Case file · Exchange
Majestic Bank
A no-account Monero/Bitcoin swapper that was genuinely no-KYC - until it shut down in July 2025, the anonymous operator became unreachable, and some users were left with unpaid refunds. Listed as a warning.
The systematized overview
The bureau vs the internet.
1.0/10 · No-KYC (defunct)
It really was no-KYC - no account, no ID, no AML trap - and that is almost beside the point. In July 2025 Majestic Bank shut down with a 30-day refund promise, paid some refunds that day, then the anonymous operator became unreachable, and multiple users report pending refunds never returned. We classify it defunct - a custodial no-account swapper that shut down with user funds outstanding. Do not send funds.
2 recurring praises · 3 recurring gripes
Most praised: genuinely private and no-kyc while it operated. Most cited downside: shut down and left users with unpaid refunds.
We track our editorial score and community sentiment separately — neither moves the other. Read together, they're the systematized overview.
The facts
Custody & jurisdiction.
- Jurisdiction
- Anonymous operator; nominal Seychelles (.sc); no verifiable entity
- Custody
- Custodial during the swap - it held funds (and then went dark)
- Escrow
- None - operator-controlled liquidity
- Traded
- Was Bitcoin, Monero, Litecoin, Lightning + fiat cash
- Fiat rails
- Operated its own liquidity (custodial)
- Payment methods
- n/a (defunct)
- Payment privacy
- Was Monero-native with a Tor mirror
- Disputes
- None - refunds were manual via Telegram/email; unanswered after shutdown
- KYC trigger
- None (no ID ever) - but the operator disappeared with funds
- Open source
- No
- Audited
- No proof-of-reserves or audit
- Operating since
- Operated ~2021-2022 to July 2025 (defunct)
The full read
Our analysis, in plain words.
Majestic Bank is in this directory as a warning, not a recommendation. On the axis we usually care about most, it was genuinely excellent: a no-account, no-ID instant swapper, Monero-native with a Tor mirror, that never ran an AML trap and did not even require KYC for refunds. The reference no-KYC directory rated its privacy 96/100.
It failed on the other axis. Majestic Bank was custodial - it held your funds during a swap - and in July 2025 it announced an abrupt shutdown with a 30-day refund promise. It paid some refunds that day, then the anonymous operator became unreachable, and multiple users report pending refunds still unpaid. Intent is contested: the shutdown notice framed it as the honest end of a "Monero mission," and one community theory floated an arrest or raid - so we do not assert a deliberate exit scam. What is sourced is the outcome - a custodial operator that shut down with user funds outstanding and went quiet. There had been warning signs, a 2022 Dread alert and a 2023 outage, though both were resolved at the time and the service ran on until 2025.
The takeaway is the core of our reliability thesis: a flawless no-KYC policy is worthless if the operator can vanish with your deposit. Privacy and solvency are separate risks. Majestic Bank aced the first and failed the second catastrophically, which is why - despite a near-perfect privacy score - its overall verdict is capped at the bottom of our scale. Do not send it funds.
The score, broken down
How the 1.0 is built.
Privacy
weight 50%What identity, data and metadata the service can demand or collect.
90 × 50% = 4.5 of 10
Trust
weight 30%Whether it can technically deliver what it claims — code, audits, age.
8 × 30% = 0.2 of 10
Reliability
weight 20%Whether the no-KYC claim holds under real-world pressure.
0 × 20% = 0.0 of 10
Weighted score was 4.7 — a reliability rule capped it to 1.0. See the rubric →
Every point, sourced
What earned the score.
The fine print, read for you
The clause they bury.
“MajesticBank admin has not been seen online since the service shut down; many users still have pending refunds and have been left unanswered.”
What it meansThis is the failure mode the whole bureau exists to warn about - not an ID trap, but a custodial no-account swapper that held funds during swaps. When it shut down in July 2025 it paid some refunds, then the anonymous operator became unreachable, leaving users with pending orders no account, no entity and no recourse. We do not assert a deliberate exit scam - intent is unproven and contested - but genuine no-KYC is worthless if the operator can shut down with your deposit outstanding.
Read the source →None - it never required an account or ID, and even refunds needed no KYC. That is exactly why it is a cautionary tale: a flawless no-KYC policy did nothing to protect users when the custodial operator shut down and stopped answering. Identity privacy and solvency are different risks; this service aced the first and failed the second catastrophically.
Policy review — point by point
-
No-KYC policy was genuine
No account or ID was ever required, and refunds did not require KYC - the privacy posture was real while it operated. ↗
-
Operator became unreachable, refunds outstanding
After the July 2025 shutdown the anonymous admin paid some refunds, then became unreachable; multiple users report refunds still unpaid. The directory flagged it "scam until further updates." ↗
-
Custodial with no reserves proof
It held funds during swaps on its own liquidity, with no proof-of-reserves or audit to backstop solvency. ↗
There was never a verifiable legal entity - only an anonymous operator and a Seychelles country-code domain that establishes no real domicile. That is precisely why users had no recourse when it collapsed: no company to pursue, no jurisdiction to complain to, and an admin who could (and did) simply stop replying.
We keep watching
Incident & policy timeline.
- Aug 2022
Early exit-scam warning (later resumed)
The admin wiped its Dread forum presence and Dread staff urged users to avoid it, citing reports of unpaid funds. The service then resumed and operated for roughly three more years - a warning sign that resolved at the time but aged badly.
source ↗ - Mar 2023
Outage and temporary delisting (resolved)
The site went down during a claimed upgrade; users could not reach it after sending funds. The reference no-KYC directory delisted it pending clarification, then relisted it two weeks later once it was back up.
source ↗ - Jul 2025
Shutdown; some refunds paid, then operator unreachable
Majestic Bank announced an immediate shutdown with a 30-day refund promise and paid some refunds that day; the anonymous admin then became unreachable, and multiple users report pending refunds still unpaid. The reference directory flagged it "scam until further updates" on 28 July 2025. Its own notice framed the closure as the end of a "Monero mission," so intent is contested.
source ↗
The verdict
Where it stands.
Strengths
- Its no-KYC policy was genuine while it operated (no account, no ID, no AML trap)
- Strong payment privacy: Monero-native with a Tor mirror
Trade-offs
- Shut down in July 2025 and left some users with unpaid refunds
- Anonymous operator became unreachable; no entity, no recourse
- Custodial during swaps with no proof-of-reserves or audit
- A 2022 exit-scam warning and a 2023 outage (both resolved at the time) foreshadowed the collapse
Across the internet
What reviewers report.
Consistently praised
- Genuinely private and no-KYC while it operated
- Monero-native, trusted in privacy circles at its peak
Recurring complaints
- Shut down and left users with unpaid refunds
- Operator unreachable after the collapse
- Slow, unresponsive support even before the end
Historically moderate trust in Monero circles (it sponsored ecosystem projects), now destroyed: flagged ("scam until further updates") by the community no-KYC directory after the July 2025 shutdown. We classify it defunct/avoid. Synthesized from kycnot.me and Monero Observer reporting.
Ask the bureau
Majestic Bank, common questions.
Is Majestic Bank safe to use?
No. Do not send it funds. Majestic Bank shut down in July 2025, paid some refunds, then the anonymous operator stopped responding, and multiple users report pending refunds unpaid. The reference no-KYC directory flagged it ("scam until further updates"); on the evidence we classify it defunct/avoid. We list it only as a warning.
But wasn’t it genuinely no-KYC?
Yes - and that is the lesson. It never required an account or ID, and refunds needed no KYC. None of that mattered when the custodial operator vanished with user funds. A perfect no-KYC policy is no protection against an operator who can simply disappear.
Your exact case not covered? The live Ask the bureau answers it and turns it into a public FAQ.