Here are a few questions:
- Were the funds frozen because they were part of a mixer's transaction?
- If yes, don't you find it offensive to confiscate customer's money because they chose to protect their privacy?
- Are you willing to tell us the criteria you identify "dirty" funds?
- If not, don't you find it fraudulent from the customer's side to, not only disapprove but also confiscate their money, just because it doesn't meet your potentially arbitrary criteria?
- Had you ever thought of asking the user's inputs, so you can judge if you can accept them according to your criteria?
You can find all the answers in section 7 of the User Agreement and our first post.
Let's not duplicate information.
We write the rules in the User Agreement not for discussion. If you are not satisfied with the rules of using our service, you have the full right to use other exchangers.
What happens if you contradict your own clauses by posting one thing here while stipulating another on your website? For that reason you
should duplicate the information as it would allow others to see if it matches.
I think since we gave enough justifications and made a return of 10%, this conflict can be considered solved.
First of all, I have not seen any acceptance by the victim that Open Change have returned the 10% they stole from him because he has not been here since 4th July but let us go with that assumption. I know some forum members will follow your lead and deem this matter closed but from my vantage point I think otherwise and several members of this forum will probably think the same.
Would you be able to explain why you decided to return the stolen 10% to the victim?
Was it because of the negative publicity the whole drama brought and you were worried about long lasting damage to your Open Change
brand or was it something else?
Were you really going to return those funds to the victim if this issue was not escalated here in the forum?