Quote from: Apocollapse on Today at 06:04:57 PM

@OP it's not allowed to make consecutive post, if you want to reply to many users, compile it into one post.

Quote from: snapswap.io on Today at 05:01:18 PM

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%.

Well that means the problem are on your side I guess?

It's like whenever someone send coins to your site, you use two independent compliance checking solutions which evaluate whether the coins aren't high risk and high risk right? you should be able to evaluate the coins as strict as possible, so the liquidity partners won't flag the coins since you already flag them in the first place.

Hello, and thank you for your comment and also for pointing out the correct way to use quoting. I’ll make sure to follow that going forward. Regarding your question I see why it might look like the issue is "on our side", so let me clarify a bit.

We already use two independent AML providers to check every deposit, but the reality is that no two AML systems are identical. Each provider builds and maintains its own database of blockchain addresses, updates it at its own pace, and applies slightly different risk-scoring rules. Because of this, it’s possible that a transaction passes our checks but still gets flagged later by a liquidity partner who uses a different provider or has different thresholds. By our testing we never had any problem sending them up to 75% of AML risk.

And this is not about being less strict, it’s simply that databases are not universal. Even very "strict" scoring with one provider cannot guarantee the same result across another system. That’s why we’re in discussions with liquidity partners to gain access to their AML APIs, so our checks can align more closely with theirs and further reduce this risk.
So our AML process already minimizes risk as much as possible, but it cannot be eliminated 100% because different providers rely on different datasets.

Quote from: bitmover on Today at 06:08:54 PM

Quote from: hugeblack on September 07, 2025, 06:38:31 PM

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.

Any exchange which truly wants to be privacy orientei and kyc free , must rely in their own liquidity only.

When they rely on thrid party liquidity, like coinbase, binance etc it cant be privacy oriented.

Thanks for your input, you are right. I’ve already edited the title to clarify this point. As I mentioned above, using our own liquidity and DEX integration is part of our long-term roadmap. For now, we’re focused on improving the service step by step, while being transparent about the current limitations. At this stage we offer an instant crypto exchange service similar to many on the market, but with an improved mechanism.