We can freely say that our exchange offers nearly 99% no-KYC exchanges.
If there is 1% of cases where you will ask for a KYC, then you are not a no-KYC.
First, you say that you will refund coins with too high an AML score that you cannot trade. What is correct here?
No-KYC is a misleading statement because according to -->
https://snapswap.io/app/aml-kyc Section 3 I quote the following:
KYC on Demand
We ask for identity documents only when:
a. A third-party liquidity partner requires it, or
b. We receive a valid law-enforcement or court request.
.
.
Users have 72 hours to complete KYC. Refusal keeps funds on hold until the partner or authority decides on release or confiscation.
So again, even if the transaction passes your AML test and is frozen by liquidity partner, KYC will still be required.
If you truly want to be no-KYC, it's better to bear any losses incurred if liquidity partner freezes the transaction.
Just because they have a liquidity partner, they cannot be guaranteed to be no-KYC. It does not depend on them, but on the partner through whom the exchange process is carried out. They need to remove "no-KYC" from the subject line.
I see where the confusion comes from, and let me clarify.
There are two separate situations:
High AML risk score at deposit stage. In this case, the transaction does not continue. The coins are refunded automatically to the user once they provide a refund address. No KYC is involved in this scenario.
Transaction passes our AML check but gets frozen by a liquidity partner later, in this rare case, the liquidity partner may request documents. Since we don’t control their internal processes, KYC might be required to release the funds.
So, refunds and KYC are not the same process. Refunds apply when the order is blocked at our compliance stage. KYC may only appear if the order has already been forwarded to a liquidity partner and they freeze it.
This is why we previously described our exchange as “no-KYC” in practice, almost all transactions are completed without any documents, but I agree that “no-KYC” in the title was misleading and I already change it.