Quote from: examplens on June 17, 2025, 11:18:45 PM

Bestchange, as a renowned aggregator, could certainly influence exchangers to go more in the direction of adapting to customers; unfortunately, this is not the case. Completely ignoring the advice and suggestions of users, it is already obvious that the upgrade of the platform and adaptation to new trends have been neglected.

We value all feedback — some of the most useful ideas get integrated into either our current version or the roadmap for the upcoming fully redesigned platform (launching by year’s end). That said, not every proposal deserves implementation, even if its authors believe otherwise.

Quote from: examplens on June 17, 2025, 11:18:45 PM

Compared to other aggregators that even offer a guarantee to their users up to certain amounts, BC is somewhat disappointing.

We’ve explored this feature repeatedly, but every analysis revealed more downsides than benefits. Guarantee funds make sense where reputation systems don’t exist, forcing reliance on third-party trust. But when exchangers risk permanent delisting by scamming users, the threat to their reputation outweighs any short-term gain — they’d lose far more than $n in a rogue exit.

Users would bear the burden of proof for transactions, while we’d struggle to verify claims without full payment data access.
Instead of resolving issues directly with exchangers, users would flood us with compensation demands, blaming us for theft — since in their eyes, we’d become the liable party.

Imagine a $1-2K safety fund — enough to cover average users. A scammer wouldn’t balk at losing that sum; they’d wait for a few large transactions exceeding the fund’s size, then disappear. Victims would split a pittance ($300 for a $2K loss? Would that satisfy anyone?).

But why debate this when outright fraud is virtually extinct? Such cases occurred once every 2-3 years historically — and we’ve had zero incidents in recent years. A guarantee fund solves an overstated problem with negligible relevance today.