Proof of Reserves Explained: What It Proves, What It Misses and How to Compare Exchanges

Proof of Reserves can provide useful evidence that a crypto exchange controlled specified assets at a particular point in time and, where customer liabilities are included, that those assets covered specified customer balances.

It does not automatically prove that the exchange is solvent.

A reserve ratio above 100% can still leave unanswered questions about:

Liabilities outside the disclosed scope
Borrowed or encumbered assets
Affiliates
Lending products
Derivatives exposure
Off-chain obligations
Legal claims
Customer-asset segregation
Asset quality
Future liquidity
What happens in insolvency

The useful question is therefore not:

“Does this exchange have Proof of Reserves?”

It is:

What assets were proved, what customer liabilities were included, who controlled the assets, when was the snapshot taken, what products were excluded, what assurance was performed and what evidence remains missing?

Cexvia treats Proof of Reserves as one input within Asset & solvency transparency, not as a binary safety certificate.

The short answer

A useful Proof of Reserves review should separate at least eight layers:

Layer	Question
Assets	What assets were actually identified?
Liabilities	Which customer claims were included?
Ownership	Did the exchange demonstrate control of the wallets?
Coverage	Which assets, products and legal entities are inside the scope?
Timing	When was the snapshot taken and how often is it repeated?
Asset quality	Are reserves liquid and externally valuable?
Assurance	Who performed the work and what exactly did they test?
Legal context	Are customer assets segregated and what rights apply in insolvency?

Cexvia's framework can be summarized as:

Assets + Liabilities + Ownership + Scope + Timing + Asset Quality + Assurance + Custody Context

A headline reserve ratio should be read only after those questions are answered.

1. What Proof of Reserves is trying to prove

At its simplest, Proof of Reserves asks whether a custodial platform has assets corresponding to customer claims included in the exercise.

A simplified model is:

Verified reserve assets
÷
included customer liabilities
=
reserve ratio

Example:

Verified BTC assets:
105,000 BTC

Included BTC customer balances:
100,000 BTC

Reported reserve ratio:
105%

That can be useful evidence.

But the quality of the conclusion depends on both sides of the calculation.

If the assets are incomplete, the numerator is unreliable.

If the liabilities are incomplete, the denominator is unreliable.

If the report covers only selected products, the ratio should not be generalized to the entire company.

2. Proof of assets is only one side of the equation

Public blockchains make asset verification unusually powerful.

If an exchange publishes wallet addresses, an observer can independently inspect:

Asset
Wallet balance
Transaction history
Later movements
Block height
On-chain ownership evidence where available

This is materially more transparent than a simple statement:

“We hold sufficient reserves.”

But blockchain visibility answers only part of the solvency question.

A wallet balance can show:

Assets exist at this address.

It does not automatically show:

These assets are unencumbered and sufficient to satisfy every claim against the business.

Cexvia rule

Cexvia distinguishes:

Reserve source connected

from:

Solvency verified

Those are not equivalent conclusions.

Cexvia's current methodology explicitly reviews:

Proof of Reserves
Update frequency
Verified wallets
User inclusion
Asset composition
Liabilities
Assurance scope

within its Asset & solvency transparency dimension.

Cexvia Methodology

3. Customer liabilities are the central question

A reserve ratio needs a denominator.

That denominator is usually some definition of customer balances or customer liabilities.

A strong disclosure should explain:

Which customers are included
Which products are included
Which assets are included
Whether margin accounts are included
Whether lending balances are included
Whether institutional balances are included
How negative balances are treated
How borrowed assets are treated
Whether affiliated products are outside scope

Without that information, a ratio can look stronger than the underlying coverage.

Example

Suppose an exchange publishes:

BTC reserves:
105,000 BTC

BTC spot customer balances:
100,000 BTC

Reserve ratio:
105%

But the report excludes:

institutional custody
lending liabilities
affiliate obligations
derivatives collateral
corporate borrowing

The 105% ratio may still be accurate for the defined BTC spot scope.

It should not be rewritten as:

“The entire exchange is 105% solvent.”

4. Merkle trees help verify inclusion, not complete solvency

Many exchanges use a Merkle tree to aggregate customer balances while allowing individual users to verify that their balance was included in the liability set.

A simplified structure is:

User balances
    ↓
hashed leaf records
    ↓
Merkle tree
    ↓
Merkle root

A user receives a cryptographic path showing that their record contributes to the published root without receiving every other customer's account information.

This can answer an important question:

Was my balance included in the reported customer-liability dataset?

That is useful because an exchange could otherwise publish wallet assets while omitting part of the customer side.

What Merkle inclusion does not prove

It does not independently prove:

Every customer was included
Every product was included
Corporate debts were included
Wallets were unencumbered
The exchange had no other liabilities
Assets remained available after the snapshot
Customer claims have legal priority in insolvency

Merkle-tree verification is therefore a liability-inclusion mechanism, not a complete balance-sheet audit.

5. Negative balances and margin accounts need careful treatment

Liability calculations become more complicated when customers can borrow or trade on margin.

Consider:

Customer A:
+10 BTC

Customer B:
-5 BTC

If negative balances are netted carelessly against positive balances, total customer claims can appear smaller.

A credible reserve methodology should explain:

Whether negative balances exist
How they are represented
Whether borrowed assets are liabilities
How collateral is treated
How derivatives positions affect the calculation
Whether margin subaccounts are included

A PoR system that works well for simple fully funded spot balances may require additional methodology for lending, leverage and derivatives.

6. Wallet ownership must be demonstrated, not assumed

Seeing crypto in a blockchain address is useful only if there is evidence that the exchange controls the address.

Possible evidence can include:

Cryptographic message signing
Signed wallet attestations
Controlled test transactions
Independent verification by the assessor
Wallet labels supported by additional evidence

The strength of the ownership proof matters.

An address listed on a webpage with no evidence of control is weaker than an address for which wallet control has been cryptographically or independently verified.

Ownership is still not the same as economic freedom

Even if the exchange controls a wallet, another question remains:

Is the asset unencumbered?

An asset can potentially be:

Pledged
Borrowed
Subject to another claim
Restricted
Held for another entity
Involved in an undisclosed financing arrangement

Public-chain ownership evidence does not necessarily reveal every off-chain contractual claim.

7. Snapshot timing creates an important limitation

Most Proof of Reserves reports describe a point in time.

For example:

Snapshot:
2026-07-01 00:00 UTC

The report can provide strong evidence about that moment.

It does not automatically prove conditions:

one week earlier
or
one week later

Window-dressing risk

In principle, assets could be transferred or borrowed shortly before a predictable snapshot and moved afterward.

Public wallet monitoring can make some movements visible.

It may still be difficult to determine:

Why the funds moved
Whether they were borrowed
Whether another liability was created
Whether off-chain collateral exists

Frequency matters

Compare:

One report three years ago

with:

monthly reserve snapshots
+
published wallets
+
user inclusion verification
+
historical archive

The second creates much better longitudinal evidence.

It still does not become equivalent to continuous solvency monitoring.

8. Recency matters when comparing exchanges

PoR comparisons can become misleading when snapshot dates differ.

Example:

Exchange A:
125% reserve ratio
Snapshot: January

Exchange B:
108% reserve ratio
Snapshot: July

It is not automatically correct to conclude:

Exchange A has stronger reserves.

The January report may be much older.

The two exchanges may also use different:

Asset scopes
Liability definitions
Valuation methods
Assurance procedures

Cexvia therefore treats the date and scope of evidence as part of the solvency-transparency assessment.

A stale report should not receive the same evidentiary weight as a current and repeatable disclosure.

9. A 120% reserve ratio is not automatically better than 105%

The headline percentage is one of the easiest PoR metrics to misuse.

Suppose:

Exchange A

Reserve ratio:
125%

Assets:
native exchange token
small-cap tokens
volatile collateral

Liability scope:
unclear

Exchange B

Reserve ratio:
105%

Assets:
BTC
ETH
cash-equivalent stablecoins

Liability scope:
clearly defined
independently tested

The 125% headline ratio does not automatically make Exchange A stronger.

A useful comparison must consider:

Asset quality
Liquidity
Concentration
Issuer relationship
Liability completeness
Assurance
Recency

10. Asset quality matters

Not every dollar of reported reserves has the same economic characteristics.

Consider:

$1 of BTC
$1 of established stablecoin
$1 of thin small-cap token
$1 of exchange-issued token

All can have the same nominal market value at one moment.

They may have very different:

Liquidity
Volatility
Counterparty exposure
Market depth
Stress behavior

Native-token concentration

An exchange's own token deserves special attention.

If confidence in the exchange deteriorates, the token's market value may fall at the exact moment the reserve is most needed.

That creates correlated risk.

A reserve base heavily concentrated in self-issued or closely affiliated assets is therefore economically different from one dominated by liquid external assets.

Stablecoins also have risk

Stablecoins can introduce:

Issuer risk
Redemption risk
Banking risk
Depegging risk
Regulatory risk

A PoR report should explain the valuation method rather than assuming every stablecoin will always remain exactly equal to its reference currency.

11. Proof of Reserves does not show every corporate liability

This is the most important reason PoR should not be described as a complete solvency audit.

Potential obligations outside a reserve exercise can include:

Corporate loans
Vendor liabilities
Legal judgments
Tax liabilities
Guarantees
Affiliate debts
Derivatives exposure
Lending obligations
Borrowings
Operating liabilities

A crypto exchange can theoretically have sufficient assets for the customer balances included in a PoR snapshot while still facing substantial obligations elsewhere in the corporate group.

Cexvia wording

Cexvia repeatedly uses a deliberately narrow interpretation:

Reserve disclosures are evidence about specified assets and dates, not proof of complete liabilities or group solvency.

This principle appears across Cexvia exchange profiles including Kraken, Bitget, Crypto.com, Bybit and others.

12. Proof of Reserves and audited financial statements answer different questions

A PoR exercise is usually narrower than an audit of financial statements.

The SEC's former Chief Accountant warned in 2023 that crypto “assurance” work should not be presented in a way that implies a Proof of Reserves engagement is equivalent to a financial-statement audit.

The SEC statement specifically highlighted concerns about:

Management discretion
Wallet selection
Scope
Standards
Procedures
How assurance work is marketed

Official reference:

SEC — The Potential Pitfalls of Purported Crypto “Assurance” Work

Financial-statement audit

A financial-statement audit generally addresses a much broader financial presentation and is performed under applicable auditing standards.

Depending on the entity and framework, audited statements can provide evidence about:

Assets
Liabilities
Revenue
Expenses
Equity
Financial position
Notes
Accounting policies

Proof of Reserves

PoR typically focuses more narrowly on:

specified assets
+
specified customer balances
+
specified date

The two can complement each other.

One does not automatically replace the other.

13. “Attestation,” “audit” and “agreed-upon procedures” should not be blurred

These labels have different professional meanings.

A user should read the underlying report rather than relying on the exchange's marketing headline.

Agreed-upon procedures

Under professional attestation standards, an agreed-upon procedures engagement reports findings from specifically agreed procedures.

The practitioner does not automatically perform every procedure that would be required in another type of engagement.

The PCAOB's published AUP standard explains that the procedures can be more or less extensive depending on what the specified parties agreed to perform.

That makes the scope of the procedures critical.

Official reference:

PCAOB — Agreed-Upon Procedures Engagements

What to read in any third-party report

Record:

Assessor:
Professional firm:
Report type:
Standard:
Snapshot date:
Assets covered:
Liabilities covered:
Procedures:
Exceptions:
Limitations:
Independence:

Do not infer:

accounting-firm logo
=
full exchange audit

14. Proof of Reserves does not prove legal segregation

Suppose an exchange proves that it controls sufficient BTC.

A separate question remains:

What legal rights do customers have to that BTC?

Important questions include:

Are customer assets segregated?
Which legal entity holds them?
Is a subcustodian used?
Are assets held on trust or under another legal structure?
Can customer assets be used by the company?
Are assets bankruptcy-remote?
What do the terms say about insolvency?

PoR is mainly an evidence mechanism about assets and included claims.

Customer legal rights depend on:

Contract
Custody structure
Regulation
Jurisdiction
Insolvency law

15. Proof of Reserves is not deposit insurance

A 100%, 110% or 150% reserve ratio does not create:

Government deposit insurance
An investor compensation fund
Guaranteed reimbursement
Guaranteed withdrawal access

The existence of reserves does not establish what happens if:

The exchange becomes insolvent
Assets are stolen
Customer records are disputed
A legal freeze occurs
A jurisdiction restricts withdrawals

Insurance and customer-protection schemes must be verified independently.

16. Proof of Reserves does not guarantee withdrawals

A well-reserved exchange can still restrict a withdrawal because of:

Security hold
KYC review
Source-of-funds review
Sanctions screening
Wallet maintenance
Blockchain outage
Product restriction
Court order
Legal restriction

This means:

PoR above 100%
≠
every withdrawal processes instantly

A reserve report addresses an asset/liability evidence question.

A withdrawal hold can be an account-control or operational issue.

For withdrawal diagnosis:

Crypto Exchange Withdrawal Problems: How to Diagnose Delays, Holds and Missing Transfers

17. Proof of Reserves does not protect against account theft

Reserve transparency is an exchange-level control.

It does not protect a user who loses account credentials.

A fully reserved platform can still have a customer lose funds through:

Phishing
SIM swap
Email compromise
API-key theft
Malicious browser extension
Wrong withdrawal address
Seed-phrase compromise

Users should still enable:

Passkeys or hardware security keys
Multi-factor authentication
Withdrawal allowlists
Anti-phishing controls
Strong email security

PoR and account security answer different risk questions.

18. Current example: Bitget's July 2026 report

Bitget released its 44th Proof of Reserves update on 28 July 2026.

Its official announcement reported an overall reserve ratio of 122% for the assets included in the report.

Bitget states that it publishes:

Reserve balances
Wallet addresses
Cryptographic attestations
Merkle-tree-based user verification

This is useful evidence because it provides:

recency
+
repeat reporting
+
wallet evidence
+
user inclusion mechanism

But the correct Cexvia interpretation remains narrower than:

“Bitget is 122% solvent.”

Cexvia currently gives Bitget 66/100 for Asset & solvency transparency and notes that reserve disclosures are evidence about specified assets and dates while complete liabilities still require review.

Official source:

Bitget — July 2026 Proof of Reserves

Cexvia:

Bitget Risk Profile

19. Current example: OKX shows why repeated disclosure can score higher

Cexvia's current OKX profile records a July 2026 Proof of Reserves disclosure covering approximately $23.12 billion in major assets, with major-asset coverage ratios at or above 100%.

Cexvia records it as OKX's 45th disclosure and currently gives OKX 84/100 for Asset & solvency transparency.

The higher score is not based only on the headline reserve ratio.

The assessment considers the broader evidence quality and repeatability.

Cexvia still warns:

Publishing reserves alone does not prove that all customer claims can be repaid.

This is the correct way to use PoR in an exchange-risk model:

strong reserve evidence
→ stronger transparency score

not:

strong reserve evidence
→ no insolvency risk

OKX Risk Profile

20. Current example: Kraken's PoR is useful but still not treated as complete solvency proof

Kraken maintains a Proof of Reserves program that allows clients to verify covered balances.

Kraken states that an independent third party verifies whether covered on-chain holdings are equal to or greater than covered client balances.

Its published methodology uses Merkle-tree verification for user inclusion.

Kraken also states in July 2026 regulatory materials that it publishes PoR twice per year.

This creates useful evidence across:

Asset holdings
Client-balance inclusion
Third-party review
Recurring publication

Cexvia currently gives Kraken 62/100 for Asset & solvency transparency.

Why not 100?

Because Cexvia does not infer complete group liabilities or full solvency from a reserve report.

Official source:

Kraken — Proof of Reserves

Cexvia:

Kraken Risk Profile

21. Crypto.com illustrates the difference between published PoR and evidence strength

Crypto.com publishes a Proof of Reserves verification process and states that users can verify the relevant reserve information.

That is positive transparency evidence.

Cexvia nevertheless currently gives Crypto.com 46/100 for Asset & solvency transparency.

Cexvia's current profile says:

Published PoR and user-verification methods are reviewed.
Public wallets or Proof of Reserves do not establish complete liabilities, encumbrances or solvency.
The available public evidence remains less complete than Cexvia would require for a stronger conclusion.

This illustrates an important point:

Having a Proof of Reserves page is not enough to make two exchanges equally transparent.

The quality, recency, scope and assurance of the evidence matter.

Official source:

Crypto.com — Proof of Reserves

Cexvia:

Crypto.com Risk Profile

22. A public company can provide a different evidence set

Cexvia does not require every exchange to prove solvency through the same mechanism.

A publicly listed company with audited consolidated financial statements and regulatory filings can provide evidence that differs from a private exchange's Merkle-tree PoR.

For example, Cexvia's Coinbase profile reviews customer-asset and liability disclosures through Coinbase's public-company filings.

This means the relevant question is broader than:

“Which exchange has the best Merkle tree?”

The real question is:

What combination of credible public evidence allows users to assess assets, customer claims and the financial position of the relevant entity or group?

Possible evidence includes:

Proof of Reserves
Proof of liabilities
Audited financial statements
Regulatory capital disclosures
Custody disclosures
Public wallet evidence
Legal segregation disclosures

No one format should automatically receive full credit.

Coinbase Risk Profile

23. How Cexvia evaluates Asset & solvency transparency

Cexvia currently gives this dimension a 20% weight in its exchange risk methodology.

The framework reviews evidence such as:

Proof of Reserves
Frequency
Wallet verification
Customer inclusion
Asset composition
Liabilities
Assurance scope

A useful internal model is:

Reserve transparency
        │
        ├── Asset evidence
        ├── Liability evidence
        ├── User inclusion
        ├── Wallet ownership
        ├── Asset quality
        ├── Report recency
        ├── Repeatability
        ├── Third-party assurance
        ├── Financial statements
        └── Remaining evidence gaps

Cexvia should not use:

PoR exists = 100
PoR absent = 0

Instead, it should score the quality and completeness of the evidence.

24. A practical Cexvia PoR evidence ladder

A useful way to compare reserve disclosures is by evidence depth.

Level 0 — No meaningful reserve evidence

No public reserve disclosure
No wallet evidence
No audited financial evidence

Level 1 — Asset claim

Exchange states that assets are fully backed

Useful as a claim, but limited independent verification.

Level 2 — Public wallet evidence

Wallet addresses published
On-chain balances visible

Stronger proof of identified assets.

Level 3 — User-liability inclusion

Merkle tree
+
user can verify inclusion

Adds evidence about specified customer balances.

Level 4 — Repeatable reserve reporting

historical reports
+
consistent methodology
+
frequent snapshots

Provides trend evidence.

Level 5 — Independent assurance

identified third party
+
defined procedures
+
published scope
+
exceptions
+
limitations

Adds independent examination of selected evidence.

Level 6 — Broader financial context

PoR
+
liability disclosure
+
audited financial statements
+
custody / segregation disclosure
+
regulatory evidence

Provides a materially broader basis for assessing financial resilience.

The levels are conceptual, not a substitute for Cexvia's actual scoring model.

A lower-level disclosure can still contain strong evidence, and a higher-level-looking disclosure can have weak scope.

25. How to read any Proof of Reserves report

Use this checklist.

Assets

[ ] Which assets are covered?
[ ] Which wallets are included?
[ ] Are wallet balances public?
[ ] Is wallet control demonstrated?
[ ] Are assets liquid?
[ ] Are native tokens significant?

Liabilities

[ ] Are customer balances included?
[ ] Can users verify inclusion?
[ ] Are negative balances explained?
[ ] Are margin accounts included?
[ ] Are lending products included?
[ ] Are institutional balances included?
[ ] Are affiliates included?

Scope

[ ] Which legal entity is covered?
[ ] Which platform products are covered?
[ ] Are custody products included?
[ ] Are derivatives excluded?

Timing

[ ] Snapshot date?
[ ] Publication date?
[ ] Update frequency?
[ ] Historical reports available?
[ ] Later wallet movements visible?

Assurance

[ ] Is there an independent assessor?
[ ] Is the firm identifiable?
[ ] What professional standard applies?
[ ] What procedures were performed?
[ ] What was not tested?
[ ] Were exceptions reported?

Legal context

[ ] Are customer assets segregated?
[ ] Who is the custodian?
[ ] Can assets be encumbered?
[ ] What do insolvency terms say?
[ ] Are audited statements available?

26. Red flags in reserve marketing

Treat these statements cautiously unless supported by the underlying evidence.

“100% Proof of Reserves means 100% safe”

False equivalence.

PoR does not cover every risk.

“120% reserves means the exchange is 120% solvent”

Too broad unless the calculation covers the relevant full balance sheet and liabilities.

“Audited Proof of Reserves”

Check what was actually audited.

The engagement may be narrower than a financial-statement audit.

“All customer assets are backed”

Check which customers, products and assets are inside the methodology.

“Verified by a top accounting firm”

Read the firm's actual report.

The firm's logo is not the scope.

“Assets exceed liabilities”

Ask:

Which assets?
Which liabilities?
Which entity?
Which date?

“On-chain transparency proves there is no hidden debt”

On-chain assets do not reveal every off-chain obligation.

27. Proof of Reserves versus other evidence

Evidence	Main question answered	Key limitation
Public wallet addresses	Do identified wallets hold assets?	Does not prove complete liabilities
Merkle-tree inclusion	Was my balance included?	Does not prove all customers/products included
Reserve ratio	Do included assets cover included liabilities?	Scope can be narrow
Third-party PoR review	Did an independent party perform defined procedures?	Scope and assurance level matter
Audited financial statements	What does the broader financial position show?	May not provide real-time wallet-level transparency
Regulatory capital record	Does entity meet specified regulatory capital rules?	Limited to applicable legal regime
Custody disclosure	Who holds customer assets and under what structure?	Does not alone prove asset quantities
Withdrawal history	Is operational access functioning?	Does not prove long-term solvency

A strong exchange assessment uses several forms of evidence together.

28. What users should compare instead of headline PoR ratios

When comparing two exchanges, ask:

Better question 1

Not:

Which has the highest ratio?

Ask:

Which has the clearest liabilities and asset scope?

Better question 2

Not:

Which has more wallet assets?

Ask:

Are those assets connected to the relevant customer obligations?

Better question 3

Not:

Which says “audited”?

Ask:

What did the independent firm actually examine?

Better question 4

Not:

Which report is newer?

Ask:

Is the methodology repeated consistently over time?

Better question 5

Not:

Does PoR prove the exchange is safe?

Ask:

How does the reserve evidence fit with regulation, custody, security history and withdrawal operations?

Frequently asked questions

What is Proof of Reserves?

Proof of Reserves is a transparency mechanism used by custodial crypto platforms to provide evidence about specified assets and, in stronger implementations, specified customer balances at a particular point in time.

Does Proof of Reserves prove an exchange is solvent?

Not by itself.

A PoR report can show that specified assets cover specified customer balances at a snapshot while leaving other corporate liabilities, encumbrances or affiliates outside scope.

Does a 100% reserve ratio mean all customer money is safe?

No.

It means the included reserve assets equal the included liabilities under that report's methodology.

It does not guarantee future liquidity, security, legal priority or withdrawal availability.

Is 120% Proof of Reserves better than 105%?

Not automatically.

Compare asset quality, liability scope, report date, methodology and assurance before interpreting the percentages.

What is a Merkle tree in Proof of Reserves?

A Merkle tree is a cryptographic structure that can allow users to verify that their account balance was included in an aggregated liability dataset without exposing every other user's balance.

Does Merkle-tree verification prove every customer was included?

No.

It can prove that a particular user's record is included in the published dataset.

It does not independently prove that every customer, product or corporate liability is part of the dataset.

Can an exchange temporarily borrow assets for a PoR snapshot?

A point-in-time report cannot by itself rule out every form of temporary funding or off-chain encumbrance.

Frequent reports, public wallet history and stronger assurance can reduce uncertainty, but they do not eliminate every possibility.

Is Proof of Reserves the same as an audit?

No.

A Proof of Reserves engagement usually has a narrower scope than a financial-statement audit.

Read the underlying assessor report and professional standard rather than relying on the word “audit” in marketing.

Is an attestation the same as an audit?

No.

The exact meaning depends on the professional standard and engagement.

An attestation or agreed-upon procedures engagement can address specified subject matter or procedures without constituting an audit of the entity's complete financial statements.

Does Proof of Reserves include liabilities?

It can include specified customer liabilities, often through a Merkle-tree or similar mechanism.

Whether broader company liabilities are included depends on the methodology.

Does Proof of Reserves mean customer assets are segregated?

No.

Asset segregation is a legal and custody question that must be verified through the relevant entity's terms, regulatory framework and custody disclosures.

Does Proof of Reserves mean crypto is insured?

No.

PoR does not create deposit insurance or guaranteed reimbursement.

Can a fully reserved exchange freeze withdrawals?

Yes.

Security reviews, compliance controls, wallet maintenance, legal restrictions and other operational issues can affect withdrawals independently of reserve coverage.

Which exchange has the best Proof of Reserves?

A defensible answer requires comparing current scope, liabilities, wallet verification, asset quality, frequency, independent assurance and broader financial disclosures.

Cexvia does not rank exchanges from the headline reserve ratio alone.

Conclusion

Proof of Reserves is valuable when it is treated as evidence, not as a certificate.

The strongest disclosures make it possible to evaluate:

assets → customer liabilities → ownership → scope → timing → asset quality → assurance → legal custody context

A reserve ratio becomes meaningful only after those layers are understood.

The central analytical mistake is:

100%+ reserves
=
solvent
=
safe

Those conclusions do not follow automatically.

A more defensible interpretation is:

Specified assets
covered
specified customer claims
at
a specified point in time
under
a specified methodology

Then ask what remains outside that statement.

That is also Cexvia's approach.

Proof of Reserves contributes to the Asset & solvency transparency score, but Cexvia separately evaluates:

Regulatory & legal standing
Corporate transparency
Security & incident history
Operations & user protection

No single reserve ratio determines whether an exchange is safe.

For current evidence:

[Cexvia Exchange Risk Profiles](/exchanges)
[Cexvia Methodology](/methodology)
[Cexvia Exchange Safety Checklist](/exchange-safety-checklist)
[Cexvia Risk Data Sources](/sources)
[Cexvia Risk Radar](/risk-alerts)

Primary sources and Cexvia resources

*Cexvia evaluates centralized exchanges using publicly verifiable evidence across regulatory standing, corporate transparency, asset and solvency transparency, security history, and operations and user protection. Proof of Reserves is treated as evidence about its documented assets, liabilities, scope and date—not as proof of complete group solvency or a guarantee that withdrawals will always remain available.*