A remarkably curious conflict unfolded on the bits.media forum, one in which moderators literally had to dissect the exchanger's software engine to prove it wrong.

According to user Oleg321, when he attempted to exchange $4600 in USDT (from ERC20 to TRC20) on the 2rbina service, the operation was frozen. The exchanger claimed the client had failed an AML check (allegedly with a risk level of 100%) and began demanding KYC verification, including a photo of his passport. The client, quick on his feet, ran his coins through five different screening services (including AMLBot, BitOK, and Getblock) — every report showed the funds to be crystal clean. He even provided links to the checks ^[1] and PDF reports, but the exchanger kept ignoring the evidence, hiding behind some secret "AML regulator".

Supermoderator Mask took the situation in hand and dug up the technical root of the problem. As it turned out, 2rbina runs on the Premium Exchanger engine, which supports integration with only four AML checkers — and the user passed verification on all four of them. But the most interesting part lies in the engine's settings. According to moderator Mask, the system has a parameter called "Risk level if the checker's API is not working". If the exchanger has misconfigured the API or the checker's server goes down, the system automatically assigns the crypto the maximum risk level (up to 100%) — even if the funds are absolutely clean.

And it gets better. The moderator criticized the very term "AML regulator", which doesn't exist in reality, and discovered the tiniest of fine print in the exchanger's rules: at an AML risk level above 50%, the service withholds an additional fee of up to 15% of the transaction amount from the client ^[2]. This suggested the scheme could function as forced retention of funds paired with fee milking.

The ending was classic for scandals of this kind. Several days later, according to a representative of the 2rbina exchanger, after "lengthy communication with the AML regulator", it was decided to return the funds to the user without requiring KYC. According to user Oleg321, he got his money back, immediately exchanged it successfully on another service without a single problem, and advised everyone to give 2rbina a wide berth, calling them an unhinged "shady outfit".