WhiteBIT: crypto exchanges rating breakdown

Custody of funds: 6/10

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

It did the right thing, then stopped. WhiteBIT’s proof of reserves is attested by a named third-party firm, covers liabilities, and showed strong over-collateralisation. The problem is the date: the most recent report we could find is from November 2024 — roughly twenty months old. A proof of reserves is a photograph, not a portrait. One this old tells you where the money was, not where it is. A $30m insurance fund is quoted everywhere — and on no WhiteBIT page we could reach. With no primary source, we do not report it.

True cost of trading: 9/10

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 9 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 12th of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 16% weight that is 0.48 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.

Liquidity and execution: 7/10

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 7 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 9th of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 11% weight that is 0.11 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.

Assets and networks: 6/10

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 6 of 10 against a category median of 6.5, which places it 15th of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 9% weight that is 0.04 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.

~788 spot pairs across ~337 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, both ways, with a published fee schedule. It holds a real EU licence to do it.

KYC and access: 4/10

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 4 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 21st of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 8% weight that is 0.16 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 1.

The verification process is documented, but no per-tier withdrawal limits are published by WhiteBIT itself. United States: The US and its territories are on WhiteBIT’s restricted list. A “WhiteBIT US” entity exists but is pre-launch and holds no funds. European Union: MiCA CASP — FMA (Austria). Verified in the ESMA register: WB-Shields Innovations GmbH, trading as “WhiteBIT EU”, authorised 18 June 2026, passported to 28 EEA states. The licence covers whitebit.eu, not the global platform.

Product, API and docs: 8/10

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 8 of 10 against a category median of 5.5, which places it 3rd of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 5% weight that is 0.13 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 4.

Documented API, and one of the very few status pages here that publishes real uptime — 99.99% frontend, 100% public API over 45 days.