Quote from: examplens on Today at 10:55:47 AM

Quote from: snapswap.io on Today at 10:08:12 AM

I’d like to confirm once again that our platform operates exactly as we have described in the previous answers, with AML checks before routing to liquidity partners, refunds in case of high risk.

OK, it's a little clearer, although this is a sensitive matter and it's not the easiest to clarify.
Let's try an example. If the AML check confirms that the score is below 75% and you continue the order, is there still a possibility that the liquidity provider will block the funds or will they work on the basis of the same information about the AML score?
Can you guarantee that all orders will be processed without additional KYC if you conclude that there is no risk through the AML check?

Quote

I also want to say that we’re truly happy to see that community members are checking our ANN and website carefully, asking questions, and giving us suggestions for improvement. This type of feedback's will help us grow and build a better service.

Of course, talking to the community is very important if you want to build any kind of respectable reputation.

Thank you for the thoughtful follow up, this is a sensitive and complex topic, so let me explain in more detail.

If we could be completely sure that once our AML check is passed, the liquidity partner would never freeze the funds, then yes, we could call ourselves a 100% no-KYC exchange. But in reality, every liquidity provider or exchange uses their own compliance parameters and different services. AML scoring software works by maintaining large blockchain address databases and labeling them with different risk categories. Each provider builds and updates their own database, and sometimes one provider might be slower or faster than another in adding new flagged addresses. That’s why two different AML systems can give slightly different results.

Currently, we already use two independent compliance checking solutions (at a medium-to-high level). We’ve designed our service to easily integrate an unlimited number of new compliance solutions through APIs. Our plan is to expand with additional providers as the project grows, although these tools are quite costly. This process helps us minimize the risk, but I have to be honest, even if assets pass our checks, there is still a low possibility that a liquidity partner could freeze them due to differences in their databases, in our TOS this is clearly stated.

We are also in discussions with our liquidity partner to gain direct access to their AML APIs, which will allow us to align our checks more closely with theirs and further reduce this risk. But possibility that they will agree is low.
So in short, our AML checks strongly reduce the chance of a freeze, but we prefer to be transparent that the risk cannot be eliminated 100%.