So, you’ve deposited some cryptocurrency onto an exchange. You expect that these funds will be held in your name as a liability, with safeguards in place to make sure that you can withdraw them when you wish.
However, this is not necessarily the case.
Sitting down with Magazine, Simon Dixon, CEO of global online investment platform BnkToTheFuture, warns that the murky lines between regulations in the crypto industry mean that customers must be extremely cautious about where they stash their crypto.
“[The cryptocurrency industry] was created by businesses that want to build financial institutions, and robust financial history has shown that if you leave them to their own devices, they won’t respect client money.”
Take FTX for example. Dixon notes that former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried allegedly treated customer funds as if they were his own, tipping billions into Alameda Research.
“FTX would use those assets for their sister company hedge fund and then find themselves in a position where the hedge fund had lost all of their money,” Dixon says, emphasizing that this led to there being no assets for clients to withdraw.
Dixon has invested more than $1 billion in “over 100” different crypto companies, including Kraken and Ripple Labs. One of the projects BnkToTheFuture raised money for turned out to be one of the biggest crypto disasters in recent times: bankrupt crypto lending platform Celsius.
Before its collapse in July 2022, Celsius was allegedly using money from new customers to pay off attractive yields promised to other existing customers. He says Celsius caught investors and customers off guard by treating their client money “as if it were their own.”
Crypto opponents like United States Representative Brad Sherman characterized this behavior as endemic to the cryptocurrency ecosystem:
During the #SBF saga, I said the supporters of #crypto will say that Sam Bankman-Fried was just one snake in a crypto Garden of Eden. But in reality, crypto was a Garden of Snakes.
— Congressman Brad Sherman (@BradSherman) July 13, 2023
So, what are all the other crypto exchanges actually doing with your money? Even if they’re not outright frauds, can you trust exchanges to safeguard your funds?
There are hundreds of crypto exchanges across the globe, spanning from more trustworthy to outright fraudulent.
Crypto market tracker CoinMarketCap tracks 227 of these exchanges, which among them have an approximate 24-hour trading volume in July of around $181 billion (if you ignore accusations of rampant wash trading).
Adrian Przelozny, CEO of Australian crypto exchange Independent Reserve, tells Magazine that consumers should “always be mindful” of the distinction between the business model of an exchange versus a broker.
An exchange usually keeps its customers’ assets directly in its own storage. This means they can’t really use those assets to make extra profit for themselves. Przelozny explains that Independent Reserve has enough liquidity on the platform so that when you place an order on the exchange “you are trading against another customer.”
On the flip side, brokers may entail counterparty risks to other exchanges by holding customers’ crypto assets on the exchange to earn some extra money.
This helps the broker rake in more funds, but it also puts the customer at risk. Przelozny emphasizes that brokers cannot earn a return using clients’ assets without taking a risk.
He warns that with a brokerage-type business model, when you place an order, that platform has to essentially run off in the background to acquire the asset you want.
“The platform has to get the liquidity from another exchange, so they place the order on behalf of the customer and then that customer is actually exposed to counterparty risk.”
A counterparty risk is when there is a chance that another party involved in a contract might not hold up their end of the deal. It gets riskier when a broker keeps customer funds or assets on another exchange because if that exchange goes bust, the customer assets could go down the drain as well.
It’s a word that would probably send shivers down the spines of the executives at Australian-based crypto broker Digital Surge, which found itself in hot water right after FTX went down.
The Australia-based broker went into administration after it had transferred $23.4 million worth of its assets to FTX, just two weeks before the whole collapse happened in November 2022.
Digital Surge managed to pull off a lucky escape with a bailout plan; however, it did involve directors Daniel Rutter and Josh Lehman personally chucking $1 million into the mix.
Crypto lender BlockFi and crypto exchange Genesis weren’t so lucky: Both ended up filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy due to being exposed to the FTX mess.
#Genesis was an institutional crypto lending platform for other crypto lenders so here are the publicly disclosed Chapter 11 creditors. Expect #Gemini to file Chapter 11 with $765m exposure. Also listed is #Abra $30m & #Ripio $27m. Full disclosure I am a shareholder in Abra. pic.twitter.com/xkFlNaZGrP
So, while an exchange has fewer avenues to generate profits compared to a broker, it prioritizes the safety of funds.
Dixon explains that if a crypto broker is storing client assets on another exchange, such as Binance, for example, the broker should be transparent with the client that “if anything were to go wrong” with Binance, the assets would be hard to retrieve.
In the case of the crypto exchange side of BnkToTheFuture, Dixon makes it clear that as a “registered virtual asset service provider,” it has to have disaster recovery, and all clients’ assets need to be distributable at all times, even if the parent company “goes down.”
“We actually can’t use [client assets] in any way shape or form as per our [securities] registration,” Dixon says.
He explains that a securities registration holds an exchange to a higher standard, as it sets policies in place that need to be tested against them regularly.
A securities registration basically requires an exchange to hold those assets and maintain comprehensive records verifying the customer as the real owner of those assets, as well as the exchange being subject to regulatory inspections.
Coinbase’s and Binance’s recent legal troubles with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission stem from allegations of operating as unlicensed securities exchanges, meaning both weren’t held to the recordkeeping and safeguard requirements that a license would mandate.
What happens after I deposit funds into a crypto exchange?
In the exchange model, where users trade directly with one another, it’s like a one-on-one deal. When your digital asset order is executed, your money goes straight to the person you’re buying from. The assets stay within the exchange throughout the whole transaction.
When it comes to a brokerage-type model, you’re buying the asset from the broker directly.
So, the money goes into the broker’s trust account first. Then, the broker takes that money and uses it to acquire the assets you want. Essentially, they’re playing matchmaker between your money and assets. The asset is then generally held on another exchange.
Regardless of whether your assets are hanging out on the exchange where you bought them, or with a counterparty linked to the broker you used, they will call home either a hot wallet or a cold wallet.
Hugh Brooks, director of security operations at crypto audit firm CertiK, explains to Magazine that most major exchanges “store customer assets in a combination of hot and cold wallets.”
A hot wallet is a cryptocurrency wallet that is connected to the internet and allows for quick transactions. On the other hand, a cold wallet is stored offline, is secure and keeps your crypto safe from hackers.
While having 100% of customer assets in a cold wallet would be ideal for safety reasons, it is not feasible for liquidity reasons. Brooks says:
“While hot wallets provide convenience in terms of easy and fast transactions, they are also more susceptible to potential security threats, such as hacking due to their internet connection. Hence, exchanges usually keep only a fraction of their total assets in hot wallets to facilitate daily trading volume.”
Przelozny says that, in the case of Independent Reserve, “98% is held offline in a cold storage vault” managed by the exchange, and the rest is in a “hot wallet in the exchange.”
James Elia, general manager of exchange CoinJar, tells Magazine that his exchange similarly keeps the “vast majority” of assets in cold storage “or private multisig wallets” and maintains full currency reserves at all times.
He says that CoinJar uses a mix of “multisig cold and hot wallets through BitGo and Fireblocks to store customer funds.”
Crypto.com is unusual in that it offers customers both a custodial and noncustodial option.
“The Crypto.com DeFi Wallet is a noncustodial option,” a spokesman says in comments to Magazine. This means its customers have full control of their private keys. Meanwhile, the Crypto.com App is a digital currency brokerage “that acts as a custodian” and stores cryptocurrencies for customers. The spokesperson says that its crypto assets are “safely held in institutional grade reserve accounts and are fully backed 1:1.”
Further solutions
However, relying solely on accounts that claim to be secure is no longer sufficient in the unpredictable world of crypto.
In line with many other major crypto exchanges, such as Binance, Gemini, Coinbase, Bittrex, Independent Reserve, CoinJar and Kraken, Crypto.com has also adopted a self-custody infrastructure platform called Fireblocks.
Fireblocks focuses on ensuring the exchange securely stores and manages customers’ digital assets in an advanced and secure way. The firm utilizes multi-party technology computation (MPC technology), which is similar to a multisig wallet and is never held or created in a single place.
While the infrastructure custody platform doesn’t hold any assets itself, which remain on the exchange, it can incorporate features such as multisignature authentication and encryption into the exchange. This is done to minimize the risk of fraud, misuse of funds and malicious attacks.
It also makes it a lot harder for a sneaky employee to authorize a dodgy transaction or, even worse, drain customer assets out of the exchange.
Shane Verner, director of sales for Australia and New Zealand for Fireblocks, tells Magazine that initially, Fireblocks will shard the exchange’s crypto wallet private keys into three parts.
A wallet’s private key is similar to a password or a PIN and is a combination of letters and numbers serving as the sole requirement to sign transactions and manage digital assets.
On the other hand, a wallet’s public key is the address you give for people to send you crypto, like a bank BSB and account number.
One shard of the private key is given to the exchange, while Fireblocks safeguards the other two shards in encrypted hardware in geographically discrete data centers. Essentially, it involves splitting the secret code into three pieces and hiding each piece in a different spot.
Every large transaction on a crypto exchange integrated then requires the three shards to come together to approve the transaction.
The three shards only unite when the exchange fulfills the obligations set out by Fireblocks for the transaction approval process. Verner says this is the “most critical” part of the integration.
Dixon says this manages risk in a “much better way,” as Fireblocks allows exchanges to “write rules into transactions.”
An example of these rules is the exchange setting a required number of employees to sign off on transactions. This can be modified as the customer list grows.
For example, let’s say the exchange used to allow three employees to sign off on transactions of $10,000 and above but then decide that isn’t enough, and they increase the requirement to five employees. The number of employees required to approve a particular transaction depends on the size of the transaction.
Within exchanges, there are then employees assigned with the task of manually approving large transactions. Verner explains that the number of employees in the various “quorums” increases in proportion to the size of the transaction.
“They all register their face ID on their mobile phone. They all put in their authorization code as well. So, it’s two-factor, and everything gets approved,” Verner says.
“Then that goes into the Fireblocks infrastructure, where our two shards have been told that they can come together and authorize the transaction,” he further explains.
While pointing out that every exchange is different, he says that small transactions up to a certain amount of money can automatically go through and do not require human approval.
“It’s entirely at the discretion of the exchange in question, but it’s critical,” says Verner, adding, “They might say every transaction between $100 and $1,000 is automatic.”
The limits imposed by exchanges vary depending on their specific demographic. Exchanges catered to retail investors are going to have lower limits because it wouldn’t expect to see many $10,000+ transfers.
However, if you start sending large amounts, you may find yourself attracting more attention than you anticipated.
The larger the amount, the greater the number of approvals required. For example, for $1 million worth of Bitcoin, you may need a quorum of eight to 10 authorized approvers within the business to enable that transaction.
“If one says no, they all say no,” Verner says.
“Effectively, really big amounts are always going to require human intervention because you don’t want somebody taking $1 million off their exchange without a bunch of approvers within your organization approving.”
Fox in the henhouse
Verner warns that none of the above security matters mean anything if a crook runs the exchange.
If the head of an exchange is “prepared to corrupt the governance layer,” then all the security measures put in place become essentially useless.
He runs through a simple example of a dubious CEO controlling all the authorizers in the quorum, and then doing as they please. In such a scenario, the CEO can act freely to his own desires.
In the case of FTX, Bankman-Fried allegedly demanded that his co-founder Gary Wang create a hidden way for his trading firm Alameda to borrow $65 billion of client funds from the exchange without anyone knowing.
In November last year, Bankman-Fried was called before Congress to testify about the exchange’s collapse. (C-SPAN)
Wang allegedly sneaked in a single number into millions of lines of code for the exchange. This sly move created a line of credit from FTX to Alameda without customers ever giving their consent to such an arrangement.
To avoid foul play from someone on the inside, many exchanges are putting more security measures in place as the industry matures.
Elia says that all CoinJar employees must pass a criminal background check before joining the company and are required to take part in ongoing security and Anti-Money Laundering training.
He says that “multilevel data encryption, ongoing security audits and institutional-grade organization security to protect customer accounts” are also employed. CoinJar also uses “advanced machine learning” to recognize suspicious logins, account takeovers and financial fraud.
How do you conduct due diligence on an exchange?
The phrase “do your own research” has become somewhat of a rallying cry in the crypto space when it comes to investment, and many believe the same should apply for choosing your exchange.
Przelozny emphasizes that consumers should always research any exchange before depositing funds and not “expect others” to do due diligence for them.
The United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission advises on its website that you should look to see if the crypto exchange actually has a physical address.
Most countries now require cryptocurrency exchanges to obtain licenses, with regulators providing public info on digital currency exchange license requirements and providing databases of registered entities.
Users can also check social media and independent review websites (not the exchange itself) to see what customers are saying.
Przelozny says that customers should scrutinize the terms and conditions of the exchange meticulously, paying close attention to anything that suggests the exchange will earn a yield on clients’ assets, as that means the exchange has “every right” to do that.
He adds that investors should not flock to an exchange just because their “favorite athlete” is promoting it. The $1-billion lawsuit taken against influencers who promoted FTX and failed to disclose compensation should serve as a cautionary tale.
Kim Kardashian settled a lawsuit for $1.26 million for promoting an unregistered security on Instagram.(Going Concern)
Dixon similarly advises investors not to get sucked in by the advertising or marketing schemes and instead focus on the fundamentals.
“I think affiliate marketing and financial products should never be combined,” Dixon says, noting he does not sign up influencers or celebrities to promote BnkToTheFuture or online shills. “We won’t actively incentivize people to talk about our business because they’ll get it wrong, and they’ll get us in trouble.”
That said, Dixon finds that authentic word of mouth between friends and family remains an incredibly powerful means of establishing trust in exchanges.
Dixon explains that while there may be uncertainty about how exchanges handle consumer funds, the situation is not fundamentally different from traditional banks: “I think if the banks were doing their jobs, when you deposit the money with the bank, [it would be disclosed that] you’re not the legal owner of the money.”
The banks “can leverage it up and put it at risk,” Dixon emphasizes and warns that there is little disclosure from the banks saying they “may need to go to the FDIC to get a bailout” if the loans go bad.
“I think those are probably buried in the terms and conditions, but I don’t think they’ve given a good user experience to let consumers know that, actually, there’s quite a lot of risk in your bank account.”
Subscribe
The most engaging reads in blockchain. Delivered once a
week.
Ciaran Lyons
Ciaran Lyons is an Australian crypto journalist. He’s also a standup comedian and has been a radio and TV presenter on Triple J, SBS and The Project.
Major US cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase is expanding payment options in Poland by integrating with one of the country’s most widely used mobile payment systems.
Coinbase has partnered with European payment processor PPro to enable payments via Blik, a popular Polish mobile payment network with nearly 20 million users.
The announcement was made by Coinbase executive and NFT Paris co-founder Côme Prost, who joined the exchange in February 2024 to lead its French operations.
“Improving local payment rails is a key focus for us,” Prost said in a LinkedIn post on Wednesday, highlighting the importance of simple, fast and familiar payment options in driving crypto adoption.
Coinbase holds MiCA licence as Poland struggles to pass crypto bill
Coinbase’s local expansion comes as Poland struggles to pass cryptocurrency legislation amid political divisions. Last week, the Polish government reintroduced an identical version of a strict crypto bill that had been vetoed by President Karol Nawrocki just weeks earlier.
“It has been a pleasure working with the team at Coinbase to launch Blik on their platform to enable Polish customers to access Crypto,” PPro executive Tom Benson wrote in a LinkedIn post on Wednesday.
He added that he was confident the partnership with Coinbase would deepen in 2026 as the company adds more local payment methods and expands collaboration across additional areas.
Poland’s crypto adoption booming despite lagging local regulation
Crypto adoption in Poland has surged despite slow-moving local legislation, with the country emerging as one of the leaders in Chainalysis’ 2025 European Crypto Adoption report.
Poland is the only EU member state without a functioning national legal framework to enforce the MiCA regulation, even though the framework applies even without formal implementation.
Poland ranks eighth in Europe by total crypto received, according to Chainalysis’ 2025 European Crypto Adoption report. Source: Chainalysis
Following the president’s veto of the government’s bill, Poland is indeed the only EU member state without any step toward implementation,” Juan Ignacio Ibañez, a member of the Technical Committee of the MiCA Crypto Alliance, told Cointelegraph recently.
“Not every country has a single implementation law,” he added, pointing to Germany and France, which have specific laws, while other member states, such as Spain and Luxembourg, rely on amendments to existing financial legislation.
Ibañez noted, however, that a lag in implementation does not mean all countries are equally advanced, nor does it imply that Poland is more hostile to crypto. Hungary, for example, has implemented MiCA with additional regulations that are “more unfriendly to crypto asset service providers than Poland,” he added.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission’s Trading and Markets Division on Wednesday laid out how broker-dealers can custody tokenized stocks and bonds under existing customer protection rules, signaling that blockchain-based crypto asset securities will be slotted into traditional securities safeguards rather than treated as a new category.
The division said it would not object to broker-dealers deeming themselves in possession of crypto asset securities under existing customer protection rules, as long as they meet a set of operational, security and governance conditions. This applies only to crypto securities, including tokenized stocks or bonds.
While the statement is not a rule, it provides clarity on how US regulators expect tokenized securities to fit within traditional market safeguards.
The guidance suggests that tokenized securities are not treated as a new asset class with unique rules. Instead, they are being placed into existing broker-dealer frameworks, even if they settle within blockchain networks.
TradFi on a blockchain: Tokenized securities’ custody rules
At the core of the statement is Rule 15c3-3, the regulator’s consumer protection rule. This requires broker-dealers to maintain control or physical possession of fully paid customer securities.
The division said that crypto asset securities recorded in blockchains may satisfy the “physical possession” requirements under certain circumstances. This means broker-dealers must retain exclusive control over the private keys used to access and transfer the assets.
Despite being on a blockchain, customers and third parties, including affiliates, should not have the ability to move the security without the authorization of the broker.
The statement draws a clear boundary between tokenized securities and crypto-native self-custody models. It prioritizes customer protection over crypto’s permissionless ethos.
Broker-dealers are expected to prepare for scenarios like 51% attacks, hard forks, airdrops and other disruptions. They must also maintain plans that account for seizure, freezing or transfer restrictions under lawful orders.
The guidance reinforces that, regardless of the technologies used to issue or settle tokenized stocks or bonds, they are expected to behave like securities first.
In a separate statement issued the same day, SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce highlighted the trading-side challenges that remain for crypto asset securities.
Peirce raised questions focusing on national securities exchanges and alternative trading systems that facilitate trading crypto asset securities, including pairs where one asset is a security and the other is not.
The questions reflect growing pressure to settle blockchain-based assets with market-structure rules originally designed for traditional equities.
Peirce’s request raises whether existing frameworks and related disclosures and reporting requirements impose costs that outweigh their benefits when applied to crypto trading platforms.
The statements come as crypto platforms and trading institutions have increasingly begun to tokenize securities.
On Nov. 30, Nasdaq’s head of digital assets strategy, Matt Savarese, said the exchange plans to move fast on tokenized stocks. He said the exchange plans to work with the SEC as quickly as possible to make the feature available in the trading platform.
On Tuesday, Securitize, which focuses on tokenizing securities, announced that it plans to launch compliant, onchain trading for tokenized stocks. The company said that it will be presented in a swap-style interface familiar to decentralized finance (DeFi) users.
Teachers will be trained to spot early signs of misogyny in boys and steer them away from it as part of the government’s long-awaited strategy to tackle violence against women and girls (VAWG).
Sir Keir Starmer warned “too often toxic ideas are taking hold early and going unchallenged”, with more than 40% of young men said to hold a positive view of misogynistic influencer Andrew Tate.
He has been challenged about his ideology in the past and called the concerns “garbage”.
Sir Keir’s government will formally unveil a £20m package of measures today, with £16m coming from the taxpayer and £4m from philanthropists and partners.
Teachers will also get specialist training on how to talk to pupils about issues like consent and the dangers of sharing intimate images – and all secondary school pupils in England will be taught about healthy relationships.
Such lessons will be mandatory by the end of this parliament in 2029, with schools to be chosen for a pilot scheme in 2026, which experts will be brought in to deliver.
And an online helpline will be set up for teenagers with concerns about their own behaviour in relationships.
The measures are part of the government’s strategy to halve VAWG in a decade, and the prime minister said it’s a “responsibility we owe to the next generation”.
“Every parent should be able to trust that their daughter is safe at school, online and in her relationships,” he said.
“This government is stepping in sooner – backing teachers, calling out misogyny, and intervening when warning signs appear – to stop harm before it starts.”
Image: The PM says ‘toxic’ attitudes are going unchallenged in schools. Pic: Reuters
Department for Education-commissioned research found 70% of secondary school teachers surveyed said their school had actively dealt with sexual violence and/or harassment between children.
VAWG minister Jess Phillips told Sky News political editor Beth Rigbyshe had spoken to her own children about what’s normal sexual behaviour and what isn’t because she knows “what they might be exposed to”.
She said if the government does nothing to intervene, VAWG could double rather than be halved.
The government has already announced several other measures to tackle VAWG this week, including introducing specialist rape and sexual offences investigators to every police force, better support for survivors in the NHS, and a £19m funding boost for councils to provide safe housing for domestic abuse survivors.
Investment ‘falls short’
But Dame Nicole Jacobs, the domestic abuse commissioner for England and Wales, said the commitments “do not go far enough” and schools are overburdened already.
“Today’s strategy rightly recognises the scale of this challenge and the need to address the misogynistic attitudes that underpin it, but the level of investment to achieve this falls seriously short,” she said.
Claire Waxman, the incoming victims commissioner, added: “Victim services are not an optional extra to this strategy – they must be the backbone of it.
“Without clear, sustainable investment and cross-government leadership, I am concerned we run the risk of the strategy amounting to less than the sum of its parts; a wish list of tactical measures rather than a bold, unifying strategic framework.”