Hotbit Review: Is Safe or Not?

This review of provides an up-to-date look at the crypto exchange, focusing on safety, regulation, trading features, and risks for users.

Editorial Note: We uphold strict editorial standards. This article may reference partner products, and we explain how we earn money. All information is educational and does not constitute investment advice under our Disclaimer.

The exchange listed 200+ cryptocurrencies, offered numerous trading pairs (including niche DeFi assets), and supported spot trading only—no margin. A maker–taker fee schedule governed transactions. In addition to basic spot markets, also promoted add-on services such as token-earning programs (for example, staking-style products), occasional promotions and referral campaigns, and standard exchange utilities like a mobile app and API access for automated trading (availability could vary by region and over time).

operates without authorization from any recognized financial regulator, meaning there is no oversight, limited client protection, and low probability of recovering funds if problems occur. The platform also faced periods of operational disruption where deposits and withdrawals were paused, and it publicly referenced security and risk events as contributing factors. We did not see evidence of regulated investor-protection coverage (such as a statutory compensation scheme) or an exchange-backed insurance program that would guarantee reimbursement if user assets became inaccessible.

Fees on were typically presented as a spot maker–taker model, with rates varying by market and user conditions. Deposits were generally shown as free on the exchange side (users would still pay blockchain/network costs when sending crypto). Withdrawals were charged per asset and network, usually as a fixed amount that could change with network conditions; for example, major assets like BTC and ETH displayed a set withdrawal fee at the time of the request, while stablecoins such as USDT could have different fees depending on the chain selected (for example, ERC-20 versus other networks).

KYC (identity verification) was commonly positioned as optional for basic use, but it could become required for higher limits, certain account actions, or when compliance checks were triggered. In practical terms, verification status could affect withdrawal limits, access to specific features, and how quickly an account could be reviewed during disputes.

was marketed as “global,” but its verifiable corporate jurisdiction and a clearly accountable headquarters were not consistently presented in the way users typically see with regulated venues. Availability could also depend on local law and internal compliance controls, meaning some countries or regions could be restricted (for example, due to sanctions, local prohibitions, or heightened risk flags), sometimes enforced via IP checks or KYC screening.

Hotbit later published an announcement that it would cease operations, citing a deteriorating operating environment and elevated risk pressures (including security and compliance challenges). In that closure notice, the exchange asked users to withdraw assets within the stated withdrawal window and warned that services could be limited or turned off after the deadline. Users who missed the window, held illiquid/delisted assets, or had accounts flagged for review could face delays or an inability to complete withdrawals once core services were shut down.

Common criticisms about customer support included slow response times, templated replies, tickets marked as “escalated” without clear resolution, and prolonged withdrawal-related conversations during maintenance or incident periods.

The table below uses two columns: “Parameter” is the account or company attribute being described, and “Value” is the corresponding detail reported for .

I have worked in financial services for many years, with a focus on safe investing. My assessment is that shows the following risk indicators:

• Not licensed by any Tier 1 authority.
• Not supervised by any Tier 2 authority.
• Not overseen by any Tier 3 authority.
• Either offshore registration or an unverified registration number in official databases.
• Management details are missing or cannot be reliably confirmed.

Regulatory oversight does not eliminate risk, but it improves transparency, dispute handling, and the chances of meaningful user protection when something goes wrong.

My advice is to avoid such firms entirely. If you already hold a Hotbit account and have funds on the platform, start withdrawal attempts, document every step, and consider filing complaints with relevant oversight bodies and courts if customer support ignores you.

If your account is frozen or the interface is inaccessible, try the following recovery steps (outcomes may be limited after shutdown deadlines):

• Confirm whether the platform is still processing withdrawals by checking official status announcements on the Hotbit website/app (avoid lookalike domains).
• Attempt withdrawals in smaller batches (where possible) and record timestamps, screenshots, and any error messages.
• Export or copy all available account records: balances, deposit/withdrawal history, order history, and any KYC/identity submission confirmations.
• For any withdrawal shown as “sent,” capture the transaction ID (TxID) and verify on a blockchain explorer to confirm whether it actually broadcast and finalized.
• Open a formal support ticket using the official support channel shown inside the platform (or on the official domain) and attach your evidence bundle.
• If there was a published claims or withdrawal deadline in the closure announcement, reference it in your message and request a written decision if the request is denied.
• If support does not respond, escalate using the complaint routes available in your country (for example, consumer-protection agencies, cybercrime reporting portals, or civil court filings), noting that recovery may be difficult when an exchange is unregulated or has ceased operations.

Possible outcomes range from a normal on-chain withdrawal confirmation, to extended delays, to no recovery if services are discontinued or if assets were never made withdrawable after delisting or internal restrictions.

Potential advantages that users cited included:

• Wide variety of listed tokens and niche trading pairs.
• Simple access to spot markets.
• Promotional features (such as referral-style campaigns) that appealed to active traders.

Major disadvantages included:

• No recognized regulatory authorization and limited user protection.
• Operational disruptions and heightened counterparty risk.
• Frequent user complaints about support responsiveness, especially around withdrawals.
• Unclear accountability compared with regulated exchanges.

What to use instead: consider established cryptocurrency exchanges with stronger compliance footprints and clearer accountability in your jurisdiction. Examples of commonly used alternatives include Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, Bitstamp, Gemini, OKX, Bybit, and KuCoin (availability, product scope, and regulatory standing vary by country).

Choose only reputable, verified partners for cryptocurrency trading. Our “Find My Broker” tool can help you identify suitable options after quick verification of fees and conditions.

To evaluate this crypto platform’s reliability, we drew on the following materials:

• Official sites with registration details, licenses, and disclosures for brokers and financial companies (including subsidiaries).
• Regulatory registries containing warnings, notices, and other publications from authorities.
• Independent analytical portals with trader reviews, complaints, and claims related to withdrawals and deposits.

Latest database update: February 04, 2026.

Through years of analyzing financial companies, Traders Union has built a substantial knowledge base. Our analysts know how to distinguish scams from trustworthy organizations, and we publish fresh insights on a monthly basis about crypto, verification, and investor protection.

Real Story: How One Trader Fought Back and Won

A client tried to withdraw $1,000 (USD) after spotting abnormal spreads and negative slippage. The broker stalled the process repeatedly.

• Cited “technical issues” with the original payment route.
• Refused alternative payout methods due to vague document requirements.
• Went silent, replying only with “your request has been escalated.”

The trader saved every email and chat, then filed complaints with CySEC, ESMA, and the Cyprus Ombudsman. After several weeks and a €20 fee, the ombudsman accepted the case. Once the broker learned about it, they approved the full withdrawal.

Conclusion: Persistence matters. Gather evidence, follow formal complaint paths, and stay patient. Regulators can help most when you provide clear documentation.