This is a very controversial story because it is based on ideological differences.
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?
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.
It was bestexchange that did so in their reply, which I'm also quoting but since they want to play that game I'll join