- MASTR lists decades of CEX closures, renewing focus on self-custody of assets.
- MASTR says CEXs control users’ private keys after crypto deposits are made.
- CZ says CEX acquisitions may inherit hidden security flaws from past systems.
The debate over CEX vs Self-Custodial Wallets has resurfaced after X user MASTR published a database listing dozens of centralized cryptocurrency exchanges that have shut down over the past decade.
The list includes exchanges that ceased operations following bankruptcies, hacks, seizures, disappearances, or planned closures. Among the latest entries are BitMEX, which is scheduled to close on September 23, 2026, BitMart on January 31, 2027, and AscendEX, which ended operations on July 1, 2026.
CEX vs Self Custodial Wallets Return to Focus
According to the database shared by MASTR, exchange closures span from MyBitcoin in 2011 to recently announced shutdowns in 2026 and 2027. The list also includes well-known cases such as Mt. Gox, FTX, QuadrigaCX, Cryptopia, Hotbit, Bittrex, and BitForex.
MASTR stated that centralized exchanges operate by holding customers’ private keys after deposits are made. The post added that exchanges manage internal account balances and determine when withdrawals are processed.
Based on that structure, MASTR concluded that self-custody remains the only way users retain direct control of their digital assets, repeating the widely known phrase, “Not your keys, not your crypto.”
CZ Highlights Acquisition Risks for Centralized Exchanges
The discussion continued after Binance founder Changpeng Zhao commented on the complexity of acquiring centralized exchanges. In a post on X, Zhao said purchasing a crypto exchange differs from acquiring many other businesses because security risks may remain hidden after a transaction is completed.
He said an acquired platform could contain legacy backdoors or previously undiscovered security issues created by earlier development teams. According to Zhao, a security incident could emerge after an acquisition even if ownership has changed. He added that exchange acquisitions remain possible but require greater caution because technical risks may not become visible immediately.
The posts from MASTR and Zhao focused on different aspects of centralized exchanges but centered on the same issue of custody and security. MASTR highlighted a record of exchange closures and argued that users lose direct control of assets once funds are deposited on centralized platforms.
While Zhao’s comments addressed operational risks that may remain within exchange infrastructure after ownership changes.
Related: Here Are the Reasons Why BitMEX Is Shutting Down Operations
Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is for informational and educational purposes only. The article does not constitute financial advice or advice of any kind. Coin Edition is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of the utilization of content, products, or services mentioned. Readers are advised to exercise caution before taking any action related to the company.
