How to choose a crypt exchange, which will not collapse the next day

I publish a fragment of the opinion of Vladimir Popov, co-founder of Itsynergis
Original text: https://vc.ru/p/reliable-exchange

Let's remember 2013 and the decline of the era of centralized anonymous systems: the LibertyReserve case. Then the US regulators and the FSB made it clear: this scheme no longer works. Recently, the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission of the USA) hinted that something similar could very soon happen in the ICO sphere.

To understand the significance of this statement, remember how the market reacted to the regulator's opinion about Winklevoss ETF. Then it was not about the ban - it was about refusing to register. For someone, these facts seem unrelated, but my experience suggests the opposite.

All, absolutely all centralized exchanges are always under attack. Therefore, "only decentralization, only hardcore."

Judge for yourself:

A centralized exchange can always be closed by any interested state: be it the People's Bank of China with statements about the impossibility of withdrawing funds or Roskomnadzor with the notorious blocking. Exmo, tied up in Spain, closed one of the ships in St. Petersburg. The circumstances of this matter in many ways still remain a mystery to me.
Attack will be on standard, centralized systems. You can not hack the exchange itself, but, for example, attack its website. Such examples can be found in related fields. There was an attempt to substitute DNS for blockchain.info. In the case of bithumb.com, the administrator's computer was hacked.
Nobody is ever insured against the "Japanese syndrome", when one day some of the managers of the centralized exchange will decide that it is much easier and more interesting to take at once than to pinch the commissions a little.

Five signs of reliability

Many traders who come from stock and other classical exchanges, evaluate the volume of trading. But we need to understand that some exchanges work "with the shoulder", while others do not. Some, like Poloniex, come up with pseudo dollars and other currencies, and some (like BTC-E) operate with quite real dollars, euros and even rubles.

What is more important in this case: volume or real security? I see the last. The volume, of course, is important for understanding such aspects as the entrance of large investors, the limits of support and resistance, and other trivialities of technical analysis.

But it only reflects the confidence of investors (speculators) in the moment. Do not forget that a significant part of the volume is made by bots, which means it is arbitration or some other kind of speculation. It is no longer a question of trust, but a purely utilitarian approach: where possible - we work there.

Jurisdiction. The People's Bank of China has more than once influenced the rate of bitcoin, and at the same time, on all other crypto-currencies. For example, when the prohibition of "cryptozoloto" and "crypto-silver" was imposed, very many people in China switched to broadcasting. This became one of the factors of the "pampa" (explosive growth of the air).

At the same time, the example of Mt.Gox proves: even the most legally strong countries do not guarantee protection against subjective factors. By the way, you can remember 2014, when many exchanges, including all the same BTC-E, actually left the rubles. Therefore, when we talk about jurisdiction, we need to understand that this is not only the location (albeit conditional) of the stock exchange, but also the location of the trader.

Undoubtedly, as elsewhere, the team is very important in the cryptosphere. And here there is always a paradox: on the one hand, blockade requires anonymity. On the other hand, finance should be extremely open. It is for this reason that there are so many questions to NiceHash, if to talk about mining, or to Poloniex with permanent "break-ins".

I think that gradually this criterion will become increasingly popular. Actually, the very idea of a chain of blocks assumes the existence of a reputation and its evaluation by someone or something.

Technical component. Oddly enough, on many exchanges, the correct two-factor authorization, safe, blocking output after changing authorization data, email notifications and other means of protection, which already existed for several years, were not introduced immediately.

Financial structure. Before working big even on very large exchanges, it is always worthwhile to understand the chain of intermediaries. Who accepts Wire? Who is e-money tied to when replenishing? Who provides access to Visa, MasterCard or bank account? What partners and in which countries does the project have?

Frankly speaking: there are still people (more and more - beginning traders "digital money"), who famously send almost all the savings for the first time written out the requisites.

Much more important than details

All of the above is true, but it's rough strokes. More important than the details. Unfortunately, to systematize them means to create a kind of antifree-decision to evaluate exchanges, exchangers and so on. This is one of my first specializations in IT. And so I will say that this approach is not easy.

Up-time: turn on the ping or put on a check by a specialized service. Many projects (from p2p-exchange points and up to large "payments") before withdrawing, left the web. Of course, these can be hosting problems, the register