SWAPD is a trusted middleman service dedicated to offering our users the safest way to buy, sell, or trade items and services of virtual nature. SWAPD opens doors for you to earn and rise to fame in the digital universe by connecting you with vast network of buyers, sellers, and opportunities.
If a seller is unverified, actively selling offsite for months, and not banned until a buyer engages, why punish the buyer too? It feels unfair to penalize buyers acting in good faith when the root issue lies with the seller violating the rules and the platform allowing him to operate.
In my case, the seller claimed SWAPD rejected his ID and suggested (http://escrow.com/) as an alternative. I repeatedly asked him to verify so we could start a checkout, but seeing him actively selling for months made me believe it was safe enough to proceed. Ultimately, no offsite purchase was made on (http://escrow.com/), as I was still cautious and unsure about moving forward.
Here’s the irony, the warning I received didn’t say buyers would be punished, only to be cautious and aware that SWAPD wouldn’t help if something went wrong. If SWAPD’s intent was to penalize buyers in such cases, the warning should have been explicit, but it wasn’t. The seller was allowed to stay active, selling unverified accounts for months, yet the buyer is penalized for engaging.
I assume all those DC, MC members who sold offsite and their buyers, unaware they’d be punished, had their accounts terminated, while I got lucky because I was VIP. How does it make sense to punish buyers who sustain SWAPD’s environment?
If non-verified users weren’t allowed to post selling services, this issue wouldn’t arise. This inconsistency cost me my VIP badge despite acting in good faith. Now, I’ll need to buy a Premium membership because the main feature I liked about VIP seeing the links to accounts is gone.
You lost your VIP badge because you broke SWAPD’s rules—period.
Unverified Sellers: SWAPD warns buyers to stay away from them. Their activity doesn’t make them trustworthy, and engaging with them is your responsibility.
Offsite Transactions: Even discussing escrow.com breaks the rules. Whether you completed the deal or not doesn’t matter—you entertained it, and that’s enough.
VIP Accountability: As a VIP, you’re held to higher standards. Breaking rules means harsher consequences, no exceptions.
The rules are clear. Unverified sellers and offsite deals are off-limits. You didn’t follow them, so you faced the penalty. End of story.
In addition to what Mafia said, your VIP badge acted as a shield Preventing you from being banned. Keep your account in a good standing for 30-60 days and you can reapply for VIP.
You’re missing key points from my message and are only partially correct.
Unverified Sellers Allowed to Operate:
The core issue is that SWAPD allows unverified users to sell, creating risks for buyers. If unverified users weren’t permitted to sell, this situation wouldn’t arise.
Punishing Unaware Buyers is Unfair:
In most contexts, it’s the seller, not the buyer, held accountable. For example, in the offline world, sellers violating regulations face penalties, while buyers are rarely punished unless acting maliciously.
Higher Standards for VIPs:
I understand VIPs are held to higher standards, but there’s no clear rule saying buyers engaging in good faith with unverified sellers will face punishment. The warning only advises caution, not explicit penalties for buyers.
It’s as simple as that, if I felt I was wrong, I wouldn’t have bothered creating this thread. The reality is that the loopholes in SWAPD’s system led to my VIP removal, not deliberate rule breaking on my part.
Loopholes or not, the rules are clear—you engaged with an unverified seller and discussed offsite transactions. That’s a violation, period. As a VIP, you’re held to higher standards, and it’s your responsibility to follow the rules, not blame the system. You lost your VIP because of your actions, not SWAPD’s “loopholes.”
That said, SWAPD does allow you to reapply for VIP if you keep your account in good standing for 30-60 days.
Your reply overlooks critical details about my case. The seller wasn’t unverified just once, they repeatedly posted over 10 times in a single day and had been engaging for over a month without termination. If I hadn’t engaged with him, he could still be actively selling unverified today. My engagement ultimately helped get him terminated. Should I be punished for exposing a seller violating SWAPD’s rules?
Additionally, I deliberately told the seller I wouldn’t buy offsite and insisted on completing the transaction on SWAPD. I sent a checkout ticket, but it was denied because he wasn’t verified. I repeatedly asked him to verify, but he said SWAPD was rejecting his ID and he suggested Escrow.com as an alternative. Knowing Escrow.com is highly trusted, and believing he had no other option, I thought it was fine under the circumstances.
My actions were in good faith, and I followed the rules to the best of my understanding. The issue lies in SWAPD allowing unverified users to engage and sell for extended periods. If these loopholes didn’t exist, this situation wouldn’t have occurred.
Ironically, I fully supported this post when it was first shared (Fair Warning to Our High-Tier Members (DC/MC/Partners) – We Know!). It was clear that members(sellers) taking buyers offsite to sell their services were violating the platform’s integrity. Yet, those members despite repeated violations received only warnings. In my case, however, I was punished immediately. Insane.
Can you comprehend that? As a buyer, I faced harsher consequences than sellers exploiting loopholes, even though I acted in good faith. From my understanding, many of these DC, MC members walked freely with warnings, while their buyers were terminated. How is it fair to punish buyers, who are mostly unaware of these loopholes, when it’s the sellers who should be held accountable?
This is my final message here and I will not want to reply to any further, but anyone is free to drop opinions as I will keep this thread open.
I think this is an overreaction. I’ve consistently pointed out - but it often goes unnoticed - that unverified users should not be allowed to create threads. Since you can’t open a checkout ticket without verification, allowing unverified users to post sales topics doesn’t make sense. The counterargument has been, “Maybe a new seller wants to gauge interest in what they’re offering,” but this doesn’t justify the significant fraud and offsite communication issues that have occurred on Swapd. Scammers often exploit this by listing something incredibly enticing, like offering a $1k Twitter username claim when competitors price it at $12k, then pretending to be naive to lure buyers into offsite communication. A buyer, tempted by the opportunity, takes the risk and ends up losing $1k or more—all because an unverified user was allowed to post a sales thread.
In your situation, it appears you made a genuine effort to keep the transaction on Swapd and only agreed to switch to Escrow because the user seemed to have an established history of selling for months. Additionally, your decision was influenced by a misunderstanding of the buyer terms, which was compounded by the absence of a clear warning message.
Regardless, @Swapd has stated that you can reapply in 30 days. He’s in charge, and the rules are the rules. When you create an account, you agree to abide by them, and ignorance to the rules isn’t a valid excuse—just like in real life. Take this as a warning and a reminder to review the rules so you can have a smoother experience moving forward.
p.s. Don’t listen to @Mafia. He campaigned for Kamala Harris.
Preventing you from being banned. Keep your account in a good standing for 30-60 days and you can reapply for VIP.