After the Binance hack worth about $6.3 billion, debate is growing among cryptocurrency investors over where it is safe to buy and store assets. Moves have also emerged to compare risks and protection systems by custody method, including centralised exchanges, decentralised finance (DeFi), self-custody wallets, and digital asset exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and exchange-traded products (ETPs).

On Nov. 1, local time, some experts said ETFs and ETPs could be an alternative, according to blockchain media outlet Cryptopolitan. Andrew Forson (앤드루 포슨), CEO of DeFi Technologies, assessed digital asset ETF and ETP investment as relatively safe because there are managers to respond when problems arise and companies can provide financial backing. Buying tokens directly on an exchange can expose investors to an exchange's financial and operational risks, he said.

Eric Balchunas (에릭 발추나스), a senior ETF analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, also likened ETFs to a new cryptocurrency exchange. He cited low trading fees and additional protection mechanisms.

Others also predict investors could move to decentralised exchanges (DEXs). Standard Chartered analysts said the hack could accelerate fund flows to DEXs, where users trade with each other without intermediaries. DeFi also does not guarantee safety. Attackers tried to swap stolen assets through Uniswap and Aave, and losses caused by smart contract security vulnerabilities or malicious trade approvals may be difficult to recover.

Regulated exchanges are not necessarily safe either. Soham Jethani (소함 제타니), a partner at Septon Advisors, said losses can grow if there are problems with internal staff or systems because control of client assets is concentrated at exchanges. He said this requires measures including segregated custody of client assets, independent withdrawal controls, sufficient financial capacity and insurance, and a clear accountability system. Abu Dhabi Global Market's Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) said it is working closely with Binance on the incident and monitoring customer protection and market order.

Self-custody wallets mean users do not need to entrust assets to an exchange, but individuals must take full responsibility for private keys and transaction approvals. Even when causes differ, as in FTX's misuse of customer funds and WazirX's wallet hack, asset recovery can take a long time. Even if repayment occurs, it may not be the same as getting back the original cryptocurrency holdings when needed, the report said.

The possibility that banks could emerge as an alternative was also raised. Stefan Deiss (스테판 데이스), CEO of The Hashgraph Group, said the attack did not use advanced technology or artificial intelligence (AI), but instead compromised an employee laptop to abuse trusted access rights. He assessed that the crypto industry has focused on blockchain security itself, while being relatively lax in managing internal staff and system privileges. In an environment where AI agents carry out fund transfers and payments, he added, identity checks, privilege limits and accountability need to be made clearer.

Binance, meanwhile, gradually resumed withdrawals that it had halted on Nov. 1. The company said it completed security checks and service recovery procedures and that the company, not users, would bear financial losses from the stolen assets. Binance said it covered about 95 percent by replenishing affected assets through the market and over-the-counter trades.

Ramsey El-Assal (램지 엘 아살), an analyst at Cantor, assessed that the industry is responding quickly even to large-scale hacks and that the ecosystem is gradually improving. Lance Vitanza (랜스 비탄자), an analyst at TD Cowen, also said the incident revealed Binance's security vulnerabilities rather than the underlying technology of virtual assets such as bitcoin. Just as a bank robbery does not lead to stopping the use of dollars, exchange hacks do not negate the value of cryptocurrency technology itself, he argued.