Regarding the name, despite having the mix prefix in the name and we know that the service offered by the platform has nothing to do with mixers,
What sorts of problem you have in mind? Regarding a confusion can be caused in the forum admin's mind - after seeing some reaction from some users, the Zuesmix admin already contacted the admin and he allowed it because this does not qualify as a mixer. I also sent him a PM, the reply was written in the same fashion. So there are nothing to be worried at all.
I think the referred by user Forsyth Jones would be, what first impression it would have on users.
Now, I’ve come to understand this can work in two ways and that would be as it could either prompt users to,
a) Now let’s not forget that there exists a variety of services in the forum and cryptospace which for an ordinary user, having to see the name already creates a first time impression on what to expect when visiting a site. Where casinos talks about a gambling site where you can find games like Plinko, Slots, Lackjack and others to gamble on, Sports refers to the bookies for various sporting events, Ex widely refers to the exchanges and rather than having to look up a services in the wrong place, you just place your priority on first impression.
Hence, the possibility of not having clicks on exchanger as the name doesn’t directly spells this out but.
The other way this could work is that,
b) It could serve as a click bat purpose: Majority of the active forum users are well aware as per the stands of the forum on mixers and upon encounter with Zeusmix, it would prompt in the mind of a user to visit the site, research on why it’s allowed and what’s there range of service. This would in turn create a lasting impression upon every individual to have guided their curiosity with some research.
There really wouldn’t have to be any problems with the forum admins as am sure, some background work must have been done to allow publication, let alone the well aware manager/team.
If users could specify the wallet address before getting the refund, then it's okay. But you said it's an automated process which may confuse examplens and the line "the funds will automatically return to the address from which the payment for the exchange request was made". After reading that line, I also thought the refund would return to the address it came from.
Automated in the sense that the client does not need to contact support to request a refund, but simply specify the address to which they would like the refund to be sent and click the submit button. But as we mentioned above, we will discuss with the team the idea of also adding the option to specify the return address before creating an order.
Wouldn’t this be helping the user even further in illicit purposes with user having to specify a return address?
This could be the case as user would just generate a new address to request a refund on.
The more preferred option to me and as in the company T&C would have been to return coin to the address from which it was sent, having to use proper fee deduction in the process. Which would be swift and fully automated.