Exchanges / MEXC
30-second risk check: MEXC
MEXCRisk Rating and Review
mexc.com · Official site verified ↗Likely contracting entity: MEXC Trading Platform (legal operator not disclosed in current terms)Operator disclosure gap
Entity and licence perimeter · High Risk
Cexvia rates MEXC High Risk at 54/100.
For Not stated in the current core terms users, the mapped entity is MEXC Trading Platform (legal operator not disclosed in current terms) under Operator disclosure gap. Its strongest area is Operations & user protection; the main observed concern is Corporate transparency.
Cexvia Exchange Risk Rating0 critical · 100 stronger evidence
MEXC54High Risk
Corporat28Regulato34Security62Regulatory & legal standing34Corporate transparency28Asset & solvency transparency66Security & incident history62Operations & user protection77
Across five rated dimensions, Operations & user protection scores highest at 77/100, while Corporate transparency scores lowest at 28/100.
- 01
MEXC is represented by 1 published legal or operator record. Each record is assessed separately because regulatory scope, products and customer protections vary by entity and region.
Selected: XX / MEXC Trading Platform (legal operator not disclosed in current terms) · Verified 2026-07-27
Overall score54High Risk
Dimensions covered5 / 5
Regional Legal Entity Map
The brand does not define the regulatory perimeter.
MEXC is represented by 1 published legal or operator record. Company registration, an active authorisation, a pending application and an operator-disclosure gap are not treated as equivalent evidence.
RegionContracting entityRegulatory recordScopeStatusChecked
What these records can establish
- Named legal entity and jurisdiction
- Permitted or registered activities
- Current public-record status at the verification date
What these records do not prove
- Protection against all asset loss
- Global coverage for every user or product
- Complete solvency or future regulatory status
Regulatory & legal standingPrimary evidence
34score / 100Weight 25% · Confidence 58%
Published entities and regional permissions are assessed separately; unverified scope is not presented as one global licence.
- Entities checked individually
- Scope kept separate
- Registration is not a full licence
Score contribution0.1 / 25
Why this score
Evidence highlightsEntities checked individually · Scope kept separate · Registration is not a full licence
Observed limitationPublished entities and regional permissions are assessed separately; unverified scope is not presented as one global licence.
Missing or limited evidencePrimary evidence
1 source records · Reviewed 2026-07-27Corporate transparencyPrimary evidence
28score / 100Weight 15% · Confidence 58%
Entity, product and operator disclosure quality is assessed directly; private consolidated financial information is often limited.
- Entity disclosure scored
- Product scope checked
- Private financials often limited
Score contribution0.0 / 15
Why this score
Evidence highlightsEntity disclosure scored · Product scope checked · Private financials often limited
Observed limitationEntity, product and operator disclosure quality is assessed directly; private consolidated financial information is often limited.
Missing or limited evidencePrimary evidence
1 source records · Reviewed 2026-07-27Asset & solvency transparencyLimited coverage
66score / 100Weight 20% · Confidence 74%
Reserve disclosures are treated as evidence about specified assets and dates, not proof of complete liabilities or group solvency.
- Reserve source connected
- Liabilities need review
- Solvency not inferred
Score contribution0.1 / 20
Why this score
Evidence highlightsReserve source connected · Liabilities need review · Solvency not inferred
Observed limitationReserve disclosures are treated as evidence about specified assets and dates, not proof of complete liabilities or group solvency.
Missing or limited evidenceLimited coverage
1 source records · Reviewed 2026-07-27Security & incident historyPrimary evidence
62score / 100Weight 15% · Confidence 64%
Verified historical incidents remain in the record alongside remediation and current account-security controls.
- History retained
- Remediation recorded separately
- Current controls do not erase incidents
Score contribution0.1 / 15
Why this score
Evidence highlightsHistory retained · Remediation recorded separately · Current controls do not erase incidents
Observed limitationVerified historical incidents remain in the record alongside remediation and current account-security controls.
Missing or limited evidencePrimary evidence
1 source records · Reviewed 2026-07-27Operations & user protectionPrimary evidence
77score / 100Weight 25% · Confidence 59%
Official status or notice channels are connected. Missing real-time coverage is reflected in confidence and is not treated as normal operation. Complaint evidence remains limited and is not treated as proof of safety.
- Official channel connected
- Asset status is time-sensitive
- Anonymous reviews excluded
- Market data connected
Score contribution0.2 / 25
Why this score
Evidence highlightsOfficial channel connected · Asset status is time-sensitive · Anonymous reviews excluded · Market data connected
Observed limitationOfficial status or notice channels are connected. Missing real-time coverage is reflected in confidence and is not treated as normal operation. Complaint evidence remains limited and is not treated as proof of safety.
Missing or limited evidencePrimary evidence
3 source records · Reviewed 2026-07-27Risk Drivers and Data Gaps
What moves the rating—and what remains uncertain.
Missing evidence is reported separately. It lowers coverage or confidence and is not automatically scored as a negative fact.
Key rating drivers
Operations & user protection
770.2 weightedOfficial status or notice channels are connected. Missing real-time coverage is reflected in confidence and is not treated as normal operation. Complaint evidence remains limited and is not treated as proof of safety.
Asset & solvency transparency
660.1 weightedReserve disclosures are treated as evidence about specified assets and dates, not proof of complete liabilities or group solvency.
Security & incident history
620.1 weightedVerified historical incidents remain in the record alongside remediation and current account-security controls.
Regulatory & legal standing
340.1 weightedPublished entities and regional permissions are assessed separately; unverified scope is not presented as one global licence.
Corporate transparency
280.0 weightedEntity, product and operator disclosure quality is assessed directly; private consolidated financial information is often limited.
Missing or limited evidence
Regulatory & legal standing
Evidence status: Primary evidence. This limits confidence in the dimension conclusion.
Corporate transparency
Evidence status: Primary evidence. This limits confidence in the dimension conclusion.
Asset & solvency transparency
Evidence status: Limited coverage. This limits confidence in the dimension conclusion.
Security & incident history
Evidence status: Primary evidence. This limits confidence in the dimension conclusion.
Operations & user protection
Evidence status: Primary evidence. This limits confidence in the dimension conclusion.
Security Intelligence Coverage
9 signal families, with collection boundaries shown.
3 automated or configured · 6 require analyst review
Official service status
Official incidents and maintenance are monitored at the published venue.
- Cadence
- On change + weekly review
- Rating use
- Eligible after validation
Independent probes
Public API and domain reachability are checked independently.
- Cadence
- Every 5 minutes
- Rating use
- Eligible after validation
Security incidents
Security incidents, outages, remediation and compensation are reviewed as separate facts.
- Cadence
- On change + weekly review
- Rating use
- Eligible after validation
Reserves and wallets
Published reserve reports and wallet evidence are captured with their date and scope.
- Cadence
- Daily
- Rating use
- Eligible after validation
Account controls
MFA, allowlists, anti-phishing and withdrawal protections are checked from official guidance.
- Cadence
- On change + weekly review
- Rating use
- Eligible after validation
Legal and regulatory
Entity, licence, registration, application and enforcement states are kept distinct.
- Cadence
- On change + weekly review
- Rating use
- Eligible after validation
Domain and phishing
RDAP, DNS, TLS and certificate changes are compared with the verified official domain.
- Cadence
- Daily
- Rating use
- Context only
Vulnerability signals
Potential product and dependency matches are queued for validation.
- Cadence
- Daily
- Rating use
- Never scored directly
Verified complaints
Official case references and structured evidence are mapped by venue and entity.
- Cadence
- On change + weekly review
- Rating use
- Context only
Latest Risk Events
Verified changes connected to MEXC.
No material verified events are published for this exchange in the current monitoring window. This does not mean no risk exists.
Asset, Security and Operations
The evidence behind the dimensions users care about most.
Asset and solvency transparency
66/100Reserve disclosures are treated as evidence about specified assets and dates, not proof of complete liabilities or group solvency.
- Reserve source connected
- Liabilities need review
- Solvency not inferred
Security and incident history
62/100Verified historical incidents remain in the record alongside remediation and current account-security controls.
- History retained
- Remediation recorded separately
- Current controls do not erase incidents
Operations and user protection
77/100Official status or notice channels are connected. Missing real-time coverage is reflected in confidence and is not treated as normal operation.
- Official channel connected
- Asset status is time-sensitive
- Missing is not normal
- Anonymous reviews excluded
- Comparable sample limited
Exposure guidance
Minimal necessary exposure
- Use case
- Keep only the minimum operational balance required.
- Avoid
- Avoid using the exchange as a single long-term custody location.
- Reason
- Operations & user protection is the strongest observed area, while Corporate transparency limits a stronger conclusion.
Action checklist
Choose your next step based on your current situation.
- 01Verify the official domain and app publisher
- 02Confirm the legal entity named in the account agreement
- 03Check whether the selected product is covered in your region
- 04Start with the minimum deposit
- 05Test one withdrawal
- 06Enable strong account security
- 07Avoid keeping unnecessary long-term balances
Compare Alternatives
Compare MEXC with other published Passports.
ExchangeRiskScoreRegulatorySecurityConfidence
FAQ
Questions about MEXC
Is MEXC safe?
MEXC is currently rated High Risk at 54/100. This reflects observed public evidence and is not a guarantee of safety.
Is MEXC regulated?
1 legal-entity records are mapped in this Passport. Each record has a jurisdiction-specific status and scope.
Which entity serves the selected region?
Not stated in the current core terms: MEXC Trading Platform (legal operator not disclosed in current terms) — Operator disclosure gap.
Does MEXC publish reserve or solvency evidence?
Reserve disclosures are treated as evidence about specified assets and dates, not proof of complete liabilities or group solvency.
Should funds be stored on MEXC long term?
Minimal necessary exposure. Keep only the minimum operational balance required. Avoid using the exchange as a single long-term custody location.
Verified sources
Every conclusion links back to primary evidence.
Each source shows its verification date and the specific statement it supports.
Platform terms · MEXC
Tier B↗MEXC Listing Terms and Conditions
Official terms used to verify the contracting entity and service scope.
Market data · CoinMarketCap
Tier B↗MEXC — CoinMarketCap exchange profile
Third-party market-quality data used as a supporting signal.
Reserve disclosure · MEXC
Tier B↗MEXC reserve disclosure
Published reserve or asset-disclosure evidence used in the solvency assessment.
Security notice · MEXC
Tier B↗MEXC security record
Published security or incident evidence used in the security assessment.
System status · MEXC
Tier B↗MEXC service status
Official service-status evidence used in the operational assessment.
Evidence coverage · Cexvia methodology
Method↗Cexvia complaint evidence standard
Complaint comparisons use verifiable primary evidence. The current cross-platform sample remains limited.
Cexvia ratings reflect observed risk under available public evidence. A higher score means lower observed risk, not guaranteed safety. Coverage, confidence, redlines and score direction are published separately. This page is not investment, legal or custody advice. Commercial relationships do not change scores or suppress verified evidence.