{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"For overseas forex cashback services, try Money Charger","provider_url":"https://money-charger.com/en/","author_name":"admin","author_url":"https://money-charger.com/en/author/admin/","title":"What is Bitget's UEX? | Is it really true that \"putting everything on a DEX is safe\"? The concept of the \"main battlefield of assets\" - Money Charger, an overseas FX cashback service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"What is Bitget's UEX? | Is it really true that "putting everything on a DEX makes it safe"? The concept of the "main battlefield for assets"
\n","thumbnail_width":1304,"thumbnail_height":685,"description":"When the market crashes, what often determines the outcome afterward is not \"which assets you held,\" but \"where you kept those assets.\" Many people have likely heard or witnessed stories of people being unable to act because their assets were deposited in an exchange, or conversely, getting caught up in unexpected trouble because they insisted on self-management. Yet, simplistic statements like \"it's safe to keep everything on a DEX\" or \"CEXs are dangerous\" are still commonly heard. However, actual risks are far more complex and multifaceted. What we really need to consider is not a simple choice between safe or dangerous, but rather the design of which assets to hold, under what assumptions, and where to place them. How do we combine and manage assets with different characteristics, such as not only cryptocurrencies, but also stock tokens, gold, and FX? When we take this perspective, the idea of where to place the main battleground for our assets emerges. In this article, after organizing the risk structures of DEXs and CEXs, we will introduce the concept of UEX, which allows you to handle multiple assets, not just cryptocurrencies, in a single account. In this article, we will delve into why Bitget's UEX model is designed with operational assumptions rather than security in mind. We hope this will serve as an opportunity to re-evaluate your current choices from the perspective of where to place your assets, a perspective that becomes especially meaningful when the market is volatile. When the market collapses, the \"placement\" of your funds makes all the difference. When the market collapses, where you have placed your funds greatly influences your options for action, more so than the price movements themselves. Can you sell immediately when prices plummet, move to other assets, or are you stuck and simply have to endure? This difference arises not from calm judgment, but from the place you chose to place your funds in advance. For example, if you concentrate your assets on-chain, you may not be able to move them at the intended time due to factors such as network congestion, bridge failures, or contract malfunctions. On the other hand, funds placed on an exchange may also be subject to other constraints such as withdrawal restrictions or system delays. Neither is absolutely safer than the other; the reasons why you may become unable to move your funds differ depending on where you place them. This difference, often overlooked during normal market conditions, becomes clearly apparent during sudden changes. The important thing is not to try to guess which is the safest, but to consider where to place your funds based on how much room you have to act when things go wrong. The decision of where to place the main battleground of your assets is meaningful not in a rising market, but rather in a falling market. A common misconception: The extreme view that \"DEX = safe\" and \"CEX = dangerous\" In the world of cryptocurrencies, simplistic phrases like \"it's safe because it's self-custody\" and \"it's dangerous to deposit it on an exchange\" are often preferred. Especially as the use of DEXs spreads, we see extreme perceptions taking hold such as \"it's safe to leave it on a DEX\" and \"CEXs can't be trusted.\" However, the actual risks are not that simple. The important thing is not to decide which is right, but to understand what assumptions and risk structures each has. Misjudging this difference can lead to unexpected trouble. Self-custody does not eliminate risk. Self-custody certainly offers great freedom and control by allowing you to manage your private keys yourself and not entrust your assets to a third party. However, it also means that you assume all responsibility yourself. No one will compensate you for the loss or leakage of private keys or errors in wallet operation. Furthermore, when using a DEX, there is always the risk of contract vulnerabilities, bugs, and unintended behavior. In addition, asset transfers using bridges have resulted in numerous large-scale accidents in the past. The chain may stop, or you may be unable to move due to unexpectedly high fees. Self-custody is not a safety mechanism, but a highly flexible form of operation. Unless you accept the premise that risks do not disappear, but merely manifest in a different form, the decision to concentrate assets on a DEX becomes risky. CEXs also have risks, but they are of a different kind. On the other hand, it is true that CEXs also have risks. As long as you entrust custody to the exchange, there will be aspects that depend on the operational structure, systems, and regulatory compliance. In the past, there have been cases of bankruptcy, fraud, and withdrawal suspensions, which have led to distrust of CEXs. However, it is important to note that the risks of CEXs are not unilaterally inherently dangerous. While the risks of CEXs stem from their operation and mechanisms, there are also aspects that users can predict and take countermeasures for. For example, users can compare the stances of different exchanges, such as user protection funds, risk management systems, and the presence or absence of audits. Furthermore, even if a problem occurs, there are contact points and recovery processes in place, so users are not completely isolated. The characteristic of CEXs is that they allow for the building of protections based on different assumptions than self-custody, and it is more realistic to view them not as dangerous or safe, but as different types of risks. What is the difference between UEX, general CEX, and DEX? When considering where to store crypto assets, the choice is often made between CEX and DEX, but in reality, there are options in between, or even options based on a different approach. That is the concept of UEX. CEX, DEX, and UEX each have different roles and assumptions, and it is important to use them appropriately rather than judging one as superior to the other. Instead of comparing them using the same criteria for safety and convenience, the differences become clear when you organize them from the perspective of \"what will be the main battleground\" and \"how do you want to handle which assets?\". CEX: The main battleground for cryptocurrency trading. A typical CEX is a place designed primarily for buying and selling cryptocurrencies and derivatives trading. It has a rich set of features such as order book information, charts, and order functions, and can be said to be a highly complete environment for trading. It is characterized by its ease of use for many users in terms of liquidity, execution speed, and trading experience. On the other hand, since the assets handled are basically limited to cryptocurrencies, there are limitations in terms of managing an overview of all assets. If you are using multiple exchanges, it is often difficult to keep track of how much money is where. CEXs are excellent as a center for cryptocurrency trading, but it is important to understand that they are not necessarily the main hub for managing all assets. DEX: A highly flexible but high-risk experimental ground. DEXs are a system that conducts transactions directly on-chain, and their appeal lies in the high degree of flexibility based on self-custody. […]"}