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).
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?
Firstly, the point is not about confiscation in this context, but about freezing for the time of investigation.
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.
Secondly, it is only your subjective attitude to justice.
So having an exchange freeze your money with no legal basis is only subjectively wrong, rather than objectively wrong?
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.
I would say if the exchange
ever asks for KYC, then it should be labelled as such.
This is not exactly like that. Besides “solved claims” users can leave simple neutral reviews without negative feedback.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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?
Following your logic, if I visit a phishing website through Google, they bear financial responsibility for my loses? Sounds absurd, isn’t it?
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:
BestChange was created with security in mind, which means that we pay utmost attention to the reputation and reliability of e-currency exchangers that we work with. All of them have been thoroughly selected to offer the highest level of service and customer support, so dealing with them is 100% reliable and legal.
But we don’t have any legal binding with these services where users exchange their funds
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?
in the gateways of which AML filters are installed.
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."