Dear forum members,
Since this case is now being discussed on yet another platform, we would like to clarify several key points. The way the situation is currently being presented creates a materially misleading impression of what actually happened.
The dispute began with a basic issue that should not be overlooked.
Before sending XMR, the order page displayed a clear warning stating that the user should make sure the sending service would be able to provide the information required to verify the transaction in the event of a dispute, including the relevant view key.
The user ignored that warning and sent XMR directly from KuCoin. It later turned out that KuCoin does not provide the required data.
Given the level of technical and legal detail the user has demonstrated throughout this dispute over the past year, it is difficult to understand why this was not checked before sending the funds. Centralized exchanges refusing to provide certain Monero verification data is not an unusual situation.
This is what made the subsequent investigation significantly more difficult.
BestChange has never claimed that KuCoin provided false information. KuCoin's records confirm that a withdrawal was made from the user's account. However, proof that funds were sent from the exchange is not the same as proof that the specific payment was received by the receiving side.
The receiving side carried out a basic check at the beginning of the dispute. Other 50 XMR transfers made by the same user during the same period were visible in the merchant system and were subsequently processed or refunded. The disputed 50 XMR payment was not found.
This is important because the main claim being repeated in this thread is also inaccurate: BestChange is not asking the user to pay 3,400 USDT to "check a transaction". Neither BestChange nor the exchanger is currently demanding payment of 3,400 USDT or 100 USDT from the user.
These amounts were mentioned only as possible technical options for a much deeper investigation described by the receiving processor.
The approximately 3,400 USDT option was not a fee for simply checking one transaction. It would require intervention in live infrastructure: taking an active server out of production, moving operations to new infrastructure, and preserving the old environment so that it could later be examined in greater depth.
The other potential option, estimated at around 100 USDT, could only be carried out after the relevant server was retired from production as part of its normal lifecycle. That has not happened.
So the narrative that "BestChange wants $3,400 just to check whether the transaction arrived" is not an accurate description of the situation.
The same applies to the payment processor issue. The user had already publicly identified "merch.elpay.to" on Bits.Media as the processor involved in this case:
https://forum.bits.media/index.php?/topic/181762-ocтopoжнo-coмнитeльный-мyxacc-oбмeн-элeктpoнныx-вaлют/page/13/#findComment-2529977Later, however, the user contacted a different service "elpay.io" and then used that company's response as an argument concerning "merch.elpay.to".
In other words, the discussion is first framed as though the processor is unknown. A different company is then contacted, and its response is presented as evidence.
We have already seen the same approach on another forum. It is now being repeated here.
At this point, in our view, the selective presentation of facts has become an obvious attempt to influence public opinion. Judging by some of the replies in this thread, it is working: conclusions are being drawn from assumptions that do not match the actual case materials.
The same applies to attempts to shift the discussion toward the exchanger's former jurisdiction, VASP registration, third-party publications, and other unrelated issues. None of these points proves that the disputed XMR was received.
The core technical question remains the same: was this specific incoming payment actually received by the receiving side?
The exchanger has been listed on BestChange for approximately five years. During that time, we have seen no basis to consider its operation a systematic scheme for misappropriating customer funds or to associate it with similar fraudulent practices. One complex dispute does not justify such a conclusion, particularly where the situation arose after the user sent XMR in a way that left them unable to provide verification data that had been explicitly requested in advance.
BestChange has revisited this case more than once, requested additional materials, and rechecked the information already available.
Those reviews have not established that the disputed 50 XMR was received by the receiving side.
If genuinely new technical data becomes available that allows the disputed transaction to be directly identified, or if a future technical examination establishes that the payment was received, the case can be reviewed again.
Until then, we do not intend to continue responding to repeated versions of the same arguments on different platforms.
Dear BestChange,
Thank you for not deleting my thread on BitcoinTalk, unlike Reddit (where my posts are deleted by mass reports from you), X.com (where my account was blocked for mentioning my problem), and Trustpilot (where they complain about my review and ignore questions). But let's break down your arguments using facts.
1. About KuCoin and "technical data"
You write that I "ignored the warning" and sent from KuCoin. But KuCoin is a licensed exchange (MiCA, FMA). Upon my request, they provided an official statement of all my transactions. It contains my name, UID, date, time, all addresses, and the TxID: 5ea87ecbf10e87f8ef120c35f108e41239e2a71defba30e415a90ccdcdda7632. The funds were sent to the address 85tHGZu16YVbrQ2mSDWgq7EhwBMAnmHmokfuEnmYZTe3c1wxshosCZcdvM8ZanZ8vSWeh714aAnMFZb
J9Yw2orVbNwMoy13 (the address your exchanger provided). KuCoin explained how to verify the receipt you just need access to the wallet. With this statement, one could sue KuCoin if they deceived me, but that needs to be proven simply provide proof that no deposit was received. They gave the TxID, and it can be checked.
But what did you do? Neither you nor the exchanger tried to help me verify this. You simply stated: "Without the secret key, it cannot be checked." How did you check this? Show logs, screenshots, proof, correspondence. As your client, do I have the right to this? I have proof from KuCoin. You have only words.
2. About merch.elpay.to and "manipulation"
You write that I "mislead" by first naming merch.elpay.to and then writing to elpay.io. But you gave me this link (
https://merch.elpay.to/) and said the funds went through them. I wrote to elpay.io because the site
https://merch.elpay.to/ is down (404), and you did not provide contacts even after several requests. Who are they? Why are you hiding their contacts? Maybe someone on this forum knows this company? I did not try to mislead anyone. I tried to find who is holding my money because you refused to help.
3. About the $3,400
You write that you are not demanding money. But this was one of the conditions of the so-called check and I am interested: if I had paid this money, would you also tell me with words and no proof that the funds did not arrive? If I pay, how will we check, and will there be proof of the check? Is there any regulation where I won't be deceived again?
4. About VASP and the exchanger's lies
You write that you "saw no basis" to consider them scammers, but everything points to it. This is the first time this has happened to me, and I have used exchanges many times over many years. Myxa.cc ignored my requests, called me a scammer, an arbitrageur, and other words, lied about its jurisdiction, and on Bits.media claimed to be a licensed exchanger (Lithuanian VASP).
5. I am waiting for the promised contacts
Yesterday, in an email, you wrote: "We will ask the Myxa.cc administration to provide you with the available contacts of the processor." I am still waiting for these contacts. Let's finally solve this problem together. I am your client, and I am asking for help!
