He was informed that the incoming transaction would be subject to AML verification. He also agreed to our User Agreement that:
- the funds sent will send to the crypto exchange
- he knew that his funds were high risk / dirty
- sent funds will be AML checked by the crypto exchange
- he understood that they would be frozen by the exchange and that verification would be required
Please note that we do not require verification from the user, but only transfer data to the crypto exchange that requests this information. Since the funds are sent to a cryptocurrency exchange, we have no way to make a refund without receiving additional information. When the user provided this information, the funds were unfrozen by crypto exchange, credited to our account and after refund was made.

About crypto exchanges:
Using crypto exchanges allows us to convert cryptocurrency into USDT immediately after being credited to the account and fix the exchange rate. If we accepted funds to a cold wallet and sent them to the exchange, then order processing would take a very long time and users would complain about losses due to the volatility of the exchange rate. We inform users that the funds will be accepted to the crypto exchange.

About 10% fee:
Many times we have lost and frozen our own funds due to users sending high risk funds. Questions about these transactions appear after we complete orders. You can't even imagine how much money was lost due to users like this one. This is our rule. If some user does not agree with our rules, he can use another exchanger.
Since the user did not provide any evidence of using ChipMixer, we have every reason to believe that the funds were stolen. Refusal to provide additional information confirms this. Many times, such freezes allowed the thieves to be stopped and the funds returned to the rightful owners.

About slander:
The user wrote that we are cheating someone with Western Union transfers and with PayPal, but this is a lie. No one knows where he got this nonsense from and he did not provide any evidence. You all just believed him and did not check.

What do you think would be the right thing to do in this situation? We are interested in hearing your answers.

P.S. We have decided to refund 10% to the user and have already done so. We hope it will help stop the conflict.

It was funny reading you categorising the 10% they retain as a money laundering fee because that is exactly what it seems like

Terms and conditions (or terms of service) have been used by all sorts of businesses to justify confiscating funds from their own users but in many of those that have been brought here in scam allegations over the years, it is clear by far the majority were cases of selective scamming, And that is what seems to be the case here.

It is absurd Open Change can insert clauses within their Terms that allow them to withhold 10% of funds on the basis of suspicious activity. I have never read anything like that before. Their 9. Other terms clause is equally laughable when they state their website cannot be used for fraudulent and illegal transactions.

Like you, I am also waiting to see what Best Change do next. Will they want to keep their association and affiliation with Open Change? Will they actually read the Terms and Conditions of all the exchanges before listing them, in essence them being vetted before being listed?

aaand?!
how exactly did you conclude that bestchange should return the money kept by openchange?
at this moment we are talking about your conclusion, not about whether the rating system on the site is good or not.

OpenChange is a scam. That much is clear. What is yet to be seen is how BestChange address this issue, and the wider issues with their site that it has revealed (e.g. their feedback system).

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-exchange-monitor-bestchange-5404706
Maybe you can see in this post here then.
It's the same OP right ? Se day of opening scam accusation against the Exchange he opened against Bestchange
 Also let's say he didn't find  the Exchange from your site.
Still read that other post whatever there it's true.  
I even did try by my self and  Exchangers allowed to leave bad reviews and leave the good ones.

Oh wait you wearing Bestchange signature so .... What will you say rather than argue in a side thing to leave the whole point.

Btw : Bestchange representative admit to allowing Exchanges rove bad claims automatically. So go ahead argue about side things
If I wear signature if a business with bad business practices I will feel stupid too.

yes, you are all right. the Openchange site and everything I found on it does not inspire confidence in me, in my personal assessment, there are many more parameters to treat them as a scam, than as a trustworthy exchanger.
I am of the opinion that they must be removed from BestChange monitoring, if nothing, due to the 10% retention. that is theft.

My previous comment is a reply to @aew, who reaches into someone else's pocket and decides how the money will be distributed.

It is possible, but that Best Change still has that scam site on their list does not look good to me. Regardless of whether they referred the OP or not.

A site that only provides an email address, freezes funds and upon protests only returns 90% is a scam, and within the detailed explanations Best Change has given on many other topics, he has not gone into this one.

Who says that BestChange referred them to this exchanger?
Is not possible that he reached that exchanger directly and not using Bestchange service, in the end, I didn't see in the first post that he stressed something like that.