Hey,
I'm considering a crypto swap service using Monero as an intermediary to break the link between input and output transactions and improve privacy, in one simple automatic operation.
**Goal:
Break the correlation between the source and destination addresses to enhance transaction privacy.
**Concept:
- Swap between cryptocurrencies (BTC, USDT, etc.) via Monero
- Flow: Crypto A → XMR1 → XMR2 → Crypto A
- The intermediate Monero step breaks the blockchain link
**Technical architecture:
- Step 1: Crypto A → XMR1 (via third-party exchange service)
- Step 2: XMR1 → XMR2 (via local Monero node behind Tor)
Local Monero node (non-custodial)
Wallet with unique address per swap
Routing via Tor for network anonymity
This step breaks the link between XMR1 and XMR2
- Step 3: XMR2 → Crypto A (via third-party exchange service)
**Privacy features:
Clear separation between XMR1 and XMR2 (local node)
Tor routing for network anonymity
Unique wallet per swap to limit correlation
No custodiality on intermediate funds
No KYC/registration required
**Planned features:
Simple web interface
Real-time swap tracking
Transparent fees
Support for multiple blockchains (BSC, TRC20, etc.)
Thanks for your feedback.
Dark Web Talk
Crypto fog service with Monero intermediary — seeking feedback
Started by bigdaddy00 · Jan 17, 2026
Several issues with the idea.
Incoming crypto AML /post/d4252cb91d5619bb4bd3. Will result in blocked funds, SoF requests and other usual problems.
Outgoing swap service. Monero don't have dirty coins but it does carry inherent AML risk whom can be triggered by many factors. Will result in same blocked funds at some point.
Users are trusting you do churning correct for them. Much safer for them to do it themselves.
Incoming crypto AML /post/d4252cb91d5619bb4bd3. Will result in blocked funds, SoF requests and other usual problems.
Outgoing swap service. Monero don't have dirty coins but it does carry inherent AML risk whom can be triggered by many factors. Will result in same blocked funds at some point.
Users are trusting you do churning correct for them. Much safer for them to do it themselves.
thanks helping me, fair points.
The intent is that both entry and exit wallets remain non-custodial, specifically to avoid the usual CEX AML issues (frozen funds, SoF requests). The service wouldn’t custody funds or maintain accounts — it would only act as a relay.
I agree that if users can do this themselves, they should. Removing third parties always reduces risk.
This is aimed at users who aren’t comfortable running nodes or executing multi-step flows, but still want to avoid CEXs and reduce AML exposure.
The concern about centralizing AML risk is valid and is one of the core issues being evaluated.
The intent is that both entry and exit wallets remain non-custodial, specifically to avoid the usual CEX AML issues (frozen funds, SoF requests). The service wouldn’t custody funds or maintain accounts — it would only act as a relay.
I agree that if users can do this themselves, they should. Removing third parties always reduces risk.
This is aimed at users who aren’t comfortable running nodes or executing multi-step flows, but still want to avoid CEXs and reduce AML exposure.
The concern about centralizing AML risk is valid and is one of the core issues being evaluated.