Topic: With these acts, do we still believe in Centralized Exchanges? (Read 282 times)

I agree with you that the best solution to the problem of centralization is to go to decentralization. But this can take a long time for two main reasons:
- First, due to the slow development in the field of decentralized applications, especially trading platforms.
- Secondly, governments and government financial institutions will not be lenient with granting licenses to decentralized platforms, and will always strive to control these platforms within the centralization policy that requires controlling people's savings and spending for various purposes.
On this basis, decentralization will not solve the current problems by itself, especially since users live in (centralized) capitalist systems and their culture is mainly banking. The idea that occurred to me to try to avoid crises caused by centralized platforms is to deal with them as banks are dealt with and work to regulate them, waiting for the pace of development of decentralized platforms to rise so that we can actually abandon those centralized projects.

You already countered this yourself unknowingly.
Using more centralization to check centralization will be disastrous.
The only lasting solution to avoid centralization is decentralization.
It is time high campaigns gears up about decentralized exchanges and then developers putting more efforts to make them user friendly.
Convertion from centralization to decentralization is the only lasting solution.

This is also correct. But since we are able to identify the causes of repeated failure every time, isn't it possible to address those reasons and establish a clear contract that all trading platforms are required to follow and that is stipulated in the activity license? Of course, this can only be done by another central authority that is more powerful and influential than any size that any platform can start or reach one day.
Perhaps, at this stage in our history, we are not ready enough to completely abandon centralized platforms, given that we have what can be compensated for by decentralized platforms or peer-to-peer platforms.
Personally, I never encourage the use of centralized platforms, even licensed ones, since I care about my privacy. But this cannot be an objective treatment of the issue as a whole.
Yes, the central platforms prove their failure, regardless of their size and whatever their reputation. But let's be fair, our overconfidence in these platforms is not the only thing that makes them fail and drown us with them; The absence of oversight may also be one of the most important factors motivating these platforms to act recklessly with user deposits and data, and it may work if their activity becomes subject to more stringent control. Because it simply cannot prevent anyone from launching a platform, and at the same time it cannot prevent all users from trusting those platforms, whether knowingly or unknowingly.
Governments can play an amending role, but at that time we must also think about the means that enable us to impose control on the governments themselves so that they do not transgress, as is the case today with banks.

Sending your coins to a centralized exchange or any custodial service is the same as giving your money to a strange person, that you don't know, and ask him to keep it safe. The only difference, is that with licensed exchanges, there is a slight chance to get some of your money back when the exchange try to pull an exit scam or file a bankruptcy.
Cryptocurrencies started with bitcoin and all bitcoin is about is decentralization and being your own bank. So, better keep it this way and avoid all custodial/centralized services.

That's correct! You have clarified the issues and yet we are pointing same direction although with different methods of explanation. When you look at the two possible reasons exchanges fail that you listed above, you will still understand that it's related to we trusting them more than they should be trusted, otherwise giving them more than they can safeguard.

They got more than they could secure, maybe they attracted hackers because they accepted much and many people uses them as their wallet.

Maybe they could have succeeded if they were trusted based on what they have in their reserve. They designed to service 2 Millon people and suddenly 10 million people signed up

It's huge misconception of everybody, in fact exchange charge too much fee when transferring coins to another wallet unless using those unpopular coin for lesser withdrawal transaction fees.

An alternative would be using a decentralized platform where you don't have to transfer funds to a third party before making trades. Even if you only have low capital you should never keep your funds on an exchange, especially if you don't trade daily. At the end of the day, you'll always face risks, but it is important to reduce them if you can. Keeping your funds on an exchange because you don't want to pay transfer fees is not the best choice imo.

Users with small capital will obviously have no option but to keep their funds in the exchange, but those who trade with high capital should basically keep their funds somewhere else and only transfer them to the exchange when they want to make trades, this way, if something goes wrong with the exchange, they won't lose everything.

I know it's difficult since one will have to pay fees every time for depositing and withdrawing funds from an exchange to wallet and then from wallet to the exchange, but it is at least better than having to lose everything you have.

Of course, yeah, traders should be looking for the most trusted exchange out there. But who can tell, really? Exchanges are only trusted until they aren't. The ones that I mentioned were trusted exchanges, more "reliable than others." They aren't the ones that are more likely to close shop the following day. They are not to be categorized with the likes of YoBit, HitBTC, and others. But look where they are now.


Failed centralized exchanges are of all kinds and sizes. They didn't die because they were trusted with so much. They simply failed; security failures, financial management failures, whatever.

Well, atleast a trader should first look for a reputable exchange which is not closing down tomorrow and sign up. The first test of security is the trustworthiness of the exchange and based on this, all exchanges are not same as some have proven to be reliable than others.


Exchanges are privileged to recieve more than what they can hold or what they should be trusted to hold. They are used for what they are and even more than. That extra stretch causes the major helm

This depends on how you define trust on a centralized exchange.

If you mean centralized exchange can be trusted to hold our coins for long term holdings, this obviously all centralized exchanges can't be trusted regardless how good their reputation, popularity, has a refund policy etc.

But if someone just want to want to use centralized as a marketplace and they're don't care with their privacy, centralized exchange can be trusted for them.

And what are centralized exchanges? They're not primarily a store where you can buy Bitcoin; more than anything else, they're a trading platform. That's what they are meant for. As such, can we "fully rely on them?" If we use them as trading platforms, "for what they are," are we not going to have regrets? I don't think so.

And what choice does an active trader have but to keep his/her funds in the exchange he/she is using. Even if you're not staking, your money will still remain on exchanges if you are actively trading. You can't just pull out your funds every time your order gets filled. You're burning profit that way.

Did the victims of FTX, Mt. Gox, Cryptopia, QuadrigaCX, and many others not "use them for what they are?"

Yes, we can fully rely on them but only for what they are meant for. You can register there, buy bitcoin and send to your non custodial wallet, that is what they are meant for.
You can send from your non custodial wallet to the exchange, convert your bitcoin to fiat, it is what exchanges are meant for.
But they shouldn't be trusted to serve as wallets to us;
They shouldn't be trusted to keep our money for years in the name of staking.
Those are bad ways to use exchanges. Use them for what they are and you will not have regrets.

People have felt too comfortable with CEXs and it doesn't matter if one CEX closes operations because they still have a list of other CEXs to trade with. And I don't think it will be that hard for people to find CEXs to trade and it won't be a big deal for them. Maybe they need to move their funds to another CEX so they can continue trading again and even though it seems like a hassle, they are okay.

It's up to us to keep trusting CEX or move to DEX because we have to find that comfort to trust it. And CEX, which will close its place, will allow its members to move all their funds elsewhere so that there are no complaints from its members.

And what Hotbit experienced could be a reason for them to close the exchange but Hotbit should have foreseen this before they launched the exchange. And only an exchange that has a solid team can survive the intense competition between exchanges and it's not easy to survive.

Binance is currently one of the most reputable centralized exchanges, and practically all of their transactions are in good order. Even yet, they cannot be trusted because no one should be trusted with your bitcoin because they will control it as well as other coins.

Allowing customers to withdraw their coins is a positive sign of trust, because some exchanges will just go bankrupt, taking their users' assets with them. Because Hotbit is a good and renowned exchange, they decided to make this major news because they love their clients and want to resume operations once their issues are resolved.

We don't trust centralized exchanges, but we utilize them as a market to buy our Bitcoins before moving them to our own wallets, where we have the private key.

I'm fine with Binance how they protect their coins and they always do inform users that they are going to change their deposit address and it is their security protocol to avoid the issue in the future.
Unlike other exchanges do not have their own way how to protect customer's funds.

About Hotbit, I trade on their exchange before but almost all coins there are shitcoins they are likely the same as Yobit it is better to close their exchange because there are many complaints about their service like stuck withdrawals until now they don't have the plan to solve this issues.

They don't trust each other and we shouldn't be trusting anybody as well, those operating centralized exchange are humans and humans can be greedy or have another emotions that leads to theft. These exchange make use of multi signature wallets because of extra security and humans can't be trust especially when large sums of money are involved that crimes can be committed without been caught so they can't fully trust each other. No centralized service should even be trusted to the point of leaving our coins on their platforms. Centralized exchange hasn't had a reason to fully rely on them and they can never have any reason for that.

Don't even store your coins on exchanges as that's not the purpose why we have those platforms existing, they're there as a medium to be used for trading and so shall it remain. Infact if you don't have any legitimate reason to us them then don't use them. Make use of the decentralized exchange for your trading. When exchanges allow their users to withdraw then noted that the reason behind that particular exchange shutting down could be as a result of the SEC pressing down on their necks or low trading volumes and since they can't keep up running a business at a lost so they have to shutdown still that doesn't mean they can be trusted. They might only be doing that to keep a clean reputation.

Can you explain what exactly is negative here and why this change of deposit address would be a signal of distrust?
I don't think that CEX exchanges should be trusted indefinitely, even if we are talking about Binance but what you stated is certainly not the reason.


They don't believe anything, it was like that last year. Hack/theft of part of the funds deposited in that exchange, where some of the culprits were employees of Hotbit. Somehow, they managed to continue their work, it is quite possible that this case completely damaged their reputation and credibility.

However, the possibility of withdrawal in the next month is a much better situation than what we had with FTX, where everything was stopped in a short period of time and without notice.

i don't trust the centralized exchanges(CEXs) because that my fund is stored on exchange not me.
i am used to trading on CEXs,and stored my fund on defi wallet or DEX because that the CEXs' experience is better than decentralized exchanges(DEXs).
I hope there will be a type exchange that combine the experience of CEXs and the security and transparence of DEXs.

They're not really trusted just to keep our coins. It's just that they're the most convenient trading platforms. For anybody who trades, they've got no choice but to take the risk and send their money to exchanges.

But does it mean that these centralized exchanges can be "fully relied on?" Of course, not. Can we trust them with our money? Not really. There are risks but, again, for a trader who is looking for volumes, pairs, and others, they don't have much choice.