Reviewing a centralised exchange means separating what can be verified from a primary source from what is only the operator's own claim. The framework below is the one applied on this site, and it deliberately withholds a score where the evidence is incomplete rather than filling the gap with marketing.
Operating entity and jurisdiction
Identify the legal entity that holds the money, not the brand on the homepage. A single consumer-facing name often sits above several entities in different jurisdictions, and which one a user contracts with decides which rules and which courts apply.
Registration, not "regulation"
- Confirm any licence or registration number on the regulator's own register, not on the exchange's marketing page.
- A registration for anti-money-laundering supervision is not the same as authorisation to hold client assets. Treat them separately.
Custody and proof of reserves
Ask where assets are held and whether the venue publishes a proof-of-reserves attestation. A reserves snapshot without a matching account of liabilities shows only one side of the ledger and is not proof of solvency.
Security and incident history
Look for a documented incident history and how past failures were handled. An exchange that has disclosed and remediated an incident is more legible than one with no public record at all.
What we withhold
Where fees, regulatory status or security claims cannot be checked against a primary source, this review marks them provider-reported and holds back any rating. An unverifiable claim is reported as unverifiable, not repeated as fact.
This review is informational and is not financial, investment, or trading advice.
