Quote from: Zwei on Today at 04:56:35 PM

Quote from: snapswap.io on Today at 04:21:00 PM

Just to clarify: like most instant exchanges, we do rely on third-party liquidity providers. However, we’ve built our own mechanism to ensure funds are not sent directly to them. Deposits are first checked for AML risk score, and only then routed further. If the risk is too high, the funds are automatically refunded to the user’s deposit address without any additional questions.

won't it be better to ask for a refund address instead of automatically refunding the funds to the user deposite address?
or at least give the user the option to choose between the two?

i mean, i can definitely imagine someone sending coins directly from a third party hot wallet (casino widthraw, payment from someone, etc...), so if you automatically refund it back to their hot wallet, the user could loss their coins.

Thank you for raising this point, I completely agree with you. Let me clarify how our refund process works.

We have two scenarios where refunds may occur:

Fixed rate order expired/rate changed, if the market moved and the fixed rate is no longer valid, the user is given a choice on the order page: either continue with the current market rate or request a refund.

Compliance (AML) check failed, if a transaction does not pass screening, the order page updates in real time and asks the user to provide a refund address where funds should be returned.

So refunds are not sent back automatically to the source wallet. The user is always involved in the process through the order interface, and can decide where their coins should go.