
Minerta - Cexchangenex
Latest release: 1.1.1075 ( 30th June 2021 ) 🔍 Last analysed 11th January 2023 .As part of our Methodology, we ask:
A custodial service is a service where the funds are held by a third party like the provider. The custodial service can at any point steal all the funds of all the users at their discretion. Our investigations stop there.
Some services might claim their setup is super secure, that they don’t actually have access to the funds, or that the access is shared between multiple parties. For our evaluation of it being a wallet, these details are irrelevant. They might be a trustworthy Bitcoin bank and they might be a better fit for certain users than being your own bank but our investigation still stops there as we are only interested in wallets.
Products that claim to be non-custodial but feature custodial accounts without very clearly marking those as custodial are also considered “custodial” as a whole to avoid misguiding users that follow our assessment.
This verdict means that the provider might or might not publish source code and maybe it is even possible to reproduce the build from the source code but as it is custodial, the provider already has control over the funds, so it is not a wallet where you would be in exclusive control of your funds.
We have to acknowledge that a huge majority of Bitcoiners are currently using custodial Bitcoin banks. If you do, please:
- Do your own research if the provider is trust-worthy!
- Check if you know at least enough about them so you can sue them when you have to!
- Check if the provider is under a jurisdiction that will allow them to release your funds when you need them?
- Check if the provider is taking security measures proportional to the amount of funds secured? If they have a million users and don’t use cold storage, that hot wallet is a million times more valuable for hackers to attack. A million times more effort will be taken by hackers to infiltrate their security systems.
But we also ask:
Discontinued products or worse, products of providers that are not active anymore, are problematic, especially if they were not formerly reproducible and well audited to be self-custodial following open standards. If the provider hasn’t answered inquiries for a year but their server is still running or similar circumstances might get this verdict, too.
Do your own research!
Try out searching for "lost bitcoins", "stole my money" or "scammers" together with the wallet's name, even if you think the wallet is generally trustworthy. For all the bigger wallets you will find accusations. Make sure you understand why they were made and if you are comfortable with the provider's reaction.
If you find something we should include, you can create an issue or edit this analysis yourself and create a merge request for your changes.
The Analysis ¶
(Analysis from Android review)
App Description
It is a cryptocurrency exchange with support for: USDT, BTC, OMG, ZRX, LINK and others.
Terms
Provision on Cancellation of User Account
If there is any suspicious activity related to the User’s Account, Cexchangenex may request additional information from the User, including authenticating documents and freeze the Account for the review time. The User is obligated to comply with these security requests or accept termination of their Account.
The App and the Verdict
We downloaded the app and registered on the platform. It is a typical cryptocurrency exchange. There were no provisions for providing backups, seeds or mnemonics. It is a custodial service. The app cannot be verified.
(dg)
Share on
Twitter Facebook LinkedInOr embed a widget in your website
<iframe
src="https://walletscrutiny.com/widget/#appId=iphone/com.cexchangenex.cexchangenex&theme=auto&style=short" name="_ts"
style="min-width:180px;border:0;border-radius:10px;max-width:280px;min-height:30px;">
</iframe>
and
<iframe
src="https://walletscrutiny.com/widget/#appId=iphone/com.cexchangenex.cexchangenex&theme=auto&style=long"
style="max-width:100%;width:342px;border:0;border-radius:10px;min-height:290px;">
</iframe>