On March 31, 2026, user asidonline initiated a public dispute regarding the fraudulent actions of the cryptocurrency exchange EasyBit.com, which was found through the SwapSpace aggregator. According to user asidonline, after attempting an exchange, his funds were blocked by the EasyBit service under the pretext of conducting an AML check. The user provided all the requested documents, including video recordings of working with the wallets, but faced template responses from the support service and a lack of real timelines for resolving the issue.

According to user John SwapSpace, representing the aggregator, the block is a standard security procedure, and SwapSpace does not bear responsibility for the funds, as it acts solely as an intermediary. However, according to user asidonline, the aggregator ignored his requests and continued to redirect clients to the problematic partner. According to user albon, aggregators need to review partner risks, as KYC requests are increasingly being used as a tool for the endless withholding of funds.

Forum members confirmed the dubious reputation of the platform. According to user albon, EasyBit uses fake reviews on Trustpilot to maintain its rating. According to user shazde, the service actually artificially inflates its scores, which can be reported through the Trustpilot review page. According to user hugeblack, SwapSpace regularly recommends unscrupulous partners from whom other clients have already suffered.

The situation remained unresolved even a month and a half later. According to user asidonline, by the 50th day of the fund withholding, EasyBot support continued to send automated messages about transferring the case to the senior team. The SwapSpace representative also claimed that the KYC process was incomplete, which the user categorically refuted, pointing to the provision of all possible evidence. During the discussion, user asidonline also reported the existence of lawsuits against the project's founder, yet both platforms continue to evade returning the funds. This forced the client to initiate the preparation of official legal claims against both services for negligence and complicity in fraud.