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.
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?
Firstly, the point is not about confiscation in this context, but about freezing for the time of investigation.
In case with openchange this was not temporary freeze of funds for investigation, they wanted to confiscate 100% of coins until customer said he will reveal their sensitive information.
Now they are holding 10% of his coins, and it's clear there was no investigation at all.
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.
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?
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.
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.