Next scheduled rescrape ... never
Version 1
Last scraped
Scraped on 02/07/2025, 04:13:29 UTC
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.
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 benchmarking phones or processors in unrealistic setups and then advertise their products with false data. If a swap service does not require KYC in 99.99% of the transactions, what should it write instead? "Almost never KYC?" 
They can advertise "no KYC"
In case the user didn't read the terms of using the service, they can call it his fault.
Original archived Re: Is it just me or are instant swap services getting worse in 2025?
Scraped on 02/07/2025, 04:08:44 UTC
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.
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 benchmarking phones or processors in unrealistic setups and then advertise their products with false data. If a swap service does not require KYC in 99.99% of the transactions, what should it write instead? "Almost never KYC?" They can advertise "no KYC" is as shameless way as possible, but at least mention the above and they could get out of the "scam exchange" category.
In case the user didn't read the terms of using the service, they can call it his fault.