Why this difference matters
A 30-day-old snapshot of only the biggest coins isn’t proof — it’s a postcard from last month. Proof of reserves comes down to three questions: how often is it proven, how is it proven, and what is proven. If it’s not in the proof, it’s not proven. This page lines up the six best-known programmes. Reference date: July 2026, based on the exchanges’ own PoR publications.
The comparison
| Exchange | Frequency | Technology | Coverage | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Backpack | Daily (internal: every 10 min) | Plonky2 ZK proofs (PoRv2) | All assets: spot + margin + unrealised PnL | Daily public ZK proofs since Aug 2025; continuously monitored by OtterSec; open source |
| OKX | Monthly | zk-STARK / Merkle tree | 22 coins (incl. BTC, ETH, USDT, USDC) | 42nd report (Apr 2026); $26.2B in reserves; reserve ratios 100–110%; open-source tools |
| Bybit | Monthly | Merkle tree | Major assets | 31st report as of early 2026; consistent monthly cadence |
| Binance | Monthly | Merkle tree / zk-SNARKs | Major assets | Monthly PoR; methodology has faced scrutiny in the past |
| Kraken | Quarterly | Independent audit | 7 major assets (BTC, ETH, SOL, USDC, USDT, XRP, ADA) | Audits by The Network Firm; strong regulatory track record |
| Bitvavo | Quarterly | Independent attestation | 13 assets (BTC, ETH, EUR a.o.) | Quarterly attestations; Dutch supervision |
Frequency: daily vs monthly vs quarterly
The industry norm is monthly (OKX, Bybit, Binance); Kraken and Bitvavo publish quarterly. Backpack is currently the only one in this overview with daily public proofs, plus internal reconciliation every ten minutes. The shorter the interval, the smaller the window in which a shortfall can go unnoticed — which is exactly why frequency carries the most weight in our security pillar: daily or more +4, monthly +3, quarterly +1.5.
Coverage: which assets are in the proof?
This is the most underrated difference. Most programmes cover only major coins: OKX 22, Bitvavo 13, Kraken 7. Backpack, per its own publications, includes all assets held on the exchange, including margin positions and unrealised PnL — risk factors other programmes leave outside the proof.
Technology: Merkle tree, zk-STARK or recursive ZK
Merkle trees (Bybit, Binance) let users verify their own balance but leak structural information and only prove inclusion at a single moment. zk-STARKs (OKX) and recursive ZK proofs such as Plonky2 (Backpack) prove solvency cryptographically without revealing balances. Kraken and Bitvavo take a different route: no cryptographic proof, but an independent auditor confirming reserves — less frequent, with external accountability.
How this feeds the score
In the exchange score, PoR frequency counts in the security pillar (25% of the total): daily or more +4 points, monthly attestation +3, quarterly +1.5, none 0. Technology type (ZK vs Merkle) is not scored separately — that detail lives on the profiles. See the full point allocation in the methodology and the concept explainer at what is proof of reserves.
Frequently asked questions
Which exchange has the best proof of reserves?
Measured on frequency and coverage, Backpack is currently the most transparent in this overview: daily public ZK proofs across all assets. OKX follows with monthly zk-STARK reports across 22 coins. "Best" depends on what you weigh: Kraken and Bitvavo opt for less frequent but externally audited statements.
Is a Merkle tree proof reliable?
It lets you verify your own balance and is far better than nothing, but it only proves inclusion at a single snapshot and says nothing about liabilities outside the proof. Frequency and coverage determine the real value.
Why does Coinbase have no proof of reserves?
Coinbase publishes no periodic PoR attestations but is publicly listed and publishes audited financial statements — a different, legally enforceable form of accountability. In our score this counts via the regulation pillar (listing), not the PoR ladder.