You mention that everyone is trying to deceive you and take your money, but it’s important to consider the legality of the exchanges themselves that are entering the global market.
I didn't say everyone, but for me or any user, once is enough to run out of funds due to the exchanger's independent interpretation of the rules. We have seen it many times, and that is why it is a constant subject of discussion.
btw. eXch is truly a no-KYC exchanger. So, it is possible.
I think these days it became a fashion to add a clause or market a service with the clause of no KYC. I was checking a service yesterday which is a listing website for different exchanges. They are saying they do not do KYC. When you are a listing platform, not providing the service directly then where does even the KYC question come?
Everyone would like to be a no-KYC service, but somehow be fully compliant with AML regulations, and that is somehow not possible. It is more of an oversight that anyone can ask for KYC without any control
Security and trust are paramount so the concern about the using hidden ownership and low quality SSL certificate are red flags.
We have disclosed the domain owner's information and added the company's registration details to the contact section to ensure our users are not confused. All company information is available for public access.
It's curious, since when has PositiveSSL Wildcard been considered low-quality?
The SSL certificate has almost become irrelevant, every hosting offers it for free or for example CloudFlare and it really does not make a significant difference in the relevance of the site/domain.