BingX: crypto exchanges rating breakdown

Custody of funds: 4/10

Proof-of-reserves: does it exist, who attests it, does it include liabilities (a PoR without liabilities is close to meaningless), how often. Insurance fund: size, is the address public, and has it ever actually paid out. Hack history — and above all whether users were made whole. Licences by jurisdiction, and the enforcement record behind them. Every claim here is sourced to a primary document: a regulator’s register, a court filing, or the venue’s own published proof.

Scored 4 of 10 against a category median of 5, which places it 16th of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 40% weight that is 0.40 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 1.

Real machinery, no independent signature. A monthly Merkle-tree proof that does cover liabilities, with an open-source verification tool so you can check your own balance is inside it — genuinely better than most of this tier. But the monthly snapshots are signed by “the BingX Operation Team”. The page claims data is “verified by authoritative auditors” and names none; the only auditor ever named was a one-off in 2022. A $150m “Shield Fund” — and unusually, it is framed as a genuine incident and theft fund, not a liquidation backstop. The catch: its size and composition are entirely self-asserted. No on-chain address, no proof of funds, no published claims process.

True cost of trading: 10/10

Measured by us, not read off a fee page. We walk the live order book and fill $1,000 / $10,000 / $100,000 of BTC/USDT, then add the venue’s published taker fee. That sum — fee + spread + realised slippage — is the effective cost. Separately: the markup on network withdrawal fees, and the hidden spread inside “convert” / “buy in one click” flows.

Scored 10 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 1st of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 16% weight that is 0.64 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.

Liquidity and execution: 8/10

Order-book depth within ±0.1% and ±0.5% of mid, measured from the live book. Uptime over 12 months from the status page. Behaviour under stress: were there outages on days the market moved more than 5%.

Scored 8 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 5th of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 11% weight that is 0.22 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.

Assets and networks: 7/10

Number of pairs, adjusted for quality: the share of listings delisted within a year. Which networks are actually supported for deposit and withdrawal — not merely “supports USDT”.

Scored 7 of 10 against a category median of 6.5, which places it 11th of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 9% weight that is 0.04 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.

~794 spot pairs across ~772 coins

Fiat on/off ramp: 6/10

Which methods are actually available per country, their fees, and their limits per verification tier — read from the venue’s published terms and cited. Where a venue does not publish this, that opacity is itself the finding, and it scores accordingly.

Scored 6 of 10 against a category median of 5.5, which places it 12th of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 11% weight that is 0.06 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.

EUR via SEPA and SEPA Instant, direct in and out across 33 European countries — free deposits, and a real published withdrawal fee. Every other currency routes through cards or third parties.

KYC and access: 8/10

Verification tiers and their limits, what is genuinely usable without verification, and the country deny-list — from the venue’s published policy, cited. A venue that will not tell you your withdrawal ceiling before you sign up is marked down for it.

Scored 8 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 2nd of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 8% weight that is 0.16 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 1.

Published before sign-up: unverified accounts can withdraw up to 20,000 USDT/24h and cannot trade; verified accounts go to 5,000,000 USDT/24h. United States: The US and its territories are on BingX’s own restricted list; users must warrant they are not a US or Canadian user. European Union: None — application pending with the Austrian FMA. BingX’s own MiCA page (June 2026): “No MiCAR authorisation has been granted at this stage.” The transition closed on 1 July 2026.

Product, API and docs: 5/10

API documentation quality, whether rate limits are documented, whether a public status page with uptime history exists, and the API response latency we measured ourselves while pulling the order book.

Scored 5 of 10 against a category median of 5.5, which places it 15th of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 5% weight that is 0.03 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 4.

Documented API and rate limits, publicly revised. No status page — outages are posted as one-off announcements.