SAIKYO Exchange — scam or not? Reviews explained by facts
In short: the articles contain no proof of fraud — all five publications acknowledge this themselves (“no direct evidence” and “cannot be called fraudulent”). The objections reduce to three facts we do not hide: the domain was registered on 3 May 2026, SAIKYO is not yet on BestChange, and its legal operator is a Kyrgyz partner. The rest consists of errors, copied reviews from other exchangers and “earn money” advertising below the text. Here is each claim and the underlying fact.
Where the reviews came from
Six texts were published from 11 September 2026: tehnoobzor.com (11.09), bitok.blog (12.09), cryptorussia.ru (12.09), bankstoday.net (13.09), easilytrading.ru (14.09) and coinspot.io (14.09) — the latter explicitly says that the service cannot be called fraudulent. The pattern in the others is the same: a young domain plus no Russian licence equals “not recommended”. Several texts contain partner links to exchanges and wallets — these are advertising materials, not independent checks.
Claim → fact
“The site was registered in December 2025, while it claims to have operated since 2021”
The saikyo.exchange domain was registered on 3 May 2026 (public RDAP data). The site has never stated that it has operated since 2021. This “review” is reproduced verbatim across reviews of different exchangers.
“The domain is only a few months old”
True. We state this ourselves on the service facts page. Domain age is a reason to check a service, not proof of fraud: check dated monitoring reviews, reserves and public AML reports.
“It is not on BestChange, only on small monitors”
True: SAIKYO is not currently listed on BestChange. Profiles with review histories are available on Kurs.expert, Change.pro, OKchanger and AntiSwap: {{REVIEWS_TOTAL}} reviews, {{REVIEWS_NEGATIVE}} negative (a live counter, as on /reviews.html). The profiles are maintained by the monitors, not by us.
“There is no legal entity, the owners are anonymous and there is no licence”
The legal information is in sections 7 and 12 of the Rules. The exchange technology is provided by the licensed virtual-asset exchange operator OsOO Coin Market (Kyrgyz Republic), clause 7.1.2. BanksToday describes this correctly and acknowledges that the licence is Kyrgyz.
“There is no separate commission: earnings are hidden in the rate”
Yes, there is no separate commission; revenue is included in the spread. This is how exchangers and BestChange are compared: by rate. The rate is visible before an order is created and can be compared with the market and the Central Bank on our Real USD rate and USDT exchanger-rate pages.
“Liability is limited to the markup: only 1,000 RUB would be returned from 100,000 RUB”
This conflates different sections. Clause 1.8.2 limits liability for indirect losses and lost profit. Refunds for an uncompleted order are governed by section 6: funds are returned to the original details, and a service error does not incur an internal refund fee (clauses 6.4 and 6.7.2).
“Users are forcibly redirected to a third-party Omega Wallet and required to provide a phone number”
An exchange order is created in the SAIKYO account; Omega Wallet is offered as a way to receive funds on the card.
“The card costs 1,500 RUB; genuine cards cost 10,000–20,000 RUB”
Omega Wallet card issuance costs 2,990 RUB on /card.html, with 0 RUB maintenance. The 1,500 RUB figure in the review came from an old banner or was invented; it is not on the current site. Annual price comparisons with competitors are on /omega-wallet-vs-plati-po-miru.html.
“Reserves of 1,500 BTC and 20,000 ETH are unsupported figures”
Reserves are published on /rezervy.html and through /api/reserves in real time; the figures in the review do not match the current values and have no date. Monitoring services do not independently confirm reserves for any exchanger.
“Telegram prices do not match the website”
Rates change in real time; a channel post shows the rate at publication. An order uses the rate shown when it is created in the calculator.
“Real users report delays, hidden fees and silent support”
None of the displayed review authors contacted support with an order number or left a review on a monitoring profile. Five of the 11 reviews below the Tehnoobzor article concern Sona Exchange and Prosto Exchange; the same site published those texts in its 2025 Sona Exchange review. If you had a problematic exchange, send the order number to @saikyosupport so it can be reviewed publicly.
What we acknowledge
The domain is less than six months old; SAIKYO is not on BestChange; the service works through a Kyrgyz partner operator and does not have a Russian licence. We do not ask you to take this on trust: KYC is required, reserves are public, monitoring reviews are public and every AML check has a public verification page.
Check independently
| Check | Link |
|---|---|
| Reviews → monitoring profiles | Reviews |
| Reserves | Reserves |
| Rules, sections 6, 7 and 12 | Rules |
| AML | AML check |
| Rate vs Central Bank | Real USD rate |
| Check any exchanger | Exchanger check |
Open the published pages and check the terms yourself.
Sources
- Tehnoobzor — 11.09.2026
- Coinspot — 14.09.2026
- CryptoRussia — 12.09.2026
- EasilyTrading — 14.09.2026
- Bitok — 12.09.2026 21:38
- BanksToday — 13.09.2026