From early Bitcoin marketplaces to multibillion-dollar international platforms, the history of cryptocurrency exchanges is also a history of hacks, fraud, insolvency, regulatory pressure and law-enforcement intervention. The recent closure of Bittrex Global and the announced wind-down of BitMart show that cryptocurrency platforms can disappear even after operating for many years and building an international customer base.
Table of Contents
Bitcoin began operating in January 2009, but there was initially no organised market where people could exchange it for traditional currency. That changed on 17 March 2010, when BitcoinMarket began operations as the first recognised cryptocurrency exchange.
What followed was the rapid development of an entirely new financial industry. Exchanges became the main gateways between bank accounts, cryptocurrencies and blockchain-based markets. Some developed into highly profitable global businesses. Others disappeared almost overnight.
Since the earliest years of Bitcoin, dozens of prominent exchanges have closed because of security breaches, financial mismanagement, fraud, declining business activity or government intervention. However, not every shutdown should be treated in the same way.
An exchange can disappear because:
- hackers steal its assets;
- the company becomes insolvent;
- executives misuse customer deposits;
- regulators revoke its licence;
- the business voluntarily withdraws from the market;
- or law-enforcement agencies seize its domains, servers and cryptocurrency.
The following cases show how the risks surrounding cryptocurrency exchanges have evolved from basic wallet-security failures into complex international enforcement operations.
List of Exchanges seized or dismantled by authorities
| Year | Exchange | Location/market | What happened |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | Coin.mx | United States | Illegal Bitcoin exchange stopped after its operators were charged with running an unlicensed money-transmission and money-laundering operation. |
| 2017 | BTC-e | International/Eastern Europe | Platform was shut down by law enforcement; its operator was charged, and FinCEN imposed major penalties. |
| 2023 | Bitzlato | Hong Kong/Russia-focused | French and international authorities dismantled its infrastructure and seized cryptocurrency connected to the exchange. |
| 2023 | 24xbtc.com | Online | Domain seized and server shut down by US authorities. |
| 2023 | 100btc.pro | Online | Seized in the same FBI operation. |
| 2023 | Pridechange.com | Online | Seized in the same FBI operation. |
| 2023 | 101crypta.com | Online | Seized in the same FBI operation. |
| 2023 | UXBTC.com | Online | Seized in the same FBI operation. |
| 2023 | Trust-exchange.org | Online | Seized in the same FBI operation. |
| 2023 | Bitcoin24.exchange | Online | Seized in the same FBI operation. |
| 2023 | PayBTC.pro | Online | Seized in the same FBI operation. |
| 2023 | Owl.gold | Online | Seized in the same FBI operation. |
| 2024 | Cryptex | Russia/International | Domains and servers were seized during a US–Dutch operation against alleged money-laundering services. |
| 2024 | PM2BTC | Russia/International | Servers were seized by Dutch authorities during the Cryptex operation. |
| 2025 | Garantex | Russia | International authorities seized domains and servers and froze more than $26 million connected to the platform. |
| 2025 | eXch | International | German authorities shut down the swapping service and seized approximately €34 million in cryptoassets. |
| 2025 | TradeOgre | International/Canada | Canadian police dismantled the platform and seized more than C$56 million in cryptocurrency. |
| 2025 | E-Note | International | The FBI and international partners took down infrastructure allegedly used to facilitate criminal money laundering. |
List of Exchanges that collapsed after hacks, insolvency or alleged fraud
| Closed | Exchange | Main reason |
|---|---|---|
| 2013 | BitFloor | Closed after its US bank account was terminated; it had previously suffered a major Bitcoin theft. |
| 2014 | Mt. Gox | Suspended withdrawals and trading, then entered bankruptcy after reporting hundreds of thousands of missing bitcoins. |
| 2014 | Flexcoin | Shut down after attackers emptied its hot wallet. |
| 2016 | Cryptsy | Suspended withdrawals and trading amid a severe asset shortfall and subsequent legal proceedings. |
| 2017 | Youbit | South Korean exchange filed for bankruptcy after suffering a second hack in 2017. |
| 2019 | QuadrigaCX | Ceased operations and entered court-supervised bankruptcy; regulators later described serious operational misconduct. |
| 2019 | Cryptopia | Entered liquidation after a major security breach and unsuccessful efforts to restore profitability. |
| 2020 | Altsbit | Italian exchange closed after a hack took most of its funds. |
| 2020 | FCoin | Declared itself insolvent after identifying a shortfall reportedly worth up to $130 million. |
| 2020 | ACX | Australian exchange stopped customer withdrawals; its parent later entered administration. |
| 2021 | Thodex | Trading and withdrawals stopped, its founder left Turkey, and criminal proceedings followed. |
| 2022 | AAX | Suspended withdrawals following the FTX collapse and subsequently ceased normal operations. |
| 2022 | FTX | Experienced a liquidity crisis, suspended withdrawals and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on 11 November 2022. |
List of Regulatory or voluntary closures
| Closed | Exchange | Main reason |
|---|---|---|
| 2012/2013 | TradeHill | One of the earliest Bitcoin exchanges; closed after banking, payment-processing and regulatory difficulties. |
| 2023 | LocalBitcoins | Ended its P2P Bitcoin trading service after ten years, citing difficult market conditions. |
| 2023 | Beaxy | Platform shut down as part of an SEC case involving alleged operation as an unregistered exchange, broker and clearing agency. |
| 2023 | Bittrex US | Ended US operations and entered bankruptcy proceedings; it was a wind-down rather than a customer-fund insolvency comparable to FTX. |
| 2023–2024 | Bittrex Global | Trading ended in December 2023, and its Liechtenstein and Bermuda companies entered liquidation. |
| 2023 | Hotbit | Ended centralised-exchange operations after operational problems, industry deterioration and regulatory pressure. |
| 2024 | OPNX | The crypto and bankruptcy-claims exchange voluntarily ceased operations in February 2024. |
| 2024 | Zipmex Thailand | Thailand revoked its exchange and broker licences after financial and operational deficiencies. |
| 2026, scheduled | BitMEX | Announced that the exchange will close on 23 September 2026 at 04:00 UTC following a strategic business review. As of 27 July 2026, it has announced the closure but has not yet reached the closure date. |
Mt. Gox: The collapse that defined the early Bitcoin era
No exchange failure had a greater impact on Bitcoin’s early reputation than Mt. Gox. The platform launched as a Bitcoin exchange in 2010 and eventually became the largest exchange in the market. At its peak, it processed a substantial majority of global Bitcoin trading activity.
In February 2014, Mt. Gox suspended withdrawals, stopped trading and filed for bankruptcy. Customers discovered that hundreds of thousands of bitcoins were missing. US prosecutors later alleged that attackers obtained unauthorised access to Mt. Gox’s wallets in 2011 and stole approximately 647,000 BTC between September 2011 and May 2014. The Justice Department said the theft contributed to the exchange’s eventual insolvency.
The collapse demonstrated a problem that continues to affect centralised exchanges: users may own a balance on the platform, but the exchange controls the wallets and private keys.
Mt. Gox also showed how slowly customers can recover funds after a crypto bankruptcy. Its rehabilitation and repayment process continued for more than a decade after the exchange stopped operating.
Coin.mx: An illegal exchange hidden behind a false business
Coin.mx represented a different type of failure.
Operating from approximately 2013 until July 2015, Coin.mx allowed customers in the United States to exchange cash for Bitcoin. Authorities alleged that the business operated without the required registration and anti-money-laundering controls.
Its operators attempted to disguise the exchange as a members-only collectables organisation. The company used the name “Collectables Club” when dealing with financial institutions, making Bitcoin-related card transactions appear to involve stamps, sports memorabilia and other collectable products.
According to the US Justice Department, Coin.mx processed more than $10 million in Bitcoin transactions in violation of federal anti-money-laundering requirements. Its founder later pleaded guilty to operating an unlawful exchange and money-transmission business.
Coin.mx became one of the earliest examples of authorities treating a cryptocurrency exchange as a regulated financial intermediary rather than merely an online technology platform.
BTC-e: From major exchange to international criminal case
BTC-e operated between 2011 and 2017 and became one of the largest and most recognisable exchanges of the early crypto market.
The platform offered relatively anonymous trading and became particularly popular in Russia, Eastern Europe and international online communities. However, authorities alleged that it also developed a substantial customer base connected to cybercrime.
In July 2017, US authorities charged BTC-e and one of its alleged operators, Alexander Vinnik. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network also imposed major civil penalties against the exchange for violations of US anti-money-laundering rules.
A BTC-e operator later pleaded guilty in 2024 to a money-laundering conspiracy. The Justice Department said BTC-e had processed more than $9 billion in transactions during its operating history.
Prosecutors also alleged that BTC-e was connected to the laundering of cryptocurrency stolen from Mt. Gox and funds associated with ransomware, fraud, narcotics trafficking and other crimes.
The BTC-e case demonstrated that an exchange could be pursued across borders even when its corporate structure, servers, executives and users were distributed across several jurisdictions.
QuadrigaCX: When an exchange was effectively controlled by one person
Canadian exchange QuadrigaCX collapsed in early 2019 following the reported death of its co-founder and chief executive, Gerald Cotten.
Initially, the failure was presented as an unfortunate custody problem: Cotten was reportedly the only person able to access important cryptocurrency wallets. Subsequent investigations revealed a considerably more serious situation.
The Ontario Securities Commission concluded that Quadriga’s collapse resulted from fraud committed by Cotten. Investigators found that he controlled the company with little meaningful internal oversight, created false accounts and used customer assets to trade against customers on his own platform.
The regulator estimated that approximately C$115 million of the asset shortfall resulted from Cotten’s fraudulent trading on Quadriga.
QuadrigaCX became a warning about “key-person risk”: an exchange can appear to be a substantial financial institution while its wallets, records and operational decisions are controlled by a single executive.
Cryptopia: A hack followed by liquidation
New Zealand-based Cryptopia built a significant business by listing hundreds of smaller cryptocurrencies that were unavailable on larger exchanges.
In January 2019, the exchange suffered a major security breach. Although the platform attempted to resume operations, the financial and operational effects of the hack proved too severe.
In May 2019, Cryptopia appointed Grant Thornton New Zealand as its liquidator. Grant Thornton said the hack had severely affected the company’s trading activity and that management had been unable to return the business to profitability.
The liquidation also produced an important legal question: did cryptocurrency deposited with an exchange belong to the exchange, or was it property held for individual customers?
The Cryptopia proceedings became an influential example of courts and liquidators having to apply traditional property and insolvency law to blockchain-based assets.
FTX: The industry’s largest modern crisis
By 2022, the crypto market had become considerably more institutionalised. Exchanges sponsored sports venues, hired celebrities, raised money from major investors and presented themselves as mature financial companies.
FTX appeared to represent this new generation. Founded in 2019, it grew into one of the world’s best-known cryptocurrency exchanges and operated an international platform, a US business and a closely associated trading firm called Alameda Research.
In November 2022, concerns about FTX’s finances triggered a rush of withdrawal requests. The exchange could not meet customer demands and entered bankruptcy.
The subsequent criminal case showed that the collapse was not simply the result of market volatility. A US jury convicted founder Sam Bankman-Fried of fraud and related offences. Prosecutors said he had misappropriated billions of dollars in customer deposits and used the money for Alameda Research, investments, political contributions and personal spending. In March 2024, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison and ordered to forfeit more than $11 billion.
FTX demonstrated that professional branding, institutional investors and high-profile partnerships do not replace independent governance, transparent accounting and segregation of customer assets.
LocalBitcoins: A voluntary end to a historic P2P marketplace
Not every major crypto platform closed because of fraud or insolvency.
LocalBitcoins was established in 2012 and became one of the most important peer-to-peer Bitcoin marketplaces. Instead of operating primarily through a conventional order book, it allowed buyers and sellers to find each other and arrange trades using local payment methods.
This model made Bitcoin accessible in countries where conventional exchanges had limited banking support. It was especially influential in emerging markets and regions experiencing capital restrictions or unstable local currencies.
LocalBitcoins stopped providing Bitcoin trading services in February 2023. The company attributed the decision to difficult conditions during the extended crypto downturn. Its remaining service was limited to allowing customers to withdraw Bitcoin from their wallets.
Its closure represented the disappearance of one of the last major platforms from Bitcoin’s original peer-to-peer trading era.
Bitzlato: Infrastructure dismantled in an international operation
In January 2023, US and European authorities launched a coordinated operation against Bitzlato, a Hong Kong-registered exchange with a largely international and Russian-speaking customer base.
Authorities alleged that Bitzlato had weak identity-verification procedures and marketed itself as requiring minimal customer information. According to the US Justice Department, its largest transactional counterparty was Hydra Market, a major darknet marketplace.
French authorities, working with Europol and agencies in Spain, Portugal and Cyprus, dismantled Bitzlato’s digital infrastructure and took enforcement action against its assets.
The exchange’s founder later pleaded guilty to operating an unlicensed money-transmission business. Authorities said Bitzlato had processed more than $700 million connected to illicit funds, although that figure formed part of the government’s case and should be understood in that legal context.
Unlike a conventional bankruptcy, Bitzlato did not gradually wind down. Its operating infrastructure became the direct target of an international criminal investigation.
Beaxy: Closing during an SEC enforcement action
Beaxy was a smaller US-facing cryptocurrency trading platform, but its closure was important because of the legal issues involved.
In March 2023, the US Securities and Exchange Commission charged the platform and several executives with operating an unregistered national securities exchange, broker and clearing agency.
The SEC alleged that different entities were performing exchange, brokerage and clearing functions without completing the registrations required under US securities law.
The platform stopped operating around the time the charges were announced.
The Beaxy case illustrated one of the central regulatory disputes of the modern crypto industry: when a platform lists tokens that regulators consider securities, it may be expected to comply with much of the same legal structure as a traditional securities marketplace.
Bittrex Global: An orderly closure instead of a sudden collapse
Bittrex was one of the crypto market’s longest-established exchange brands. It became known for offering a large number of altcoin markets and serving customers in multiple jurisdictions.
In November 2023, Bittrex Global announced that it would cease operations. Trading was terminated on 4 December 2023, after which users were limited primarily to withdrawing their assets.
The company stated that customer funds and tokens remained available for withdrawal, distinguishing the shutdown from collapses in which an exchange had an immediate asset shortfall.
The Bittrex story nevertheless reflected the increasing cost and complexity of operating a global centralised exchange amid changing regulatory requirements.
OPNX and Zipmex: Two different types of 2024 closure
OPNX, a platform designed partly for trading claims connected to bankrupt crypto companies, announced that it would cease operations in February 2024. Users were given deadlines to settle positions and withdraw assets.
Its closure was largely an orderly commercial wind-down.
Zipmex Thailand followed a different path. Thai regulators had previously ordered the company to address problems involving its financial position and operations. In 2024, the Thai Securities and Exchange Commission suspended services and pursued further regulatory action connected to the exchange.
These cases demonstrate that the word “closed” can describe very different situations. One platform may voluntarily end an unsuccessful business model, while another may lose the regulatory permission required to continue serving customers.
Cryptex and PM2BTC: Servers and domains seized
In September 2024, authorities in the United States and the Netherlands acted against Cryptex and PM2BTC, services accused of facilitating cryptocurrency money laundering.
US authorities seized domains associated with Cryptex, while Dutch authorities seized servers hosting Cryptex and PM2BTC. The servers were taken offline, and the Dutch authorities seized more than $7 million in cryptocurrency.
According to the US Justice Department, Cryptex had processed approximately $1.4 billion in Bitcoin transactions, with a significant percentage allegedly connected to criminal activity, fraud, ransomware and sanctioned services.
This operation showed how enforcement had advanced since the early BTC-e era. Authorities were no longer limited to arresting individual operators. They could coordinate domain seizures, server confiscations, financial sanctions and cryptocurrency recovery across several countries.
Garantex: A multibillion-dollar exchange disrupted
Garantex became one of the largest cryptocurrency services targeted by an international enforcement operation.
In March 2025, US, German and Finnish authorities disrupted the infrastructure used to operate the exchange. The US Justice Department said Garantex had processed at least $96 billion in cryptocurrency transactions since April 2019.
Authorities alleged that the exchange facilitated money laundering, sanctions violations and transactions connected to ransomware, hacking, terrorism and drug trafficking. Two administrators were charged as part of the operation.
Because those claims arose from an indictment and enforcement announcement, allegations against individual defendants remain subject to the applicable legal process.
The case nevertheless marked a major escalation in international enforcement against centralised cryptocurrency services.
eXch: A crypto-swapping service taken offline
In April 2025, German authorities seized the server infrastructure of eXch and shut down the cryptocurrency-swapping service.
Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Office said investigators seized more than eight terabytes of data and approximately €34 million in Bitcoin, Ether, Litecoin and Dash.
A joint announcement by Germany’s BKA and the Dutch Fiscal Information and Investigation Service confirmed that the platform’s infrastructure had been taken offline during the operation.
The eXch case also illustrated the changing definition of an exchange. Modern enforcement actions increasingly target instant-swapping services and other platforms that may not use a conventional customer account and order-book model.
BitMEX: A major exchange schedules its final closure
BitMEX is different from the collapsed and seized exchanges discussed above because, as of 27 July 2026, it is still completing an announced wind-down.
The derivatives exchange began operating in 2014 and played a major role in popularising leveraged cryptocurrency perpetual contracts.
On 23 July 2026, BitMEX announced that the exchange would close on 23 September 2026 at 04:00 UTC following a strategic review by its parent company, HDR Global Trading Limited.
New registrations were stopped immediately. Restrictions on opening new positions are scheduled to begin on 26 August, followed by the forced settlement or closure of remaining positions before the final shutdown. The company has encouraged customers to withdraw their assets before the closure date.
Unlike Mt. Gox or FTX, BitMEX has described the process as an orderly business closure rather than a response to missing customer assets.
BitMart: A major exchange begins an orderly wind-down
On 26 July 2026, BitMart announced that it would begin an orderly wind-down after approximately nine years of operating as a global cryptocurrency exchange.
The company said the decision followed an evaluation of its operating conditions, the wider market environment and its future strategic direction. It did not announce bankruptcy, missing customer assets or a law-enforcement seizure. The closure should therefore be classified as a scheduled commercial wind-down unless additional information emerges.
BitMart began gradually suspending new registrations and cryptocurrency and fiat deposits at 01:30 UTC on 26 July 2026. Futures accounts entered reduce-only mode, while the exchange stopped accepting new spot orders and began discontinuing automated trading services.
All spot, futures and other trading services are scheduled to end at 01:00 UTC on 26 August 2026. BitMart plans to terminate its trading-platform operations completely at 15:59 UTC on 31 January 2027. Users will retain account access for a specified period after the closure to review records and submit withdrawal requests.
Withdrawals remain available during the wind-down, although BitMart has warned that requests may require additional identity, security, source-of-funds, sanctions and wallet-address checks. The exchange has encouraged users to close positions, redeem investment products, download their records and submit withdrawal requests as early as possible.
BitMart had previously survived a major hot-wallet security breach in December 2021. The losses were estimated at approximately $196 million, and the exchange said affected customers would be compensated. Unlike Mt. Gox, Cryptopia and several other hacked exchanges, BitMart continued operating for several years after the incident.
The BitMart closure is especially notable because it was announced only days after BitMEX disclosed its own planned shutdown. Together, the announcements suggest that exchange closures are not limited to failed or seized platforms: established companies may also leave the market through planned commercial wind-downs.
Timeline of major closed, collapsed and seized exchanges
| Year | Platform | Type of shutdown | Principal cause |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | Mt. Gox | Collapse and bankruptcy | Large-scale Bitcoin theft and insolvency |
| 2015 | Coin.mx | Law-enforcement shutdown | Unlicensed exchange and AML violations |
| 2017 | BTC-e | International enforcement | Money laundering and unlicensed operations |
| 2019 | QuadrigaCX | Bankruptcy | Executive fraud and missing customer assets |
| 2019 | Cryptopia | Liquidation | Security breach and loss of business viability |
| 2022 | FTX | Bankruptcy | Misappropriation of customer funds and fraud |
| 2023 | LocalBitcoins | Voluntary closure | Prolonged difficult market conditions |
| 2023 | Bitzlato | International seizure | Alleged illicit finance and inadequate AML controls |
| 2023 | Beaxy | Regulatory closure | Alleged unregistered securities-market activity |
| 2023 | Bittrex Global | Orderly wind-down | Commercial and regulatory environment |
| 2024 | OPNX | Voluntary closure | Business wind-down |
| 2024 | Zipmex Thailand | Regulatory suspension | Financial and operational deficiencies |
| 2024 | Cryptex and PM2BTC | Infrastructure seizure | Alleged cryptocurrency money laundering |
| 2025 | Garantex | International disruption | Alleged money laundering and sanctions violations |
| 2025 | eXch | Infrastructure seizure | Alleged laundering of criminal proceeds |
| 2026 | BitMEX | Scheduled voluntary closure | Strategic business review |
What these failures have in common
The exchanges in this history did not all fail for the same reason, but several recurring risks appear repeatedly.
- Customer assets were controlled by the exchange
When users deposit assets with a centralised exchange, they normally give the platform control over the associated private keys. Customers therefore depend on the exchange’s security, accounting systems and withdrawal policies.
A balance displayed in an account is not the same as independently controlling cryptocurrency in a private wallet.
- Internal controls were often weaker than the company’s public image
QuadrigaCX and FTX appeared to be substantial businesses, but their collapses exposed serious weaknesses in governance, record-keeping and the treatment of customer deposits.
Marketing, sponsorships and high trading volumes provide little information about how an exchange is actually managed.
- Security failures can become insolvency events
A sufficiently large hack can make an exchange unable to return customer funds. Mt. Gox and Cryptopia demonstrated how a technical breach can develop into a years-long legal and financial process.
- Regulation can end an exchange even when it has not been hacked
Coin.mx, BTC-e, Beaxy, Bitzlato, Cryptex, Garantex and eXch were targeted primarily because of legal and compliance concerns rather than conventional commercial failure. Exchanges must now manage licensing, customer verification, transaction monitoring, sanctions screening, securities regulation and cross-border financial rules.
Recovery can take years
Closing an exchange does not immediately resolve customer claims. Bankruptcy estates must identify assets, reconstruct incomplete records, evaluate ownership rights and distribute funds across thousands or even millions of accounts.
The blockchain may preserve a permanent history of transactions, but it does not automatically produce a fast or fair insolvency process.
Conclusion
The history of cryptocurrency exchanges is not simply a catalogue of failed companies. It reflects the transformation of crypto from an experimental peer-to-peer technology into a global financial industry.
Mt. Gox exposed the dangers of weak wallet security. QuadrigaCX showed the risk of concentrating control in one individual. FTX demonstrated how customer deposits could be misused inside a highly visible global business. BTC-e, Bitzlato, Cryptex, Garantex and eXch showed that international authorities had developed increasingly sophisticated methods for identifying, seizing and dismantling cryptocurrency infrastructure.
Meanwhile, LocalBitcoins, Bittrex Global, OPNX and BitMEX demonstrated that some exchanges disappear through an organised commercial wind-down rather than a hack, fraud or criminal seizure.
The central lesson has remained largely unchanged since Bitcoin exchanges first appeared in 2010: users must evaluate not only an exchange’s fees, coins and trading features, but also who controls the assets, how reserves are managed, where the company is licensed and what would happen if withdrawals suddenly stopped.