commingling customer funds with operating capital exchange collapse

02 September 2026

Commingling is the practice of mixing customer deposits with an exchange’s own operating funds. When an exchange does this, the legal line between what belongs to users and what belongs to the company dissolves. Customers who thought they held assets in custody instead become unsecured creditors of a failed business. That distinction matters: creditors get in line behind secured lenders, while owners of identifiable property should not have to stand in any line at all.

The collapse of FTX in November 2022 is the definitive case study. FTX was a centralized exchange that held customer assets in accounts it controlled. Its sister trading firm, Alameda Research, was given preferential access to those same funds. This was not a breach by an outside hacker. It was a deliberate mixing of deposits and trading capital, hidden from customers, regulators, and most of FTX’s own staff.

How it worked in practice: customers deposited dollars, crypto, or stablecoins into FTX. Those deposits went into a single pool controlled by the exchange. FTX then lent large portions of that pool to Alameda. Alameda used the money for trades amplified by borrowed capital, venture investments, and political donations. On FTX’s internal books, this was recorded as a receivable from Alameda. But the receivable was backed by FTT, FTX’s own token, and by illiquid stakes in other crypto projects. When the value of FTT fell in response to a leaked balance sheet, Alameda could not repay. The pool of customer assets was gone.

Customers discovered they were unsecured creditors only after the exchange halted withdrawals. They had no claim to specific assets. FTX did not segregate funds in the way a licensed broker or bank is required to do. Instead, the exchange operated what prosecutors later described as a fractional reserve. Not every dollar on deposit was actually present; many dollars had been spent.

The legal structure matters. In a properly segregated arrangement, customer assets are held in trust or in accounts that are bankruptcy-remote. If the exchange collapses, those assets go back to customers, not to the exchange’s other creditors. Commingling destroys that protection. Once the money is in the same pot, a court cannot easily determine whose dollars paid for which expense. The exchange’s rent, salaries, and trading losses were all paid from the same pool as customer withdrawals.

Fractional reserve practices were uncovered only after FTX filed for bankruptcy. The new CEO, John Ray III, described a "complete failure of corporate controls" and stated that FTX had kept customer funds in "commingled accounts." He emphasized that Alameda had a "hidden, interest-free line of credit" from FTX that was not disclosed to users or investors. The scale was staggering: missing customer funds were estimated at roughly $8 billion, though the final figure depends on asset prices at the time of bankruptcy.

FTX was not the first exchange to commingle funds. It was the largest, and the speed of its collapse was unprecedented. Regulators in multiple jurisdictions have since proposed rules requiring exchanges to maintain separate accounts or to use qualified custodians. But enforcement remains uneven. Many exchanges still disclose little about how they hold customer assets.

The lesson for a customer is straightforward. Commingling is invisible until it is too late. You cannot tell from an exchange’s website whether your deposit sits in a segregated account or is being lent to a trading desk. The only signals are structural: whether the exchange submits to regular audits, whether it uses a third-party custodian, and whether it publishes proof of reserves that can be independently verified. Even these signals can be misleading. FTX published a proof-of-reserves document that showed a combined balance but did not distinguish between customer assets and corporate funds.

Commingling is not a technical error. It is a choice. Exchanges that commingle are choosing to operate with less capital than they owe. That choice transfers risk from the exchange to every person who deposits money. When the exchange is wrong about its ability to repay, everyone pays the price.

Back to exchange failures