Advertise on KripZen — put your brand in front of a global crypto audience.Get in touch →

← Back to Safety Scores

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.

C

dYdX

dYdX is a non-custodial perpetuals protocol where balances stay in user-controlled wallets and an on-chain insurance fund is financed by a 1% liquidation fee; it holds no exchange licence in any jurisdiction, and a March 2024 attack cost roughly $9m, about 40% of the v3 insurance fund at the time.

2.7/5
Safety grade

BySafety DeskSenior Exchange Safety Editor

Our dYdX review

dYdX is the only venue here that never holds your money, and the only one with no exchange licence anywhere. Those are the same fact seen from two sides, and the C is what our rubric returns for it.

What checks out

dYdX is a non-custodial perpetuals protocol: balances stay in wallets you control and are verifiable directly on-chain, so no reserve attestation is needed and there is no hot/cold split to disclose. Those are the two heaviest factors on our rubric, and dYdX passes both by architecture rather than by policy — a design where the failure mode of a custodian simply does not apply.

Where the evidence stops

It holds no exchange licence in any jurisdiction. The v4 protocol runs on its own Cosmos SDK chain under community governance, supported by dYdX Trading Inc. in San Francisco and the dYdX Foundation in Zug. U.S. and Canadian users are blocked at the interface layer rather than by any licensed entity — which is a technical restriction, not a supervised one. Under our methodology a failed regulation factor caps the grade at C however well a venue scores elsewhere, and that cap is exactly what is happening here. The on-chain insurance fund is financed by a 1% fee on liquidations and is verifiable on-chain, but no balance is disclosed; a March 2024 attack consumed roughly 40% of the v3 fund, and a March 2025 DAO vote moved $10m USDC out of it to cover operating expenses. That attack cost around $9m on 5 March 2024. Separately, a deposit-proxy vulnerability was exploited by a white hat to rescue about $2m before attackers reached it. One of our two sources recorded no confirmed incident at all.

How to read the grade

The custody risk you take at every other venue on this site is absent here, and it is replaced by smart-contract and governance risk, with nobody licensed to answer for either. That trade is the decision, not the letter.

Grade breakdown

Every KripZen grade comes from the same five weighted checks. Here is how dYdX scores on each.

  • Proof of reservesWeight 30%

    Non-custodial: balances stay in user-controlled wallets and are verifiable directly on-chain, so no reserve attestation is needed.

    What this means → meets this factor
  • CustodyWeight 25%

    Non-custodial protocol — it never takes custody of user funds, so there is no hot/cold split to disclose.

    What this means → meets this factor
  • RegulationWeight 20%

    Holds no exchange licence in any jurisdiction; the v4 protocol runs on its own Cosmos SDK chain under community governance, supported by dYdX Trading Inc. in San Francisco and the dYdX Foundation in Zug. U.S. and Canadian users are blocked at the interface layer rather than by any licensed entity.

    What this means → does not meet this factor
  • InsuranceWeight 15%

    An on-chain insurance fund financed by a 1% fee on liquidations, verifiable on-chain but with no disclosed balance; a March 2024 attack consumed roughly 40% of the v3 fund, and a March 2025 DAO vote moved $10m USDC out of it to cover operating expenses.

    partial or unverified
  • Incident historyWeight 10%

    Roughly $9m lost in a targeted attack on 5 March 2024, about 40% of the v3 insurance fund at the time; separately, a deposit-proxy vulnerability was exploited by a white hat to rescue about $2m before attackers reached it. One of our two sources recorded no confirmed incident.

    partial or unverified

Other exchanges we've graded

A-KrakenKraken holds a Wyoming SPDI charter, CFTC and SEC registrations and two EU MiCA authorisations, and has published Merkle-tree proof of reserves verified by Armanino LLP since February 2022; it discloses no insurance-fund figure.B-BinanceBinance publishes a self-attested proof-of-reserves page and a $1bn SAFU user-protection fund, which covered the May 2019 hot-wallet theft of about 7,000 BTC in full; it settled U.S. Bank Secrecy Act and sanctions charges for $4.3bn in November 2023 and remains under a five-year DOJ compliance monitorship.B+BitgetBitget 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.B-BybitBybit publishes monthly Merkle-tree proof of reserves audited by Hacken OU and holds a partial EU MiCA licence in Austria; it stayed solvent after the February 2025 theft of roughly $1.46–1.5bn — the largest exchange hack on record — replenishing reserves in full within 72 hours.BCoinbaseCoinbase is a publicly traded, SEC-reporting U.S. company licensed in 45 states and holding a New York BitLicense, and the SEC's 2023 case against it was dismissed with prejudice in February 2025; it runs no crypto-specific proof-of-reserves programme and its last disclosed crime-insurance figure dates from 2019.B-Crypto.comCrypto.com discloses more than $870m of insurance cover, had its SEC investigation closed with no action in March 2025 and holds a Malta MiCA authorisation; its proof-of-reserves position is contested between our sources, and it reimbursed all users after a January 2022 incident that drained about $34–35m from 483 accounts.