HTX
Claims the largest protection fund of any exchange we rate — 20,000 BTC — at an address it will not publish. The FCA began proceedings in February 2026.
- Founded
- 2013
- Registered
- Seychelles
- Site
- www.htx.com
The short answer
It publishes a monthly Merkle proof covering liabilities and has done so for over forty consecutive months, which is a genuinely long streak and better discipline than most of this category manages. Nobody is named as attesting it, the reserve ratios sit barely above 100% so there is no buffer, and the 20,000 BTC security reserve it advertises — the largest claimed by anyone in our rating — sits at an address it will not publish. Over $100m was lost across two incidents in 2023 with reimbursement pledged and never independently confirmed.
Key facts
| Former name | Huobi, and the old name still carries most of the search demandas of 27 Sept 2026 |
|---|---|
| Proof of reserves | Monthly Merkle-tree proof covering liabilities, over forty consecutive months — a long streak. It refers to verification by "a third-party audit agency" and names none.as of 14 Jul 2026 |
| Reserve buffer | Ratios hover just above 100%, so there is no meaningful marginas of 14 Jul 2026 |
| Claimed protection fund | 20,000 BTC, described as platform-owned at "an independent address" — which HTX does not publish. The largest fund claimed in our rating and one you cannot verify.as of 14 Jul 2026 |
| 2023 incidents | Over $100m lost across two incidents, reimbursement pledged and never independently confirmedas of 14 Jul 2026 |
| FCA | Began legal proceedings against it in February 2026as of 14 Jul 2026 |
| Liquidity score | 10 out of 10 — the deepest book of any venue in our ratingas of 14 Jul 2026 |
| Effective cost, $10,000 BTC buy (measured by us) | 0.2062%; 0.2165% at $100,000as of 14 Jul 2026 |
| Order-book depth within 0.1% (measured by us) | 92.2 BTCas of 14 Jul 2026 |
A fund you cannot see, and a proof nobody signs
HTX advertises a 20,000 BTC security reserve, the largest protection fund claimed by any venue in our rating, described as platform-owned and held at an independent address. It does not publish the address. The largest claim in the category is therefore also the one you have the least ability to check, and an unverifiable reserve is indistinguishable from an absent one at the moment you would need it.
Its proof of reserves is better than that and still short. It is monthly, it covers liabilities via a Merkle tree, and it has run for over forty consecutive months — a genuinely long streak that most of this category cannot match, and consistency is worth something. But it refers to verification by "a third-party audit agency" without naming one, which leaves the same gap as an unattested proof: you can check the arithmetic, not whether the inputs were complete.
The reserve ratios are the other thing to notice. They hover just above 100%, meaning there is no meaningful buffer — a venue at 100.5% is covered on the day of the snapshot and has nothing spare for the day it is wrong.
The record behind those disclosures is over $100m lost across two incidents in 2023, with reimbursement pledged and never independently confirmed, and the FCA beginning legal proceedings against the company in February 2026. We score custody 3 out of 10.
The deepest book in the rating
HTX scores 10 out of 10 on liquidity, the only venue to do so, and the measurement supports it: 92.2 BTC of depth within 0.1% of best ask, behind only Binance and Kraken in absolute terms but with the strongest overall execution profile across the sizes we tested.
Cost is mid-table rather than cheap. A $10,000 bitcoin buy came to 0.2062% and $100,000 to 0.2165% — roughly twice Binance, OKX and Bybit, and comparable to Bitfinex and Gate.io.
The pattern across this tier of venues is consistent and worth naming: execution quality and custody evidence are close to uncorrelated. The exchange with the deepest book in our rating also has one of the three weakest custody scores, and buying the first does not get you the second.
Incident record
| Date | Type | Amount | Were users made whole? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 Sept 2023 | Hack or exploit | $100,000,000 | Reimbursement was pledged and has never been independently confirmed, across two separate incidents totalling over $100m. That pattern — pledged, unverified — is the most common outcome in exchange history and the reason we ask the question.source |
In our ratings
Compared with
Our coverage of HTX
- How to spot a fake proof of reserves27 Sept 2026
- Bitget loses $351.6m — and the fund it says covers it is one we could not verify25 Sept 2026
- Is Kraken safe? The evidence, and what it lacks25 Sept 2026
- What happens to your coins if an exchange goes bankrupt23 Sept 2026
- Is Coinbase safe? What its own filings say19 Sept 2026
- How to move crypto off an exchange, step by step17 Sept 2026
- Token approvals: the permission that drains wallets15 Sept 2026
- What "not your keys, not your coins" leaves out9 Sept 2026
- The seed phrase mistakes that cost people everything7 Sept 2026
- Hardware wallet or software wallet: how to decide5 Sept 2026
Questions people ask
Is HTX the same as Huobi?
Yes. HTX is the rebranded Huobi, and the former name still carries most of the search demand — the parent topic on "htx exchange" is literally "huobi". Same company, same history, including the 2023 incidents.
Does HTX have a protection fund?
It claims 20,000 BTC, the largest of any venue in our rating, described as held at an independent address that HTX does not publish. An unverifiable fund is indistinguishable from an absent one at the moment you would need to claim against it.
Is HTX proof of reserves trustworthy?
It is monthly, covers liabilities, and has run over forty consecutive months, which is real discipline. It also names no attestor despite referring to "a third-party audit agency", and the ratios sit barely above 100%, so there is no buffer.
Did HTX users get their money back after the 2023 hacks?
Over $100m was lost across two incidents, reimbursement was pledged, and it has never been independently confirmed. That is the most common outcome in exchange history and the reason the recovered column exists in our incident tables.
What changed
- 27 Sept 2026 — Profile published.