New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
@leascomenconf Thank you for the warning and if you have not already, please leave them an honest trustpilot review for the vendor highlighting the surprise KYC. Any vendor that KYCs post-purchase deserves one (and especially one with a no refund policy!)
Since this specific point keeps getting bumped, let me clarify exactly why returning funds "A -> B -> A" is absolutely not "risk-free" for a legitimate hosting provider in the real world.
Refunding dirty crypto creates a permanent, public blockchain record connecting our clean corporate wallet directly to a highrisk/dark net wallet. When exchanges (where we liquidate to pay data center bills) or Law Enforcement Agencies run Chainalysis, they don't just see a "refund." They see our business wallet interacting with criminal funds. That puts our entire legitimate operational cash flow at risk of being frozen. We have had LEAs question us over exact scenarios like this in the past. We prefer zero interaction over a "refunded" interaction.
If we guarantee a seamless, no-questions-asked refund the moment a malicious user hits a KYC wall, we become a free testing ground. Botnet operators and spammers will constantly test our provisioning. If they get a server, they abuse it. If they hit KYC, they get their money back and try the next host losing absolutely nothing. Freezing unverified funds is the only real financial penalty that deters them from testing our network.
Our stance remains rock solid, and our offer to the OP still stands:
Submit Verified KYC = 100% Full Refund + 1 Month Free Server. Refuse KYC = Funds remain frozen on compliance hold.
We’ve laid out the technical, operational, and compliance realities. We are officially logging off this thread now. Have a great weekend, everyone!
Merchant would also need to ensure that same UTXO merchant has received from that customer is refunded. Otherwise it is kinda a mixer even if returned to the same source address.
That's a relatively minor issue, imo. The bigger issue is having all the information necessary to decide whether or not to KYC someone (in this particular case), yet accepting the money first.
I understand that there are situations where you'd have to KYC after, such as flagged transactions that you can't detect until the payment goes through, but if the KYC is triggered by registration IP + selected payment method, it's irresponsible to accept the money first, knowing it can't be given back without passing KYC. After all, the customer might simply be in a country that the KYC provider doesn't support.
Yea just ask for KYC first before accepting the payment if this is the case, They shouldn't accept the money in the first place before asking for KYC.
You already interacted by accepting the payment.
Tutamail doesn't even allow registrations over Tor so your point is not valid at all.
You knew all that before you took the money. And yes there are legitimate reasons, not even just for personal stuff but also legitimate business reasons.
This is plain stupid. You either have a legal obligation to perform KYC or you don't. Obviously you don't.
Why do I say this is stupid? Putting KYC in the TOS does not make it legal without other GDPR obligations being met. You need to have valid legal basis to do it and your TOS is not one of them by itself.
If you are required by law to do KYC then you would have to state that as the KYC clause hidden in your TOS would not be valid "consent", it's not even a correct legal basis in that case.
Amusing. First you accept the money. Then you demand KYC based on your TOS and now the refund request you have provoked yourself you call a violation of AML protocols. This must be some alternate reality I have stepped in.
If OP is such a genious as you think and his goal was to "provoke" you to ask him for KYC so he has an excuse to ask for a refund because he wants to launder money that way. The solution is simple, give him the service he paid for. What will he do? Idle the server for a month?
KYC can not prove that he is a "legitimate individual" or that this is not a money-laundering attempt. I'll mention again "money-laundering attempt" that you provoked youself so just give the OP the server he paid for and let him idle it. He will not be happy his "money-laundering attempt" via the refund has failed.
Cybercriminals? The way you are handling things real cybercriminals can have a vacation laundering money through your company. Looking at your statements this is not about stopping cybercriminals but protecting yourself because you don't have other valid measures do deal with cybercriminals.
Sure. Legitimate users don't mind risking their identity stolen over 251$. If I was in OPs place I would not do the KYC either but I would not have a problem with taking your company to court. Guess you'd be very happy verifying my identity that way
Perhaps just don't take money for services you can't provide. Problem solved.
In that case I'd simply ask them if it's a "known cybercriminal" and they can't put him in jail what the fuck they expect me to do about it? And I'd simply tell them to fuck off bothering me with such questions since they're unable to do the job I'm paying them taxes for, plain and simple.
Damn, that went south very quick. Yard guy - refund and be over about this. Lesson learned. As you do not provide cheap servers for low end audience, refrain from further participation in this forum regarding this drama.
Just stop right here. We have a case where business owner explicitly banned clients from LET, we don't want another one. Your services are needed, they are niche. Don't drive down your reputation here.