They address the non-KYC exchange as a mixer; just because they don't ask for KYC, they consider it to be a mixer, even as they are a centralised exchange. Just because customers who use the exchange can't be tracked based on nothing being linked to their identity is where I believe they draw the impression of considering the exchange to be a mixer.

You don't expect anything much different from those who hate decentralised exchanges and are also against privacy; every privacy tool to them is automatically seen as a mixer.

The purpose of mixers is good, they help you to increase your privacy but the problem is that probably majority of users use them for illegal activities. Even if 1/3 of their users use it for illegal activities, it's enough to convince people that mixers are bad for everybody.
What do you think, which politician wins elections, A) The one who talks about how billions of dollars are laundered through mixers and how should we can them for a better future or B) The politician who talks that despite the fact that some people use it for illegal activities, we shouldn't ban them because they help people to keep high privacy.
I think B loses without a chance.

I would even say it this way - even if 99% of people use mixers only to protect their privacy, and one client appears who wants to use mixers to launder coins he acquired illegally, that is enough for any government agency to label mixers as something bad that should not exist. What mixers could have done perhaps was to somehow protect themselves from such things by monitoring what is happening and blocking such transactions - but given the way they operate, such clients may be their main source of income.

Just as any tool (hammer, axe, chainsaw...) can be very useful, it can also be destructive - we must agree that privacy-enhancing tools have their pros and cons.

You don't blame mixers for the error made by a centralized exchange, the mixers are there for their own services and purpose, the need to privately own your asset is a right and not a privilege, so you cannot stop people from patronizing what they feel will help secure their assets, this like blaming the inventor of AK47 after somebody had intentionally moved into a club with it and opened fire on everybody with an AK47. I'm even worried that the blame is shifted to mixer when the CX should be blamed for not having a tight cyber security space.

First, this money is not going to go through one channel alone, the hackers will use different means to clear and clean the money and not just mixers, lastly they will spend the money in Fiat, unknown to so many people that the Fiat they are receiving has come from the hack of bybit. So, Bitcoin mixers  should never be the only thimg to be condemned as the only factor that has helped those hackers to launder the money. Bitcoin mixers still have its advantage which is related to privacy protection for good intentions and not bad intentions but despite its good intentions, they can not totally prevent everything, just as banks can not completely control money laundering from going through their system too.

Fiat cash currencies are been laundered everyday in billions and trillions, but have anybody ever given it a bad reputation? The answer is "NO".. simply because it's generally used as a medium of exchange for goods and services. And as such, why is Bitcoin case any different, If I must asked? Because the truth of the fact is that when such huge hack scam is been carried out, people will always apportioned blame to mixers as an avenue where thse criminals swap coins to remain untraceable on the face of the internet. Which has always been it's major reasons by government and law enforcement agencies.

Criminals are keen on things that can help them and make their jobs done more easier and safer. Mixers are not designed and created only for or mainly for criminals but criminals do like cryptocurrency mixers and consider tumblers as one of their most favorite tools for money laundering activities.

They can do it with bank transfers, cash transactions, and even blockchains that are designed for privacy like Monero. Perhaps if biggest hacks in cryptocurrency history are not from Lazarus Group that originated and maybe operates in North Korea, which is a sanctioned country, there would have been less aggressive approaches againt mixers.

We will hear a lot of reports and analyzes of bybit Hacked Funds, but most of them are inaccurate and are based on Onchain data guesses. I also do not think that bybit hackers who have technical ability to search and discover software bugs will not trust in a mixer or any central service that can sell/cooperate with  authorities to track them.
So they will have a way to break the link between outputs away from the services/mixers that we know.

Bybit went a step further. Here is the bounty page with current hacker addresses, with updated information about frozen funds. Interesting that they specifically marked "bad actors" 
https://www.lazarusbounty.com/en/

Bybit being hacked does not mean that they do not have good security systems or that they do not focus and strengthen the security of their platform. Even if they have the best security system, it doesn't mean they are absolutely safe and invulnerable. The Internet world is full of risks, attacks are more unpredictable and complex than we think.

But if they don't stop the Lazarus group, their reputation will be ruined because they are allowing criminals to use their platform. That is why mixers have been banned by the government and our forum has also stopped providing mixer advertising services.


Are you in this market because you really care about your privacy or just for profit? Many people still criticize ETH, BNB, SOL...because they are centralized blockchains but the funny thing is they still invest in them hoping to get high returns.