Thank you. Partially our requirements for listing are very similar to those of Binance, only some numbers can differ due to the specifics of our segment. With regard to security deposits, we do not consider this practice useful, because, as history shows, this is hardly enough to cover all potential losses and is even harmful due to the illusion of absolute safety, it complicates listing of young projects which could increase the competition, and it also brings about a problem of another sort — in case of absolutely any conflict, users will begin to demand compensation from us and not try to negotiate the case with the exchange service ("and then you yourself deal with them"). Sounds great, but it actually creates more problems than it's worth.

And the current case in no way is connected with the listing conditions on newbies’ lack of knowledge.
OpenChange has been working for six years before the forum members of bitcointalk decided that the exchanger is not sufficiently ethical with regards to fines for non-compliance with their rules by users. And they decide for it, what they can demand from users and what they can’t. We do not want to offend or slander anyone, but we repeat that most people in good health avoid services whose rules they do not agree with, and do not violate them under the pretext of "actually you owe me" and provoking scandals.

Would we have this case if Janyah201 had opened the rules of the service before the transaction, seen their KYC requirement for high-risk transactions, said “nope, this isn’t for me” and would go search for another service?

We always urge users to read exchange rules before making any operations. Yes, for 15 years of work we have earned trust, but at the same time it is rather childish to blindly trust someone, without even reading the service conditions, thinking “it’s the same as with everyone, and if something happens, I will make a scene and they will return me everything”. But even if we exclude the factor of “trust”/”mistrust”, we have over 400 different services in the listing, the majority of them have unique service rules and some part of the rules may not correspond to your personal principles - for example, the attitude towards the KYC procedure in a service that does not publicly disclose its legal address.


We don’t understand your strong reaction. Perhaps you have an illusion that we are happy about it or receive a part of the withheld fines, but it is absolutely not true.


Developing your thought, it turns out that if KYC requirement would come from an exchanger that had openly specified its address, it would be “more legal”? If this case, if the user would refuse to go through verification and would agree to instead receive 90 percent of payout, then it would be OK for you? That is, now everything rests on the fact that, for security reasons, the exchanger does not advertise its details? Or is this just an excuse to continue the scandal, and the openness of legal data would not have affected your attitude to the situation in any way?



We are not their lawyers; you can ask this question directly to their representatives. We hope that they soon will visit this topic.
With regards to our personal attitude to this, understanding the specifics of legal position of exchangers on the territories of “former USSR”, we do not require them to openly show this information, although we encourage those who are open to doing it.


We are not sure in what jurisdiction you are, but please re-read any contract with a bank, especially if you have a credit limit or overdraft. In the section of fines and penalties, which you emotionally call “stealing”, you will find a lot of interesting.
Or the bank can do it — “it is the bank, after all!”, and some half-anonymous exchanger, which we let exist, doesn’t have these rights? However, the thing is any custodial service, whatever the exchanger uses, often is subject to the same laws and regulations as the bank.


If you had at least some idea of how law enforcing authorities work, you wouldn’t ask this question. You have the right to go to authorities with a statement against the owner of absolutely any site - then it is the investigator's job to find out who owns the resource - through the registrar, hosting, registries, or simply using the information they already have. You should not be concerned that someone has indicated or not indicated personal data in the footer of the site. What if some site would indicate fake data? Would your case fall apart, and you would quit seeking justice? Of course not, that's what investigators are for.

As far as we know, also courts and the authorities they delegate the search for the resource owners, have similar powers.


This would have good grounds, if this episode would be quite clearly considered as scam. But this is one of the many different positions.
We do switch off exchangers even we have a slightest doubt in their non-standard behavior and potential change of unjust enrichment. For many years we have become so suspicious, that we switch off different exchangers, sometimes dozens of cases daily. Although in majority of cases everything gets solved positively, and after thorough analysis of what has happened the exchanger returns to listing in several hours.

We cannot seriously review the case with the fine of about $500 for an exchanger with the 6-year of reputation as the risk of an “exit scam”. To be more specific, there are no serious grounds to think so, although we can never exclude this in relation to any service.

Why, remember how many huge international crypto exchanges disappeared with the funds of millions of their depositors? No one is immune from this, so we are very suspicious and closely monitor the "signals" of fraud. But this single fact in the total volume of factors does not increase the risks of an "exit scam".