Re: Is it just me or are instant swap services getting worse in 2025?
I didn't said that they have to manually accept, why would you assume that.
That is the point of my reply, you can consider the marketed "no-KYC" swap service a scam if they do not have any written form that mentioned that they may require KYC data on certain transactions.
My reply isn't being specific on a few instant swap exchanges but about swap services in general.
In principle I do agree with you, but in practice I do not. We could basically call almost all marketing a scam, even the largest companies in the world at least partially lying with their marketing. For example, they tend to cheat a lot with bench marking phones or procsesors in unrealistic setups. If a swap service does not require KYC in 99.99% of the transactions, what should it write instead? "Almost never KYC?" That is the point of my reply, you can consider the marketed "no-KYC" swap service a scam if they do not have any written form that mentioned that they may require KYC data on certain transactions.
My reply isn't being specific on a few instant swap exchanges but about swap services in general.
In an utopian world, this is how marketing would be done. It would be precise, there would be no tricks or special cases but we don't live in such a world. I'm not talking about any swap service in particular either, aside from sharing that I have had zero issues with the ones that I have used. I would expect that most of them or all of them mention that KYC may be required in certain situations in their TOS. If it is written in the TOS, does that not make it acceptable? As I said, you can't expect perfection in terms of marketing from these services when even the most reputable companies in the world are scamming in terms of marketing.
Hi, @Satofan44
You’re both right in different ways: users should take responsibility for their own security (“not your keys, not your coins”), but it’s also true that many exchanges have failed due to fraud, mismanagement, or negligence, and blaming users alone ignores the real harm caused by these bad actors.
You are correct. What I mean to say is before you blame the exchange you first need to ask yourself whether you are at fault. A normal user has no reason to keep any funds on an exchange. You can get unlucky if the exchange gets hacked or goes down during the time that you tried to make an exchange. However, I'd expect that those are just a tiny minority of very unlucky users. Most users that have been affected are people who regularly store funds on an exchange or those that actively trade. I've never lost any funds in this way because I never held any funds on any exchange. You’re both right in different ways: users should take responsibility for their own security (“not your keys, not your coins”), but it’s also true that many exchanges have failed due to fraud, mismanagement, or negligence, and blaming users alone ignores the real harm caused by these bad actors.