BestChange  , the largest Russian cryptocurrency exchange monitoring service, is suspected of involvement in fraudulent schemes. The community is increasingly accusing the aggregator of  covering up outright fraudulent services : negative reviews about them are deleted, and BestChange support takes the side of the exchangers themselves in controversial situations. The reason for these suspicions was an outrageous case: a client lost over  $130,000 using the  CoinCraddle exchanger  through BestChange. After transferring ~$130,000 to Monero, the exchanger froze the funds under the pretext of an AML check and did not return them even a month later. This incident forced journalists and users to study  how systemic the problem is  and whether BestChange has its own interest in such exchangers.

 

A preliminary analysis has revealed an alarming trend. Many of the exchangers with the highest ratings on BestChange – those with hundreds and thousands of positive reviews and no negative ones –  are actually problematic . They attract customers with favorable rates, but then they can appropriate money under various pretexts. At the same time,  BestChange is in no hurry to take tough measures : complaints on the platform are often deleted or marked as “resolved”, even if the problem is not resolved. This calls into question the objectivity of the BestChange rating and has given rise to the theory that  the aggregator may be affiliated with some fraudulent exchangers .

 

Below we will examine in detail the scheme by which BestChange is believed  to create and promote its own impostor exchangers , and also consider specific examples – CoinCraddle, Prostovcash, GetBit and Coinumm – which, according to the researchers, may be internal projects of the BestChange team. All facts are supported by testimonies of victims, open source data and the results of independent investigations.

Scheme invented by BestChange

Creation and promotion of "your" exchangers

According to insider data and investigations, the BestChange team can launch  their own exchange sites , formally registered to third-party companies, and add them to the monitoring listing outside the general strict criteria. After appearing on BestChange, such an exchanger  is artificially promoted to the top  of the rating. Several tactics are used for this:

• Obviously the best rates.  The new exchanger puts up extremely favorable exchange rates on BestChange for popular destinations – often  the best on the entire market . Thanks to this, it immediately takes the top lines in the list. However, the actual exchange conditions turn out to be worse than stated: hidden commissions are applied or the rate changes at the last moment to the detriment of the client. Users noted this trick directly:  “Fraud with rates. They put up the best rate in the monitoring to take the upper hand, but in fact they display another one for receipt .” In other words, the BestChange protégé exchanger lures clients to the showcase with a deliberately underestimated rate, gaining an advantage over honest competitors.

• Reviews and ratings are manipulated.  Along with the rates, the reputation is also manipulated. The exchanger gets a lot of positive reviews practically from scratch. According to the source, an internal script or loyalty program is used to generate fake reviews. As a result, in a matter of weeks, the service receives dozens (or even hundreds) of laudatory comments from new accounts - praising the favorable conditions and speed of work. This creates the appearance of an impeccable history and trust. On BestChange, such an exchanger quickly gets a rating of 0% negativity. Real clients also leave positive ratings at first (since the exchange is really successful with small amounts), which further strengthens the image.  Snowball effect : seeing top positions and many stars, more and more people choose this service.

• Reserve manipulation.  The data on the funds reserves also looks suspicious. In the case of CoinCraddle, monitoring showed a liquidity reserve of about  $45 million  - a huge amount for a little-known service. This should inspire confidence in customers (large reserves = reliable exchanger). However, no evidence of CoinCraddle having such funds was found. Users openly doubted the veracity of these figures, asking a reasonable question:  "Return the money from the very reserves that are indicated ... or are they fake?" If BestChange turned a blind eye to the possible imitation of reserves, this means  deliberate deception of users by both the exchanger and the aggregator .

Freezing funds under the pretext of AML/KYC

Once the basic promotion is done and the flow of clients has started, it is time to implement the fraudulent nature of such exchangers. According to eyewitnesses, "their" exchangers on BestChange eventually target  large amounts  of clients. Algorithms track large requests, and if the user does not look like a VIP person capable of making a fuss, his transfer is marked as a target for capture. The scheme then unfolds as follows:

1. Blocking under AML pretext.  As soon as the client has sent a significant amount, the exchanger suddenly  stops the transaction , citing the need for an anti-money laundering (AML) check or other technical reasons. The client is informed that the transaction is delayed “in the interests of security.” For example, CoinCraddle did just that with a $130k transaction, announcing an AML check that had started. Then the user is asked to provide additional data: passport, selfie, confirmation of the source of funds, etc. – formally offering to pass KYC.

2. Delays under various pretexts.  Having fulfilled all the requirements, the client waits for the funds to be unblocked, but time passes, and there is no money.  The support service disappears or responds in a template manner , without giving specifics. For example, many victims noted that after the first auto-responses like  “Your funds are safe, please wait...”  the support simply stops communicating. In the case of the aforementioned user Rm, CoinCraddle representatives only fed promises to “solve the problem within 7 days”, apologized for the delay, referred to an external liquidity provider - and after the deadline, came up with new excuses. Such tactics exhaust a person: someone gives up in despair, someone continues the fight, but time is on the scammers’ side.

3. Refusal to exchange and theft.  Ultimately, the exchanger either directly refuses to fulfill the request, or simply stops responding at all. The client’s funds remain with the fraudsters.  A typical wording :  "The transfer did not pass the AML check" , on this basis the service refuses the exchange  without returning  the funds. For example, a client of the Exch-em exchanger received such a response - he was told about a failed check and the sent amount was actually appropriated.  Global-Ex has  a similar situation:  "they blocked my $940, demanding a passport and documents of origin ..." , the victimized user writes. People do not receive either money or clear explanations. On BestChange itself, some desperate clients left warnings to others:  "Do not use Global-Ex - there is a very high risk of losing money" .

4. Deleting complaints and preserving the legend.  When a deceived client tries to complain publicly – leaves a review on BestChange or writes on the forum –  the reputation shield comes into play . The administration of the problematic exchanger (and possibly the BestChange moderators) try to delete negative comments or mark them as resolved, even if in fact nothing has been resolved. For example, on BestChange, negative reviews about CoinCraddle  were completely hidden by moderation . In responses on behalf of the exchanger, the client himself is often blamed: supposedly, his funds are “dirty” and he himself is to blame for the blocking. Thus, wide publicity of the incident is suppressed as much as possible – at least on the site where the exchanger draws new clients. External negative reviews (on third-party sites) are drowned in a mass of purchased positive ones or simply not responded to.

5. Disappearance and restart.  If the victim does not retreat and the scandal gains momentum online, the scammers may decide  to shut down the project . The exchanger suddenly stops all activity: the site goes “for maintenance” or is completely disconnected, the support does not respond to anyone. CoinCraddle, for example, after a wave of revelations, stopped communicating and actually closed down, never returning the withheld client funds. Of course, the organizers do not bear any responsibility - legally the service is registered to an anonymous person in an offshore zone, it is almost impossible to identify the culprits. Then the scheme can be repeated under a new name: another one-day exchanger appears, promoted through BestChange.

Creating “your own” AML/KYC agents

It is worth noting the role of  pseudo-AML verification  in this scheme. In essence, fraudsters use legal requirements to combat money laundering as a tool of blackmail. Moreover, there are suspicions that BestChange and its associated persons have organized  their own AML “ecosystem” in order to control the process as much as possible. It may look like this:

• Discrimination of third-party checks.  When the beneficiary exchanger BestChange blocks a transaction, the client usually tries to prove the legality of the funds - provides certificates, does independent AML screening through special services. However, the attackers declare  "secret algorithms" by which  they still find "risks" and continue to hold the money. There are cases when people showed the results of external checks with a risk rating of < 5% (i.e. the money is "clean"), but the exchanger still did not return the funds, citing internal reasons. In other words,  any outcome  is interpreted in favor of the fraudster: either pay or wait forever.

• Inflated fees for “solving the issue”.  There are cases on forums where exchangers require a fee or a fine to unblock funds. For example, it was discussed that some services withhold  up to 10% of the amount as “AML expenses”  or make you wait 3 months for verification, after which they also return only part of the funds. In fact, this is a new type of extortion: the client is asked  to “pay to get their own money back” . If the user refuses or makes a fuss, the money is confiscated permanently under the pretext of violating the rules.

• Monopolization of AML agents.  There is a version that BestChange may cooperate with specific companies or people providing AML analytics services, and perhaps has a share in such firms. Indirectly, this is indicated by the fact that about  40% of exchangers on BestChange use AML screening  of their transactions, but many hide who exactly conducts the check. If the aggregator controls the checker, it actually controls the fate of the disputed funds. For “foreign” exchangers, the fees for such checks can be unprofitably high, so that they prefer not to get involved at all and leave the site. And “their” exchangers, on the contrary, receive  loyalty from checking agents : any receipts can be declared dubious. According to users,  “BestChange provides cover for this scam” , attracting new victims through its rating. Thus, the aggregator not only provides traffic, but also creates conditions in which it is almost impossible for the victim to prove his case - all the “expertise” is on the side of the fraudster.

Analysis of suspicious exchangers

Let’s take a closer look at  four exchangers that are the most suspicious of being affiliated with BestChange:  CoinCraddle, Prostovcash (ProstoCash), GetBit and Coinumm . They all fit the pattern described above:  zero negativity on BestChange, lots of rave reviews, and lots of complaints on the side . Also, none of them have open information about the legal entity, which makes official claims difficult. Below are the characteristics of each and real examples of problems their clients have encountered.

CoinCraddle

CoinCraddle  is a relatively new exchanger (operating since 2020), which quickly gained a reputation as a reliable and profitable service through BestChange. For a long time, it had a perfect rating on the monitor (0% negative reviews). However, third-party investigations revealed another side: CoinCraddle  has been repeatedly caught embezzling customer funds  under the pretext of AML checks. In fact, this exchanger has become synonymous with the largest scandal on BestChange.

 

The main episode is  the freezing of more than $130,000  in XMR cryptocurrency from one of the clients. The user chose CoinCraddle through an aggregator, sent the coins, after which the service announced the need for checks and  held the funds for more than a month  without a clear explanation. The client provided all the requested documents (KYC, confirmation of the origin of the money), but the money was never returned until outside intervention. In response to requests for legal information about CoinCraddle, the BestChange administration refused to disclose information, citing "UAE laws." This position looked strange and actually covered up the anonymity of the scammers. Only when the story became public on Telegram channels and in the media, they tried to hush up the situation: there were reports that CoinCraddle returned the frozen $130k and apologized, but by that time the exchanger’s reputation was destroyed.

 

It turned out that  90% of CoinCraddle traffic came directly from BestChange  – that is, clients came almost exclusively through the aggregator’s rating. All negative reviews on BestChange about CoinCraddle were deleted or hidden by moderators, creating the appearance of impeccable work. In fact, complaints were piling up on the Internet:  "They don’t pay out money! ... Support doesn’t say anything ... What a terrible service!"  - people were indignant. On the Bits.media forum, a user under the nickname Rm described in detail how CoinCraddle did not withdraw ~$2,000 for 6 days and marked his claim as "resolved" without a refund. Only after dozens of messages and mentions of the BestChange administration, the status of the problem was changed and the money was returned - and then under pressure from the community.

 

The combination of facts - CoinCraddle’s dependence on BestChange, the purge of negative information, unrealistic rates and reserves - led to a logical question:  is BestChange itself behind this exchanger?  This version was actively discussed in the crypto community. Moreover, the authoritative Telegram channel  "VChK-OGPU"  directly suggested that the aggregator team  itself creates and promotes its own exchangers to deceive users , calling CoinCraddle one of the probable BestChange projects. An anonymous ex-employee of BestChange also reported under NDA that CoinCraddle is the monitor’s "internal" exchanger, launched with the expectation of a fraudulent scheme. Officially, BestChange representatives deny everything, but do not take any actions to refute the suspicions. CoinCraddle successfully worked on the platform while it was profitable, and was removed from the listing  only after a scandal  and many victims. None of the organizers were held accountable; Clients who did not receive their money back were left with nothing. This story was a serious blow to trust in BestChange.

Prostovcash (ProstoCash)

Prostovcash  (aka  ProstoCash , domain  prostocash.com ) is another exchanger from the top listing of BestChange that raises doubts. On the aggregator, it is presented as a “reliable service” with a long history and has  over 7,000 positive reviews  (with almost no negative ones). However, independent resources paint a different picture. On review sites, Prostovcash is accused of fraud:  “prostocash.com are scammers! ... the operator said the funds were not received...”  – writes one of the clients. That is, according to the reviews, the scheme is as follows: the user sent money, and the exchanger said that they did not receive anything, and on this basis refused to fulfill the application. Other complaints are similar:  “There are no exchange guarantees, the support service is silent”  – describes the situation the victim on the TorForex forum. People lost both small and large amounts, trying to exchange them through Prostovcash.

 

It is noteworthy that  BestChange continues to recommend Prostovcash , despite such reviews on external sites. The exchanger itself does not publish information about the owners or company registration. It is an anonymous service, and it is extremely difficult to hold it accountable. Nevertheless, Prostovcash consistently occupies the top lines on BestChange with attractive rates. It seems that  the aggregator turns a blind eye  to the problems. It is quite possible that Prostovcash is another “family” exchanger included in the BestChange orbit. At least, its behavior (rate below the market, zero return in case of problems, disappearing reviews) is typical for controlled fraudulent projects.

GetBit

GetBit  is an exchanger that has appeared on BestChange relatively recently, but has quickly gained popularity due to generous exchange conditions. It has about 60-70 positive reviews on monitoring and 0% negative. However, outside the aggregator,  direct accusations of scam are accumulating . A review was left on the Trustland website:  “The money has not arrived in my account, they do not respond to Telegram...”  – this is about an unfulfilled payment to the client. Several users at once reported that after sending funds through GetBit, they did not receive their money back, and the support team stopped communicating. Moreover, a case was recorded on the Bitcointalk forum when  GetBit withheld $400 under the pretext of an AML check and did not return it to the client . Obviously, this is a typical fraudulent trick: when exchanging a large amount, the service “finds” problems with the legality of the funds and keeps them for itself.  “They withdrew $400 under the pretext of AML, and did not return it ,” the deceived write.

 

Like other suspicious exchangers, GetBit  hides information about its company , there is no data on jurisdiction or licenses. Its  high rating on BestChange may be the result of cheating  - given that real reviews on independent sites contrast strongly with the ideal picture on the aggregator. It cannot be ruled out that GetBit is one of the projects launched “under the wing” of BestChange. At least, no strict measures against it from the monitoring are observed, despite public complaints. The service is still available on the showcase and attracts new customers who may expect the same fate.

Coinumm

Coinumm  (coinumm.com) is another suspicious exchanger. It has over 30 positive reviews on BestChange and a minimum number of negative ones. It works with popular cryptocurrencies and promises favorable rates. But reviews outside the aggregator again give cause for concern. Users complain about  an unfair exchange rate : they promise one thing, but in fact the exchange takes place at a much lower rate, and the client receives less money than expected.  “One rate was declared during the exchange, but in fact the exchange took place at a different rate, much lower... Contacting support did not give any result. The exchange is at a loss, I do not recommend it!”  - says the review on Scamadviser. That is, Coinumm is suspected of hidden commissions or deliberately understating the rate during the transaction.

 

Another aspect is  reputational manipulation . Researchers have found that Coinumm is actively cleaning up its online image. On Trustpilot, the service had several obvious fake reviews (they were later removed for violating the rules), and negative comments are diligently suppressed. On Reddit, it was discussed that Coinumm was inflating its rating and was not above deleting criticism. Complaints also surfaced about delays in payments and the requirement to undergo sudden KYC when trying to withdraw large amounts - a classic scheme described above. All this despite the fact that Coinumm has an almost impeccable profile on BestChange. No information about the company, no transparency - users actually do not know who they trust with their money.

 

Summary table of the exchangers analyzed:

Note:  All the listed exchangers do not have open information about the legal entity (company registration). Their websites do not contain any addresses or licenses. Reviews on BestChange are almost entirely positive, which is in sharp contrast to the reputation on independent resources. This gives reason to believe that a significant part of the positive ratings  are falsified , and the negative ones  are filtered by  monitoring moderation.

Owner of BestChange and connection with Agretis LLC (UAE)

To understand who could benefit from the creation of such schemes, let’s look at the owner of BestChange. The service was officially launched back in 2007, but for a long time the identity of the beneficiary remained in the shadows. In 2023, information appeared in Telegram channels and the media:  the beneficiary of BestChange is 37-year-old Denis Evgenievich Malkov , an IT specialist from Ryazan. This is confirmed by WHOIS data and documents: the BestChange.ru domain was historically registered to Malkov, and in 2018 he registered the “BestChange” trademark in his name.

 

Denis Malkov is not a public figure, known only to a narrow circle as the creator of BestChange and the developer of the SMInstall program (a utility for creating installers). In order to give the business an international status and escape Russian regulation, Malkov registered  Agretis Software Design LLC  in the United Arab Emirates in 2022. This company is listed as the operator of BestChange in the site’s user agreement. The official Agretis website lists its products, including BestChange, Smart Install Maker, and the Credus advertising platform. In fact,  Agretis LLC is a corporate shell for Malkov’s projects , through which he manages BestChange with an office in Dubai.

 

Why is this important in the context of fraudulent exchangers? Firstly,  BestChange is legally outside of Russian jurisdiction  (formally, the operating company is in the UAE). This complicates claims from Russian victims and authorities - BestChange can respond to any requests with a reference to foreign laws (as was the case with CoinCraddle). Secondly, the concentration of all rights and control in the hands of one person (Malkov) theoretically simplifies the possibility of  insider manipulation . If the owner wants to use the platform for selfish purposes - for example, to promote his hidden projects - he has all the tools for this. Indirectly, this hypothesis is confirmed by the fact that  back in 2018 ,  a suspicion was expressed on the Bits.media forum: the WealthPay exchanger belongs to BestChange itself. Then BestChange denied this, demanding evidence. But in the following years, such accusations only became more frequent.

 

The figure of Denis Malkov and his company Agretis are also important because  financial flows  from all partner exchangers probably pass through them. BestChange earns from advertising and partner commissions from exchangers. If some of these exchangers are “their own,” the profit from their activities settles in the same structure. Agretis, being registered in a zone with preferential regulation, allows these incomes to accumulate with minimal supervision. Malkov himself does not publicly comment on scandals with exchangers. But his  direct responsibility  as the owner of BestChange is obvious: it is he who controls the moderation and listing policy.

Conclusion

The facts and evidence reviewed paint a disturbing picture:  BestChange may be using its own platform as a showcase for fraud , covering up affiliated exchangers and directing gullible users to them. Instead of serving as an objective monitor, the aggregator appears to  have become a participant in the scheme  – allowing dubious services to flourish and even possibly creating them under its control. According to its users, BestChange often provides fraudsters with an influx of victims and  stands by their side when conflicts break out.

 

Of course, BestChange representatives officially deny all accusations. They claim that they only provide information and are not responsible for the actions of exchangers. However, the passivity (and sometimes connivance) of the aggregator in relation to an obvious scam speaks for itself. If the largest monitoring allows scammers to operate under its auspices for years, moreover,  it has a financial benefit from their activities , this casts a shadow on the entire industry.

 

What does this mean for users?  First of all, you  can’t blindly trust the BestChange rating . Zero statistics of negative reviews is not a guarantee of the honesty of the exchanger, because, as we found out, reviews are easily inflated, and unwanted ones are deleted. It is worth carefully checking each service using external sources: read reviews on Trustpilot, forums (Bits.media, MMGP, etc.), look at mentions on review sites. If the exchanger  hides information about itself , works anonymously - this is already a serious alarm signal. Offering too favorable a rate with zero reputation is also a reason to be wary.

 

If during the exchange you are asked for new payments or the payment is delayed under the pretext of checks - immediately stop the transaction.  Such demands ("pay the AML commission", "wait 60 days of verification") almost always mean fraud. BestChange, unfortunately, will not help in such a situation - from experience, the aggregator’s support either ignores complaints or formally responds that "you need to deal with the exchanger itself". There is currently no user protection from monitoring. Therefore, saving your funds is the responsibility of the users themselves. You should immediately seek advice from the crypto community (so that publicity forces the scammers to retreat) and, if possible, prepare legal steps (statements of fraud, at least at your place of residence).

 

As a result, our investigation showed that a whole network  of its own scam exchangers could be hiding under the sign of the respected aggregator BestChange . CoinCraddle, Prostovcash, GetBit, Coinumm are just some of them, but probably not the only ones. BestChange, having resources and influence, actually  became an accomplice of scammers  - either through deliberate collusion or through criminal inaction. Cryptocurrency users need to be extremely vigilant and stop perceiving BestChange as a guarantee of reliability. The situation requires transparency and reaction: either the aggregator will clean up its platform and prove its independence, or risk losing trust completely. In the world of cryptocurrencies, where big money is at stake, trust -  but always verify . This is the only way to protect yourself when even those who should protect you may be playing against you.