How to read these grades: each is derived from published, checkable disclosures — proof-of-reserves attestations, public regulatory registers, disclosed insurance funds and the documented incident record — using the weighted rubric below. Where an exchange does not disclose something, we mark it unverified rather than assume it. These are not audits and not investment advice; they reflect what was published as of our last review.
Bitget
Bitget publishes a monthly open-source Merkle-tree proof of reserves showing BTC at 138% and ETH at 181%, and cites a protection fund its own sources size differently; ASIC issued an investor alert in July 2025 over unlicensed high-leverage derivatives.
BySafety DeskSenior Exchange Safety Editor
Our Bitget review
Bitget is the second-highest grade we publish, a B+, on the strength of a reserve proof anyone can audit and a licence list nobody can. The gap between those two is the whole review.
What checks out
Monthly Merkle-tree proof of reserves is published open-source on GitHub, showing BTC reserves at 138%, ETH at 181%, USDC at 107% and USDT at 101%. Publishing the tooling alongside the numbers is the part that matters: it means the figures are testable rather than merely stated. We found no confirmed major security incident.
Where the evidence stops
The regulatory picture is a list without identifiers. Bitget cites an AUSTRAC registration, El Salvador CNAD and BSP licences, Argentine CNV and Mexican SAT registrations, a UK FCA Section 21 approver partnership and a Swiss FINMA SRO membership — none with registration numbers we could check against a public register. Its own corporate registration is cited variously as Seychelles, Lithuania or New Zealand depending on the source. On 28 July 2025 ASIC issued a public investor alert over unlicensed crypto derivatives sold to Australian retail clients at up to 125x leverage, noting that Bitget holds no Australian Financial Services licence. The protection fund is disclosed but sized inconsistently across its own sources — $630m in one, 6,500 BTC implemented in December 2022 in another — so no single figure is confirmed. The cold/hot storage split is not disclosed; multi-signature cold storage is described, but not quantified.
How to read the grade
Bitget shows its reserves better than almost anyone here and its paperwork worse than most. A B+ says the money appears to be there; it does not say who you would turn to if it stopped being.
Grade breakdown
Every KripZen grade comes from the same five weighted checks. Here is how Bitget scores on each.
- Proof of reservesWeight 30%
Monthly open-source Merkle-tree proof of reserves published on GitHub, showing BTC reserves at 138%, ETH at 181%, USDC at 107% and USDT at 101%.
What this means → meets this factor - CustodyWeight 25%
Uses multi-signature cold storage, but the cold/hot storage split is not disclosed and we could not confirm it from a primary source.
What this means → partial or unverified - RegulationWeight 20%
Lists an AUSTRAC registration, El Salvador CNAD/BSP licences, Argentine CNV and Mexican SAT registrations, a UK FCA Section 21 approver partnership and a Swiss FINMA SRO membership, without registration numbers we could check against public registers. ASIC issued a public investor alert on 28 July 2025 over unlicensed crypto derivatives sold to Australian retail clients at up to 125x leverage, noting Bitget holds no Australian Financial Services licence; its own corporate registration is cited variously as Seychelles, Lithuania or New Zealand.
What this means → partial or unverified - InsuranceWeight 15%
A protection fund is disclosed but sized inconsistently across sources — $630m in one, 6,500 BTC (implemented December 2022) in another — so no single figure is confirmed.
partial or unverified - Incident historyWeight 10%
No confirmed major security incident found in our research.
meets this factor