Hi everyone,
 
I wanted to share a project I've been building: dontkyc.me, a directory of crypto-related services that don't require KYC (or where KYC requirements are clearly documented).
 
Right now the site is in German, but an English version is in active development and should launch soon - wanted to introduce the project here in the meantime, since I know this board has plenty of people who value privacy-respecting services.
 
What's in it:
 
- 390+ listed services across Exchanges, Wallets, VPNs, Email providers, DEXs, Mixers, Crypto Casinos, and more
- Every entry has a Privacy Score and a Trust Score, plus a clear KYC-level rating (0 = never asks for ID, up to full verification required)
- Short pros/cons summaries for each service, written to be honest about weaknesses too - not just marketing copy
- A community forum with a marketplace section (peer-to-peer trading with an escrow flow) and a running "Scam Pattern of the Week" series that breaks down real, current fraud cases
- Update feeds pulled from official sources (GitHub releases, official blogs) so you can see when a listed project last shipped something, without digging around yourself
 
Why I'm building this: most "No-KYC" lists I found were either outdated, unmaintained, or clearly written by whoever was paying for placement. I wanted something that's actually kept current and where a bad KYC policy or a scam report gets reflected in the listing, not hidden.
 
Everything is free to browse, no registration required to look around. Registering (also free, no email needed - just a generated key) lets you favorite services and get notified if something changes (e.g. a KYC policy tightening).
 
Happy to answer any questions, and feedback - especially "you're missing X service" or "this listing is wrong" - is genuinely welcome. Still a work in progress.
 
Link: https://dontkyc.me

Big Update 29.08.2026 ( New Features )

Neue Funktionen implementiert:

Community Earnings (Earn Crypto)

For forum posts, comments, and approved service suggestions
Three tiers (Bronze/Silver/Gold) based on account age + post count
Set a BTC or ETH address in settings and enable it there
Payout on request once a minimum balance is reached, handled manually by an admin
Optional tier badge in the forum (off by default)
    Site: / https://dontkyc.me/verdienen

🎯 Scam Bounty

Found a new, not-yet-documented scam pattern? Submit it with a description + evidence link
If confirmed: higher bounty than regular contributions (default $15)
Runs through the same earning system as above
Requires login
    Site: https://dontkyc.me/scam-kopfgeld

🕵️ Whistleblower Channel

Anonymously report misconduct at a listed service (or the platform itself)
No account, no login required
No IP address or user data is stored by the application
No reply possible (since it's anonymous) — use the forum/messages instead if you want a response
    Site: https://dontkyc.me/whistleblower

All three are linked in the Community menu (desktop) as well as the mobile "More" menu.

Welcome to the forum!

The first thing is that you should complete the website first before you publish your link somewhere. It's because you want people to have a good first impression. As a customer, if I see a service website that is not completed yet, why would I bookmark it or plan to visit it again? The English version should have been your first priority because you want to target global users, including German users.

As for the listed service, I noticed you listed only three mixers so far, and one of them did an exit scam back in early 2024. I am not sure why would you list that mixer on your website directory even though they have been offline for years.

Welcome to the forum!

390 services is a large number. Where did you get your database? Did you test these services, or did you obtain the data from a third party or from publicly available online data? Some services claim to be privacy-focused or that they never ask for IDs, but the reality is different.

On English: understood, and it's planned - just not live yet. Wanted to get the directory itself into reasonable shape first rather than launch two half-finished things at once, but I hear the concern about first impressions.
 
On the mixer: you were right to flag this, and I appreciate it. I looked into it after your post - there's a dedicated thread here on Bitcointalk ("Scam warning - Yomix mixer, turned into an exit scam!") plus independent reporting linking Yomix to Lazarus Group money laundering activity since early 2024. That listing has been removed. It should not have been there with a decent trust score and no mention of any of this - that's on me for not catching it sooner, and exactly the kind of gap I'd want people to keep calling out.

Quote from: Shishir99 on August 27, 2026, 04:01:38 AM

Welcome to the forum!

The first thing is that you should complete the website first before you publish your link somewhere. It's because you want people to have a good first impression. As a customer, if I see a service website that is not completed yet, why would I bookmark it or plan to visit it again? The English version should have been your first priority because you want to target global users, including German users.

As for the listed service, I noticed you listed only three mixers so far, and one of them did an exit scam back in early 2024. I am not sure why would you list that mixer on your website directory even though they have been offline for years.

Quote from: hugeblack on August 27, 2026, 07:17:14 AM

Welcome to the forum!

390 services is a large number. Where did you get your database? Did you test these services, or did you obtain the data from a third party or from publicly available online data? Some services claim to be privacy-focused or that they never ask for IDs, but the reality is different.

Thanks for the questions - fair ones to ask.
 
The listings aren't scraped from a single third-party source. Each entry is researched individually: official terms of service, independent reviews, forum discussions (including here on Bitcointalk), and in some cases direct testing. The KYC level, privacy score, and trust score are meant to reflect what I actually found, not marketing copy.
 
You're right that "privacy-focused" or "never asks for IDs" claims often don't hold up. One concrete example I ran into: a service marketed as No-KYC turned out to require a four-step verification process in practice once you dig into their actual terms. That gap between marketing and reality is exactly why the site tries to score services independently rather than just repeating what they claim about themselves - though I won't pretend every listing is perfect, and I'd genuinely welcome corrections if something's off.

Quote from: Paco4747 on August 29, 2026, 07:55:16 AM

The listings aren't scraped from a single third-party source. Each entry is researched individually: official terms of service, independent reviews, forum discussions (including here on Bitcointalk), and in some cases direct testing. The KYC level, privacy score, and trust score are meant to reflect what I actually found, not marketing copy.

How effective will that be though? Judging from how competitors do their listing, it seems some of them allow users to submit and review the services themselves with proofs. While this might add an extra filter, are you sure doing every listing by yourself will be as quick and accurate as them?

Speaking of rating, I still don't know how you scale the number. The difference between 9 and 10 doesn't seem that clear, even the 10 point service has cons according to you too. Maybe we should change the scoring into something else? For example using standardized cons/pros as a filter. For example, we can group together services that are open sources. Proven to have been audit and keep no log, proven to have no KYC, have popular scams accusations before, and so on. Sorry if I misunderstood, I used an MTL to view your site.

Good questions, and fair ones - let me actually engage with both instead of being defensive.
 
On scalability/accuracy: you're right that pure top-down curation doesn't scale the way a submit-and-verify model does. To be clear about what currently exists: there is a community layer already - users can suggest services, rate listed ones, report problems, and (more recently) flag things anonymously or get compensated for surfacing new scam patterns. But the initial listing and scoring itself is still curated rather than crowd-voted, and that's a real tradeoff, not a solved problem. The honest case for doing it this way at this size: with a few hundred listings, one consistent reviewer produces more comparable results than open submissions would at low volume - a handful of unmoderated "reviews" can be gamed or just wrong in ways that are hard to catch early. Whether that tradeoff still makes sense gets harder to defend as the number of listings grows, and I don't have a clean answer for the point where it stops making sense - that's a fair thing to keep pushing on.
 
On the scoring scale: also fair, and honestly the weaker part of the current design. A 1-10 score invites exactly the question you're asking - what does a 9 mean that a 10 doesn't - without a clean answer, especially once you've read a "10" listing and seen it still has caveats attached. Your suggestion is basically: replace (or supplement) a fuzzy continuous score with binary, checkable claims - open source: yes/no, independently audited: yes/no, no-logs claim actually verified: yes/no, no-KYC claim actually verified: yes/no, past scam allegations: yes/no. That's a stronger foundation than a single number, because each claim is independently falsifiable instead of being bundled into one score that hides which specific thing is weak. There's already a partial version of this on each listing (tags for open source, no registration, non-custodial, etc.) sitting alongside the score - the actual fix is probably leaning harder into that side and being more disciplined about the numeric score instead of treating them as two separate systems. Worth actually reworking rather than just noting for later.

Quote from: joniboini on August 29, 2026, 08:11:38 AM

Quote from: Paco4747 on August 29, 2026, 07:55:16 AM

The listings aren't scraped from a single third-party source. Each entry is researched individually: official terms of service, independent reviews, forum discussions (including here on Bitcointalk), and in some cases direct testing. The KYC level, privacy score, and trust score are meant to reflect what I actually found, not marketing copy.

How effective will that be though? Judging from how competitors do their listing, it seems some of them allow users to submit and review the services themselves with proofs. While this might add an extra filter, are you sure doing every listing by yourself will be as quick and accurate as them?

Speaking of rating, I still don't know how you scale the number. The difference between 9 and 10 doesn't seem that clear, even the 10 point service has cons according to you too. Maybe we should change the scoring into something else? For example using standardized cons/pros as a filter. For example, we can group together services that are open sources. Proven to have been audit and keep no log, proven to have no KYC, have popular scams accusations before, and so on. Sorry if I misunderstood, I used an MTL to view your site.

Quote from: Paco4747 on August 29, 2026, 07:55:16 AM

On the mixer: you were right to flag this, and I appreciate it. I looked into it after your post - there's a dedicated thread here on Bitcointalk ("Scam warning - Yomix mixer, turned into an exit scam!") plus independent reporting linking Yomix to Lazarus Group money laundering activity since early 2024. That listing has been removed. It should not have been there with a decent trust score and no mention of any of this - that's on me for not catching it sooner, and exactly the kind of gap I'd want people to keep calling out.

I see you said that those services were scraped from a single 3rd party services/websites. I am not sure if you meant you have entered them all manually. If you did the research and tested these services personally, you would not have to add Yomix, which has scammed its users back in early 2024. I appreciate that you are taking the criticism and want people to point out your mistakes, but you should be honest with what you tell us.

If you scrape the data from online without doing a real test yourself, then it has no value. I don't think anyone would rely on your service. If I knew someone listed services without checking, I wouldn't use their service. Anyone can create a website and run cron job to scrap the list of services that are available online.

Fair pushback, and I want to be precise here rather than just defend myself.
 
To clarify what I actually said before: not scraped from a single source - each listing is researched individually (official terms, independent reviews, forum threads, sometimes direct testing). That part is true. But your underlying point still stands regardless of the methodology I described: Yomix getting listed with a decent trust score, with a documented 2024 exit-scam thread sitting right here on this forum, is real evidence that the process has a gap - not just a one-off typo I can wave away. If the research were thorough and consistent, that specific case shouldn't have slipped through, full stop.
 
So the honest answer isn't "we do individual research, therefore trust us" - it's individual research happens, but it isn't exhaustive, and quality control right now is more reactive than proactive. Yomix got caught because someone here called it out, not because I found it myself first. That's a real weakness, not a rounding error.
 
What I'd push back on slightly: "if it's not personally tested, it has no value" is a high bar that would rule out basically every review site, not just mine - direct testing of 390 services (deposits, withdrawals, real usage) isn't realistic for one person to do continuously as new services are added and old ones change. The realistic alternative isn't "test everything personally" vs "scrape and have zero value" - it's closing the gap between the two with better verification and, critically, faster correction when something's wrong.
 
Concretely, since this conversation started I've added a couple of things aimed directly at that gap rather than just promising to try harder: an anonymous whistleblower channel for reporting problems without needing an account, and a bounty system that pays out for documenting new scam patterns - both exist because individual curation alone clearly isn't catching everything, and I'd rather build in ways for people to catch what I miss than pretend the list is airtight.

Quote from: Shishir99 on August 29, 2026, 01:20:04 PM

Quote from: Paco4747 on August 29, 2026, 07:55:16 AM

On the mixer: you were right to flag this, and I appreciate it. I looked into it after your post - there's a dedicated thread here on Bitcointalk ("Scam warning - Yomix mixer, turned into an exit scam!") plus independent reporting linking Yomix to Lazarus Group money laundering activity since early 2024. That listing has been removed. It should not have been there with a decent trust score and no mention of any of this - that's on me for not catching it sooner, and exactly the kind of gap I'd want people to keep calling out.

I see you said that those services were scraped from a single 3rd party services/websites. I am not sure if you meant you have entered them all manually. If you did the research and tested these services personally, you would not have to add Yomix, which has scammed its users back in early 2024. I appreciate that you are taking the criticism and want people to point out your mistakes, but you should be honest with what you tell us.

If you scrape the data from online without doing a real test yourself, then it has no value. I don't think anyone would rely on your service. If I knew someone listed services without checking, I wouldn't use their service. Anyone can create a website and run cron job to scrap the list of services that are available online.

Quote from: Paco4747 on August 29, 2026, 01:44:00 PM

What I'd push back on slightly: "if it's not personally tested, it has no value" is a high bar that would rule out basically every review site, not just mine - direct testing of 390 services (deposits, withdrawals, real usage) isn't realistic for one person to do continuously as new services are added and old ones change. The realistic alternative isn't "test everything personally" vs "scrape and have zero value" - it's closing the gap between the two with better verification and, critically, faster correction when something's wrong.
 
Concretely, since this conversation started I've added a couple of things aimed directly at that gap rather than just promising to try harder: an anonymous whistleblower channel for reporting problems without needing an account, and a bounty system that pays out for documenting new scam patterns - both exist because individual curation alone clearly isn't catching everything, and I'd rather build in ways for people to catch what I miss than pretend the list is airtight.

Well, I understand. I didn't know you were the only person behind the project. Handling the entire project alone is not possible if you plan to keep the information updated. Also, you are right about the other fact about the real test. I know most services online never even check the services themself, which is one of the reason people don't believe them.

Think this way: while there are dozens of similar services available, why would people use your service if it does not have anything unique you never test the service yourself? I personally thought that the projects run by individuals probably care more about the victims and the users. 

Appreciate that, and it's a fair question - why use this over any of the dozen similar lists, especially knowing it's basically one person behind it.

Honestly, the answer isn't "trust my personal testing more than theirs" - it's that the project isn't meant to stay purely one-person-curated. A few things exist specifically because a single curator doesn't scale:

- Community earning: people get paid (BTC/ETH) for forum contributions and for submitting new services that get approved - not symbolic, actual small payouts on request.
- Scam bounty: separate, higher payout specifically for documenting new scam patterns - direct answer to the exact problem you raised earlier (Yomix). The incentive is now aligned so people are financially motivated to catch what I miss, instead of it depending on someone happening to post about it.
- Whistleblower channel: anonymous, no account needed, for people who know something about a listed service but wouldn't want to post it under their name.
- Wikipedia-style editing: listings aren't locked to admin-only edits. Anyone can suggest a new service or propose an edit to an existing one (wrong info, outdated details, etc.), and it goes through review rather than sitting in a suggestion box forever.
- Score breakdown with actual voting: trust/privacy scores aren't just a number I assign and forget - registered users can rate a service and upvote/downvote reviews, so the score reflects more than one person's opinion over time, and reviews that people find genuinely useful surface above ones that don't.

So the pitch isn't "I personally verified everything better than the other guy did" - it's that the list is built to be corrected by the people using it, with actual money as an incentive to do that, rather than relying on goodwill alone. Doesn't make it perfect (see: Yomix), but it's a structurally different bet than a static list one person maintains solo.

Quote from: Shishir99 on August 29, 2026, 02:29:43 PM

Quote from: Paco4747 on August 29, 2026, 01:44:00 PM

What I'd push back on slightly: "if it's not personally tested, it has no value" is a high bar that would rule out basically every review site, not just mine - direct testing of 390 services (deposits, withdrawals, real usage) isn't realistic for one person to do continuously as new services are added and old ones change. The realistic alternative isn't "test everything personally" vs "scrape and have zero value" - it's closing the gap between the two with better verification and, critically, faster correction when something's wrong.
 
Concretely, since this conversation started I've added a couple of things aimed directly at that gap rather than just promising to try harder: an anonymous whistleblower channel for reporting problems without needing an account, and a bounty system that pays out for documenting new scam patterns - both exist because individual curation alone clearly isn't catching everything, and I'd rather build in ways for people to catch what I miss than pretend the list is airtight.

Well, I understand. I didn't know you were the only person behind the project. Handling the entire project alone is not possible if you plan to keep the information updated. Also, you are right about the other fact about the real test. I know most services online never even check the services themself, which is one of the reason people don't believe them.

Think this way: while there are dozens of similar services available, why would people use your service if it does not have anything unique you never test the service yourself? I personally thought that the projects run by individuals probably care more about the victims and the users. 

Site is now in english available

Quote from: Paco4747 on August 29, 2026, 07:55:16 AM

The listings aren't scraped from a single third-party source. Each entry is researched individually: official terms of service, independent reviews, forum discussions (including here on Bitcointalk), and in some cases direct testing. The KYC level, privacy score, and trust score are meant to reflect what I actually found, not marketing copy.

Well, I did a quick search for services and found that there are services like ChangeNow hosted at your service with a 0 KYC score. If you search the forum, you will find hundreds of scam cases against them, which will reduce the efficiency of your service.
This is just one of many examples. The quality of these services is the best.

You're right, and I checked this properly instead of just taking your word for it or dismissing it.

Searched Bitcointalk's own Scam Accusations board specifically for ChangeNOW: there's a real, recurring pattern going back years, not just one angry user. Separate threads in 2018, 2021, 2023, and one still ongoing from late 2024 into 2025 - each involving funds held for months (in one case over 7 months) under an AML/KYC pretext, with requirements that keep shifting once you comply with the previous one: first ID, then a video call, then a "dust transaction" from a wallet that turns out to be disabled, then finally being told to obtain a letter from local police confirming you own funds you sent months ago. That's not a one-off support failure, that's a pattern.

So: score lowered from 8 to 5, and the cons list now says plainly what I found - the recurring pattern of held-funds complaints on this forum specifically, and that the advertised "KYC level 0" only holds for normal trades; anything flagged gets escalating verification demands in practice that go well beyond what's advertised. Didn't remove the listing entirely since plenty of normal swaps clearly go through fine and it's still a real, widely used service - but a decent trust score with zero mention of this was wrong, and that's fixed now.

Appreciate you pushing on a specific example instead of a general complaint - much easier to actually check and fix than "your data has no value."

Quote from: hugeblack on August 30, 2026, 08:07:15 AM

Quote from: Paco4747 on August 29, 2026, 07:55:16 AM

The listings aren't scraped from a single third-party source. Each entry is researched individually: official terms of service, independent reviews, forum discussions (including here on Bitcointalk), and in some cases direct testing. The KYC level, privacy score, and trust score are meant to reflect what I actually found, not marketing copy.

Well, I did a quick search for services and found that there are services like ChangeNow hosted at your service with a 0 KYC score. If you search the forum, you will find hundreds of scam cases against them, which will reduce the efficiency of your service.
This is just one of many examples. The quality of these services is the best.

Quote from: Paco4747 on August 29, 2026, 10:10:44 PM

Site is now in english available

It appears not to work properly in some parts [e.g., everything under the Features section, the warning in the Reviews & Comments section, your forum, etc.].

Quote from: Paco4747 on August 30, 2026, 10:52:41 AM

So: score lowered from 8 to 5, and the cons list now says plainly what I found

It's worth noting that it still doesn't reflect on its dedicated forum thread, while those cons are only available in the German version [you might want to automate these things to save yourself some time].
- BTW, you should do the same for its sister sites (e.g., Changelly).

Quote from: Paco4747 on August 30, 2026, 10:52:41 AM

Appreciate you pushing on a specific example instead of a general complaint - much easier to actually check and fix than "your data has no value."

You didn't get my point. database update is still centralized, meaning you changed the KYC level, but the service description remains the same, and you might still get a higher ranking/trust.

What I meant was that there should be multiple ways to update the database, such as incorporating comments from forums or developing an algorithm to identify risks associated with services without requiring the administrator to update each service individually.

In the future, as the number of users increases, voting could be added, but currently, the accuracy of the results is low.

Hi,

We understand how concerning it can be when a transaction takes longer than expected, especially when your funds are involved.

ChangeNOW supports legitimate crypto activity and follows industry security and AML standards. We do not support illegal activity or transactions involving stolen, fraudulent or otherwise illicit funds. These safeguards are in place to protect our clients and the wider crypto ecosystem.

When using ChangeNOW, you agree to our Terms of Use, including our AML/KYC Policy: https://changenow.io/terms-of-use/aml-kyc

We understand that having a transaction placed on hold can be stressful, especially when you know your funds were obtained legitimately. Please be assured that legitimate funds will be either processed or refunded based on the outcome of the review. We know this process can be frustrating and we're doing everything we can to make it as smooth as possible and minimize the inconvenience for our clients.

We understand why this situation may affect your trust, but an AML review is a security measure and should not be taken as evidence that ChangeNOW is a scam.

If you’re referring to a specific transaction or case, please reach out to our support team directly at support@changenow.io and share the relevant details. This will allow us to locate the transaction and look into the situation properly.

We're doing everything we can to resolve the situation.

ChangeNOW