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.
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published a crypto wallet and custody guide investor bulletin on Friday, outlining best practices and common risks of different forms of crypto storage for the investing public.
The SEC’s bulletin lists the benefits and risks of different methods of crypto custody, including self-custody versus allowing a third-party to hold digital assets on behalf of the investor.
If investors choose third-party custody, they should understand the custodian’s policies, including whether it “rehypothecates” the assets held in custody by lending them out or if the service provider is commingling client assets in a single pool instead of holding the crypto in segregated customer accounts.
The Bitcoin supply broken down by the type of custodial arrangement. Source: River
Crypto wallet types were also outlined in the SEC guide, which broke down the pros and cons of hot wallets, which are connected to the internet, and offline storage in cold wallets.
Hot wallets carry the risk of hacking and other cybersecurity threats, according to the SEC, while cold wallets carry the risk of permanent loss if the offline storage fails, a storage device is stolen, or the private keys are compromised.
The SEC’s crypto custody guide highlights the sweeping regulatory change at the agency, which was hostile to digital assets and the crypto industry under former SEC Chairman Gary Gensler’s leadership.
The crypto community celebrates the SEC guide as a transformational change in the agency
“The same agency that spent years trying to kill the industry is now teaching people how to use it,” Truth For the Commoner (TFTC) said in response to the SEC’s crypto custody guide.
The SEC is providing “huge value” to crypto investors by educating prospective crypto holders about custody and best practices, according to Jake Claver, the CEO of Digital Ascension Group, a company that provides services to family offices.
SEC regulators published the guide one day after SEC Chair Paul Atkins said that the legacy financial system is moving onchain.
On Thursday, the SEC gave the green light to the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC), a clearing and settlement company, to begin tokenizing financial assets, including equities, exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and government debt securities.
Greens leader Zack Polanski has rejected claims his party would push for open borders on immigration, telling Sky News it is “not a pragmatic” solution for a world in “turmoil”.
Mr Polanski distanced himself from his party’s “long-range vision” for open borders, saying it was not in his party’s manifesto and was an “attack line used by opponents” to question his credibility.
It came as Mr Polanski, who has overseen a spike in support in the polls to double figures, refused to apologise over controversial comments he made about care workers on BBC Question Time that were criticised across the political spectrum.
Mr Polanski was speaking to Sky News earlier this week while in Calais, where he joined volunteers and charities to witness how French police handle the arrival of migrants in the town that is used as a departure point for those wanting to make the journey to the UK.
He told Sky News he had made the journey to the French town – once home to the “Jungle” refugee camp before it was demolished in 2016 – to tackle “misinformation” about migration and to make the case for a “compassionate, fair and managed response” to the small boats crisis.
He said that “no manifesto ever said anything about open borders” and that the Greens had never stood at a general election advocating for them.
“Clearly when the world is in political turmoil and we have deep inequality, that is not a situation we can move to right now,” he said.
More on Green Party
Related Topics:
“That would also involve massive international agreements and cooperation. That clearly is not a pragmatic conversation to have right now. And very often the government try to push that attack line to make us look not pragmatic.”
The party’s manifesto last year did not mention open borders, but it did call for an end to the “hostile environment”, more safe and legal routes and for the Home Office to be abolished and replaced with a department of migration.
Asked why the policy of minimal restrictions on migration had been attributed to his party, Mr Polanski said open borders was part of a “long-range vision of what society could look like if there was a Green government and if we’d had a long time to fix some of the systemic problems”.
‘We should recognise the contribution migrants make’
Mr Polanski, who was elected Green Party leader in September and has been compared to Nigel Farage over his populist economic policies, said his position was one of a “fair and managed” migration system – although he did not specify whether that included a cap on numbers.
He acknowledged that there needed to be a “separate conversation” about economic migration but that he did not believe any person who boarded a small boat was in a “good situation”.
While Mr Polanski stressed that he believed asylum seekers should be able to work in Britain and pay taxes, he also said he believed in the need to train British workers in sectors such as care, where one in five are foreign nationals.
Asked what his proposals for a fair and managed migration system looked like, and whether he supported a cap on numbers, Mr Polanski said: “We have 100,000 vacancies in the National Health Service. One in five care workers in the care sector are foreign nationals.
Image: Zack Polanski speaks to Sky News from a warehouse in Calais where charities and organisations provide migrants with essentials.
“Now, of course, that is both British workers and we should be training British workers, but we should recognise the contribution that migrants and people who come over here make.”
I’m not going to apologise’
Mr Polanski also responded to the criticism he attracted over his comments about care workers on Question Time last week, where he told the audience: “I don’t know about you, but I don’t particularly want to wipe someone’s bum” – before adding: “I’m very grateful for the people who do this work.”
His comments have been criticised by a number of Labour MPs, including Wes Streeting, the health secretary, who said: “Social care isn’t just ‘wiping someone’s bum’. It is a hard, rewarding, skilled professional job.
Asked whether he could understand why some care workers might feel he had talked down to them, the Greens leader replied: “I care deeply about care workers. When I made those comments, it’s important to give a full context. I said ‘I’m very grateful to people who do this important work’ and absolutely repeat that it’s vital work.”
“Of course, it is not part of the whole job, and I never pretended it was part of the whole job.”
Mr Polanski said he “totally” rejected the suggestion that he had denigrated the role of care workers in the eyes of the public and said his remarks were made in the context of a “hostile Question Time” where he had “three right-wing panellists shouting at me”.
Pressed on whether he wanted to apologise, he replied: “I’m not going to apologise for being really clear that I’m really grateful to the people who do this really vital work. And yes, we should be paying them properly, too.”
A group of crypto organizations has pushed back on Citadel Securities’ request that the Securities and Exchange Commission tighten regulations on decentralized finance when it comes to tokenized stocks.
Andreessen Horowitz, the Uniswap Foundation, along with crypto lobby groups the DeFi Education Fund and The Digital Chamber, among others, said they wanted “to correct several factual mischaracterizations and misleading statements” in a letter to the SEC on Friday.
The group was responding to a letter from Citadel earlier this month, which urged the SEC not to give DeFi platforms “broad exemptive relief” for offering trading of tokenized US equities, arguing they could likely be defined as an “exchange” or “broker-dealer” regulated under securities laws.
“Citadel’s letter rests on a flawed analysis of the securities laws that attempts to extend SEC registration requirements to essentially any entity with even the most tangential connection to a DeFi transaction,” the group said.
The group added they shared Citadel’s aims of investor protection and market integrity, but disagreed “that achieving these goals always necessitates registration as traditional SEC intermediaries and cannot, in certain circumstances, be met through thoughtfully designed onchain markets.”
Citadel’s ask would be impractical, group says
The group argued that regulating decentralized platforms under securities laws “would be impracticable given their functions” and could capture a broad range of onchain activities that aren’t usually considered as offering exchange services.
The letter also took aim at Citadel’s characterization that autonomous software was an intermediary, arguing it can’t be a “‘middleman’ in a financial transaction because it is not a person capable of exercising independent discretion or judgment.”
“DeFi technology is a new innovation that was designed to address market risks and resiliency in a different way than traditional financial systems do, and DeFi protects investors in ways that traditional finance cannot,” the group argued.
In its letter, Citadel had argued that the SEC giving the green light to tokenized shares on DeFi “would create two separate regulatory regimes for the trading of the same security” and would undermine “the ‘technology-neutral’ approach taken by the Exchange Act.”
Citadel argued that exempting DeFi platforms from securities laws could harm investors, as the platforms wouldn’t have protections such as venue transparency, market surveillance and volatility controls, among others.
The letter initially drew considerable backlash, with Blockchain Association CEO Summer Mersinger saying Citadel’s stance was an “overbroad and unworkable approach.”
The letters come as the SEC looks for feedback on how it should approach regulating tokenized stocks, and agency chair Paul Atkins has said that the US financial system could embrace tokenization in a “couple of years.”
Tokenization has exploded in popularity this year, but NYDIG warned on Friday that assets moving onchain won’t immediately be of great benefit to the crypto market until regulations allow them to more deeply integrate with DeFi.