The year 2022 saw a historic breakdown of trust in exchanges and other crypto service providers. The collapses of Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried’s FTX and Alex Mashinsky’s Celsius are still fresh in the community’s memory, with SBF’s criminal trial only recently concluding. These cases serve as a painful reminder that fraud and bad business practices can happen in corporations of any size and that crypto, as a nascent industry, is especially susceptible. A sleek website, high trading volume or primetime television ads are no guarantee that a customer’s savings will be safe.
To advance the industry, it is imperative to set new standards for centralized third-party service providers in crypto. To this end, a new report from Cointelegraph Research surveyed nine major crypto exchanges — Binance, Bit2Me, Bitfinex, Bitstamp, Bybit, Coinbase, HTX, Kraken and OKX — and compared them with a particular focus on consumer and funds protection.
The report analyzed whether companies are located in a tax haven or a pro-customer jurisdiction, the transparency of their corporate finances, and how they ensure the user’s assets are secure and well-handled. These considerations are especially relevant for risk-averse individuals and businesses — those willing to compromise on fees and trading volume to ensure that the funds they hold on an exchange have all possible protections.
Some jurisdictions — often those notorious for being tax havens — offer companies leeway to do less for consumer protection and regulatory compliance. This ranges from the safekeeping of personal data to responsible risk disclosure. All other things being equal, it can sometimes be a red flag if an exchange seeks out a less regulated environment. The map below presents how safe the customer is in some of the most popular jurisdictions among centralized exchanges.
Based on the analysis, Bit2Me and Kraken stand out in all the categories examined. They are both headquartered in jurisdictions with strong customer protection regulations and have credible third-party proof-of-reserve audits and payment infrastructure. Besides, they provide extensive risk disclosure to their consumers through their interfaces.
To achieve true mass adoption, crypto needs to be brought into regulatory frameworks. This doesn’t mean giving up on the principles of decentralization and privacy but instead finding a balance where these principles can coexist with legal and financial safeguards.
Regulatory clarity and compliance, especially those directed to protect customers, would increase trust among potential users and open opportunities for institutional investors and businesses to enter the crypto space. The crypto community should strive to create an ecosystem where the benefits of crypto are accessible to everyone while minimizing the risks of fraud, money laundering and bad business practices that might put personal cryptocurrency savings in jeopardy.
The opinions expressed in this article are for general informational purposes only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual or on any specific security or investment product.
Cointelegraph does not endorse the content of this article nor any product mentioned herein. Readers should do their own research before taking any action related to any product or company mentioned and carry full responsibility for their decisions.
The Bank of England is worried that a rise in financiers’ lending to data center lending may cause an AI bubble reminiscent of the dot-com crash in the early 2000s.
A reference to China being an “enemy” of the UK was removed from key evidence for a collapsed spy trial in 2023 as it “did not reflect government policy” under the Conservatives at the time, according to the national security adviser.
In the letter published by parliament’s Joint Committee on National Security Strategy earlier on Friday, National Security Adviser (NSA) Jonathan Powell said Counter Terror Police and the Crown Prosecution Service were aware of the change made by Deputy National Security Adviser (DSNA) Matt Collins.
This would mean the CPS knew the “enemy” reference had been removed before charging the two suspects, according to Mr Powell.
In another letter published on Friday, the director of public prosecutions (DPP) Stephen Parkinson told the committee that it took DSNA Mr Collins more than a year to confirm to prosecutors he would not say China posed a threat to UK national security in court.
The DPP said a High Court judge ruled in June last year that an “enemy” under law is a state which “presently poses an active threat to the UK’s national security”, prompting the CPS to ask the DNSA whether China fulfilled that criteria.
He added prosecutors did not believe there would be “any difficulty in obtaining evidence” from Mr Collins that China was a national security threat, but added: “This was a sticking point that could not be overcome.”
More on China
Related Topics:
Mr Parkinson added that the DNSA’s “unwillingness” to describe China as an active or current threat was “fatal to the case” because Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry’s defence teams would have been entitled to call him as a witness.
The DPP added: “This factor is compounded by the fact that drafts of the first witness statement, reviewed by us in July 2025, showed that references to China being an ‘enemy’ or ‘possible enemy’ had been deleted.
“Those drafts would probably have been disclosable to the defence.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:38
What do we know about the China spy case?
A final draft of Mr Collins’ statement was sent to then-prime minister Rishi Sunak in December 2023, Mr Powell’s letter said.
“Drafts of a statement provided to DNSA included the term ‘enemy’ but he removed this term from the final draft as it did not reflect government policy,” the letter reads.
It comes amid a political row over the collapse of the prosecution of Christopher Berry and Christopher Cash last month, who were accused of conducting espionage for China.
Both individuals vehemently deny the claims.
Because the CPS was pursuing charges under the Official Secrets Act 1911, prosecutors would have had to show the defendants were acting for an “enemy”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:09
China spy row: Witness statements explained
DPP Mr Parkinson has come under pressure to provide a fuller explanation for the abandonment of the case.
He has blamed insufficient evidence being provided by the government that Beijing represented a threat to the UK at the time of the alleged offences.
The Conservatives have accused Sir Keir Starmer of letting the case collapse, but Labour has said there was nothing more it could have done.
The current government has insisted ministers did not intervene in the case or attempt to make representations to ensure the strength of evidence, for fear of interfering with the course of justice.
Image: Sir Keir Starmer met Chinese premier Xi Jingping in November 2024. Pic: PA
The DNSA and DPP will face questions from the parliamentary committee on Monday afternoon.
The current attorney general, Lord Hermer, and the chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, Darren Jones, will be questioned on Wednesday.
The PM’s spokesman reiterated the government’s position that “what is relevant in a criminal case of this nature is the government’s position at the time of the alleged offences”.