All that sounds legit
Try the support chat in the bottom right of the sub, provide your receipts (DONT CLOSE THEM OUT)
no you didn't get phished. dont know why he said you did. he's wrong
Wait... Can I promote bleXch here? We are even approved for tforum ads.
Hey, I’m Pluja, the admin of KYCnot.me. I want to correct a few claims:
Score manipulation
I fully disagree with this. I specifically designed the scoring system for this to not be possible. I do not type a score into a field. I assign KYC levels and attributes, then you can reproduce the score with the public formula. Take the attributes from a listing, add privacy and trust scores, apply the formula, and you get the score.
The code is open source and the deploy setup and logs are also public. If I wanted to distort a score, I would have to set false attributes or a false KYC level. Users would see that on the listing and challenge it. I built the scoring around public attributes for this reason.
Review timing
Yes, I choose when a service gets reviewed, and I do not like that bottleneck.
I maintain the project mostly alone, on my free time. A review takes time and I have to spend money on services I usually don't need. I test services with real transactions, contact support, read policies, compare claims with behavior, and revisit listings when something changes. It's true that some good services may wait longer than I would like. But I do not want KYCnot.me to become a dump of listings. I prefer fewer reviewed services over fast approvals.
The ⚠️about page is very clear about it⚠️:
Censorship
I moderate comments using the public rules from the About page, and AI for light moderation. I have never removed listings because I dislike a service. I reject or remove listings when a service breaks the listing rules: CSAM, clear scams, illegal services, or services outside the scope of KYCnot.me. But I am very permisive with the Community Contributed list. When you curate a list, you make gatekeeping choices. The way to reduce abuse is to publish the criteria, show the evidence, and let users challenge listings.
Payment incentives
Yes, someone could offer me money to prioritize a listing. Many projects have offered payment for listings or priority. I always refused those offers. If I accept payment for listing decisions, KYCnot.me loses its value. Users would have no reason to trust the ratings. Here's some recent refusals from the last months: ⚠️1a⚠️ ⚠️1b⚠️ ⚠️2⚠️ ⚠️3⚠️ ⚠️4⚠️ ⚠️5⚠️. You won't be able to find a single service that can prove that they paid me to get listed, as I have never accepted that, at all.
I can share more examples of refused offers if needed.
Centralization
Yes, I control verification today, and that bothers me. I have thought about Nostr and other decentralized designs. I want to explore that when I can spend time on a design that does not create worse incentives. But I do not like what you say about vendor-only voting. Vendors have a direct financial interest in their own listings and in their competitors’ listings. A better system needs users, vendors, public evidence, challenge history, and audit trails. That is not an easy system.
Audits
KYCnot reviews do not claim to be full security audits. I review KYC policy, terms, privacy claims, service behavior, support, and test results. The code, again, is open source. If the concern is KYCnot.me infrastructure, deploy flow, or moderation flow, I can walk a trusted reviewer through the server setup and workflow. You could argue KYCnot.me has a centralization problem, as most online platforms have it. I agree with that. Curation creates both the value and the risk. I made the project open source, the scoring based on attributes and everything I can to be transparent. I am actively thinking on options to improve that.
Edit: Use tforumiquette and link to onion site
Score manipulation
I fully disagree with this. I specifically designed the scoring system for this to not be possible. I do not type a score into a field. I assign KYC levels and attributes, then you can reproduce the score with the public formula. Take the attributes from a listing, add privacy and trust scores, apply the formula, and you get the score.
The code is open source and the deploy setup and logs are also public. If I wanted to distort a score, I would have to set false attributes or a false KYC level. Users would see that on the listing and challenge it. I built the scoring around public attributes for this reason.
Review timing
Yes, I choose when a service gets reviewed, and I do not like that bottleneck.
I maintain the project mostly alone, on my free time. A review takes time and I have to spend money on services I usually don't need. I test services with real transactions, contact support, read policies, compare claims with behavior, and revisit listings when something changes. It's true that some good services may wait longer than I would like. But I do not want KYCnot.me to become a dump of listings. I prefer fewer reviewed services over fast approvals.
The ⚠️about page is very clear about it⚠️:
Reviews are not on a schedule. Approvals and upgrades happen when we are confident in the evidence, not on a fixed cadence. That can take weeks or months, and some stages may sit untouched until we decide to revisit them. Asking about timing does not move a service forward.
Censorship
I moderate comments using the public rules from the About page, and AI for light moderation. I have never removed listings because I dislike a service. I reject or remove listings when a service breaks the listing rules: CSAM, clear scams, illegal services, or services outside the scope of KYCnot.me. But I am very permisive with the Community Contributed list. When you curate a list, you make gatekeeping choices. The way to reduce abuse is to publish the criteria, show the evidence, and let users challenge listings.
Payment incentives
Yes, someone could offer me money to prioritize a listing. Many projects have offered payment for listings or priority. I always refused those offers. If I accept payment for listing decisions, KYCnot.me loses its value. Users would have no reason to trust the ratings. Here's some recent refusals from the last months: ⚠️1a⚠️ ⚠️1b⚠️ ⚠️2⚠️ ⚠️3⚠️ ⚠️4⚠️ ⚠️5⚠️. You won't be able to find a single service that can prove that they paid me to get listed, as I have never accepted that, at all.
I can share more examples of refused offers if needed.
Centralization
Yes, I control verification today, and that bothers me. I have thought about Nostr and other decentralized designs. I want to explore that when I can spend time on a design that does not create worse incentives. But I do not like what you say about vendor-only voting. Vendors have a direct financial interest in their own listings and in their competitors’ listings. A better system needs users, vendors, public evidence, challenge history, and audit trails. That is not an easy system.
Audits
KYCnot reviews do not claim to be full security audits. I review KYC policy, terms, privacy claims, service behavior, support, and test results. The code, again, is open source. If the concern is KYCnot.me infrastructure, deploy flow, or moderation flow, I can walk a trusted reviewer through the server setup and workflow. You could argue KYCnot.me has a centralization problem, as most online platforms have it. I agree with that. Curation creates both the value and the risk. I made the project open source, the scoring based on attributes and everything I can to be transparent. I am actively thinking on options to improve that.
Edit: Use tforumiquette and link to onion site
Why is OM score downgraded from 9 to 4 while retoswap is still 9 even after 2 hacks (within 5 weeks) and 3 million dollars in losses. It makes no sense. It is double standard. Why is the first retoswap hack resolved. Have the victims been fully refunded. I don't think so.
Members-only continuation
This discussion contains more posts.
Create an account or sign in to continue reading the full conversation. 30 additional posts await inside.