BitXchange

Reviews

• 5/5
  $500-1KValid Order
  Finally decided to add some Monero to my portfolio and swapped SOL to XMR. The exchange went quite fast around 15 minutes. Didn’t have to provide any extra information. Overall, satisfied with the swap
  Author: 2160CCD31BC3AB5BCC71A9E5F42A2F7888954BD0 (posts: 1) • 2026-02-14
  Reply
• 1/5
  $50K-100KKYC IssueValid Order
  SCAM service. Advertised like a non-KYC/instant swap, but after I deposited 50,000 USDT (TRC20) they suddenly demanded full KYC (including video) and then froze the transaction under “compliance/liquidity provider review” with no ETA. They have not returned my money — only promises and delays. They refuse to name the “regulator/authority” supposedly reviewing the case or provide any reference number. They also claim the swap is “already executed,” so any “refund” would be at their discretion with deductions and not necessarily in the original asset/amount. They present themselves as Cayman Islands-based, but all signs point to a Ukrainian operation. I have full chat/email evidence and can share it. Avoid.
  Author: E30F19DDBD9C2BF10CC3AC19470373DA1890FEB8 (posts: 3) • 2026-01-18
  Reply
  
  

  Replies

  • UPDATE(SCAM / misleading “No-KYC” claim):
    BitXchange is NOT a real no-KYC service, despite advertising itself everywhere as “non-KYC/instant swap.” I deposited 50,000 USDT (TRC20) expecting a non-KYC swap, but after receiving my funds they demanded full KYC (including video) and then kept the transaction in “compliance review” for 6 days. During those 6 days they raised the KYC requirements daily and requested more documents each time.
    
    Because of this delay and their process, I estimate I lost around 15,000 USDT due to rate/market changes. They offered to return only ~35,000 USDT or ~70 XMR instead of my full amount.
    
    They also appear to be connected to / using a major exchange liquidity venue (WhiteBIT.com) — so this is clearly not a no-KYC model.
    
    Conclusion: misleading marketing, high risk. Avoid / use extreme caution.
    Author: E30F19DDBD9C2BF10CC3AC19470373DA1890FEB8 (posts: 3) • 2026-01-22
  • ✓ Response from BitXchange
    Thank you for your feedback.
    
    We would like to clarify that BitXchange operates by default without registration and without requesting any personal information — KYC is not required in the standard usage scenario.
    
    In rare and exceptional cases, atypical transaction behavior may result in a temporary pause for additional manual review of the order.
    
    At the same time, upon the user’s request, we can also provide a preliminary funds check before an order is created, if the user wishes to ensure in advance that there are no potential risks.
    
    The swap was created at a fixed rate and, after the review was completed, executed in accordance with the agreed conditions. You received the amount specified in the order. From our side, we also offered compensation for the fee related to the processed transaction.
    
    We sincerely regret that this process caused you a negative experience.
    Author: BitXchange (posts: 1) • 2026-02-02
  • Bitxchange,
    
    Your reply focuses on “the order was completed,” but my review is about misleading “KYC0 / No-KYC” marketing and the way your “compliance review” was conducted.
    
    You advertise the service as KYC0 / No-KYC on your website. That is the only reason I placed an “instant / non-KYC” swap and sent 50,000 USDT (TRC20).
    In reality, you froze the transaction for ~7 days, and because the market moved during that delay, my effective loss is ~15,000 USDT. That loss happened because of your hold, not because of anything on my side.
    
    When you say “in rare situations we may request additional verification,” in my case you demanded full KYC, and not even through a standard secure process. You required me to send video + document scans/photos via Telegram.
    Requesting highly sensitive identity documents through a messenger app is not a normal or secure KYC workflow (no protected upload portal, no clear data-handling assurances, no proper audit trail).
    
    Throughout the hold, you refused to explain who exactly was holding the funds and on what basis, repeating only: “we are not allowed to disclose information.”
    You also did not provide any official AML/compliance document, case reference, written notice, or formal justification—only generic statements.
    
    This raises a serious data-protection concern: if you demand KYC documents via Telegram while keeping the process opaque, what guarantees do customers have that their scans/videos will not be misused or leaked? Your process provides no transparency on storage, access control, retention, or legal basis for processing.
    
    Bottom line: if after receiving funds you can freeze them for a week, require full KYC via Telegram, refuse to disclose who is holding the funds, and provide no formal AML documentation, then this is not a KYC0 / No-KYC service. The “No-KYC” advertising is misleading.
    
    My loss remains ~15,000 USDT due to your delay, and a token “compensation” offer (e.g., ~$400) does not address the damage caused.
    Author: E30F19DDBD9C2BF10CC3AC19470373DA1890FEB8 (posts: 3) • 2026-02-15