Author: danny

Did you really understand CoinGlass's Q1 market analysis report?! Don't you all find that strange? CoinGlass emphasized the scale of Open Interest (OI) and Proof of Reserves (PoR) in the report, but it didn't combine these two factors to analyze the various exchanges and the market landscape? Did they not consider that?! 🤣

This article attempts to use the OI/PoR formula to express CoinGlass's "unspeakable secrets" that it wants to say but cannot say.

Using the OI data from CoinGlass's Q1 official report, we cross-referenced the reserve proofs of the eight major CEXs and discovered something that was misled by trading volume rankings:

Gate.io ranks third in OI, even surpassing OKX, but its reserves are less than half of OI's. Is that strange?

Is it possible that open interest on MEXC and KuCoin exceeds reserves by more than twice?

Binance only supports $1 of OI with $4.6 of reserves—is that really that conservative?

Even more intriguing is a figure disclosed by CoinGlass: Binance's user assets account for a staggering 73.5%, twice its trading volume share. Is that even possible?!

introduction

In our previous report (related reading: Who's Swimming Naked? An In-Depth Investigation into the Authenticity of Crypto Exchange Trading Volume and Market Share ), we used the trading volume/reserve ratio to expose the problems with exchange market share and trading volume. However, the credibility of using trading volume to confirm market share is always limited—market maker wash trading, project KPIs, trading incentive activities, zero-fee volume manipulation, etc., all more or less affect trading volume.

This time, let's look at it from a different angle: Open Interest (total open interest).

OI (Open Interest) is relatively more substantial than trading volume (though some exchanges inflate their OI figures). Trading volume is like flowing water – it disappears after execution; OI is an existing stock – each open contract requires real margin to lock in. You can inflate volume without spending money, but you can't create OI out of thin air – unless you actually put real money into it.

This time, we directly used the OI data (quarterly average, not a daily snapshot) from CoinGlass's official Q1 2026 market share research report , cross-referenced it with the official Proof of Reserves of various exchanges, and recalculated the OI/PoR ratio.

The CoinGlass report also provides a separate set of "user asset tracking" data, which differs significantly from the official PoR – but there's really nothing to be alarmed about; this difference itself is an important finding.

I. Data Sources and Methods

Data source: CoinGlass 2026 Q1 Market Share Report (OI), official PoR (Reserves) of various exchanges.

OI Data

This data comes from CoinGlass's 2026 Q1 market share research report and uses the average daily Open Interest (OI) for Q1 (not a single-day snapshot). CoinGlass reports provide precise data for the exchanges listed, while others use real-time snapshots as approximations.

Reserve data: Two rulers

We compared two sets of reserve data simultaneously: (I myself am surprised that the difference between the two sets of data is so large!)

CoinGlass tracks assets—CoinGlass's proprietary on-chain tracking system covers the top 10 exchanges. Its advantages include a unified data source and consistent reporting; its disadvantage is the potential for underreporting of assets held in third-party custody (a problem similar to DefiLlama).

https://x.com/coinglass_com/status/2040022795644780780?s=46

https://www.coinglass.com/en/learn/2026-q1-mktshare-report-en

Official PoR – Proof of Reserves audit data released by each exchange. Its advantage is comprehensive coverage (including third-party custody); its disadvantage is self-disclosure, requiring trust in the auditing party.

The discrepancy between the two sets of data reveals the issue of industry transparency (which will be discussed later).

II. CoinGlass Q1 Report: Binance is amazing

The Derivatives Market Landscape (Contracts are King)

In Q1 2026, the average daily trading volume of derivatives in the entire market was approximately $209.3 billion, with a derivatives-to-spot ratio of 9.6—indicating that traders prefer to use derivatives for hedging and short-term trading (aka, the market is now full of gamblers).

The total daily average OI for the entire market in Q1 was approximately $117.2 billion. The average in January was $141.1 billion (a quarterly high), then it plummeted to $102.6 billion in February (a 27% decrease), and slightly rebounded to $106 billion in March.

Binance leads across all four dimensions.

A CoinGlass report points to Binance's absolute dominance:

Most notably, the last line shows that Binance's share of user assets (73.5%) far exceeds its share of trading volume (34.9%) and open interest (OI) (29.9%). CoinGlass's original statement was: "Binance's lead in liquidity depth and asset custody far exceeds its lead in trading volume, implying that its role as a core infrastructure of the crypto market is more deeply entrenched than simply a trading volume ranking suggests."

III. OI/Reserve Ratio: A Dual-Scale Comparison

The logic behind this article is: within the same trading sector, trading similar assets, serving the same user group, and using the same trading rules, the capital utilization efficiency should theoretically be similar. Therefore, we used Hyperliquid's data metrics, specifically designed for trading, as a benchmark. Let's see which exchanges' data shows anomalies.

To demonstrate this to everyone, it is presented in two tables:

• Using the official PoR as the denominator (only core assets are calculated: BTC/ETH/USDT/USDC)

*HTX, KuCoin, and MEXC use real-time OI snapshots (not the Q1 average).

2. Use CoinGlass to track assets as the denominator.

3. Compare them side by side:

It's worth noting that the official PoR calculated in this article only applies to BTC/ETH/USDT/USDC – theoretically, the assets tracked by CoinGlass should have a higher PoR than this article, so why is it like this?!

What does the discrepancy between the two rulers reveal? Or rather, what does this difference represent?

Bybit has encountered its biggest contradiction. CoinGlass tracks Bybit's assets at only $5.6 billion, but Bybit's official PoR shows $13.9 billion. Using CoinGlass's asset calculation, Bybit's OI/asset ratio is a staggering 1.96x (alarm level); using the official PoR, it's only 0.79x (healthy level). This $8.3 billion discrepancy indicates that CoinGlass has significantly underreported Bybit's on-chain wallets—potentially multi-signature wallets, cold wallets, or third-party custodians that weren't tracked. (Or perhaps they didn't provide advertising fees? Sponsorship? Both parties should communicate about this.)

OKX is moving in the opposite direction. CoinGlass tracks $15.9 billion, while the official PoR report shows $28.7 billion. Using CoinGlass assets (0.43x), the figure is higher than the official PoR version (0.24x)—but both versions are within the safe zone. This $12.8 billion difference aligns with the DefiLlama bias we previously observed (+152%), further confirming that OKX has a large third-party custody footprint, which data platforms seem to be intentionally or unintentionally avoiding! Why is this?

The divergence at Gate.io is the most concerning. CoinGlass tracks $6.8 billion in assets, while the official PoR only reports $4.8 billion in core assets. However, CoinGlass's $6.8 billion may include non-core assets (GT tokens, etc.). Regardless of which data set is used, Gate.io's OI/reserve ratio is between 1.59x and 2.25x—significantly higher than the benchmark.

For project teams, this is a permissionless, self-service platform where you can find counterparties simply by adding liquidity.

Market competition is so direct and simple.

IV. Gate.io's OI Anomalies

The most surprising data in CoinGlass' Q1 report is Gate.io's OI ranking—third place with an average OI of $10.8 billion, even surpassing OKX ($6.8 billion).

In CoinGlass's own words: This is severely mismatched with Gate.io's asset size. Whether using CoinGlass's tracked $6.8 billion or the official PoR's $4.8 billion as the denominator, Gate.io's OI far exceeds its reserves. This may be due to the following reasons:

Aggressive contract product strategy. Gate.io has launched a large number of altcoin contracts, providing traders with exposure not available on other platforms. The total open interest (OI) of these altcoin contracts is considerable, but the liquidity of individual contracts may be very thin.

High leverage attracts speculators. Gate.io offers leverage up to 125x, allowing a large amount of online investment (OI) to be created with a small margin.

Market maker incentives. Gate.io may offer aggressive incentive policies for contract market makers, encouraging holding positions rather than frequent trading.

Whatever the reason, the ratio of $10.8 billion OI to $4.8-6.8 billion in reserves is an unusually aggressive signal—Gate.io's liquidation system may face pressure in extreme market conditions.

V. Two-Dimensional Comprehensive Analysis

VI. CoinGlass Verification

The CoinGlass Q1 report provides multiple layers of independent validation for our analytical framework:

Verification 1: Binance's true dominance far exceeds its trading volume ranking . CoinGlass data shows that Binance's user asset share (73.5%) far exceeds its trading volume share (34.9%). This aligns with our conclusion that "Binance's adjusted market share is close to 46-50%"—if measured by asset share, Binance's dominance is even stronger than we estimated.

Verification 2: Derivatives are the core battleground. The Q1 derivatives/spot ratio of 9.6x basically confirms our analytical premise that "contract trading volume determines the credibility of the total volume".

Verification 3: Hyperliquid has entered the mainstream competition. Its Q1 derivatives trading volume reached $492.7 billion, and its online interest (OI) reached $6 billion, officially entering the Top 10. This validates the rationale for choosing Hyperliquid as the "benchmark"—it is no longer a fringe player, but a substantial on-chain benchmark.

Verification 4: Liquidity depth is the true moat. Binance's BTC contract depth (±1%) is $284 million, nearly double that of second-place OKX ($144 million). CoinGlass commented, "No platform can exert full pressure on Binance simultaneously across all four core sub-markets." This means that even if some exchanges manage to close the rankings to Binance through wash trading, their actual liquidity remains far behind.

VII. Industry Landscape

Based on CoinGlass Q1 data and our PoR analysis, the landscape of the crypto derivatives market is as follows:

First Tier: Industry Infrastructure

Binance – the only platform ranked number one across all dimensions. $110 billion in official reserves, $23.9 billion in OI (Original Investment), $4.9 trillion in quarterly derivatives trading volume, and $284 million in BTC contract depth. With 73.5% of CoinGlass's user assets, Binance demonstrates that it is not just a trading platform, but also an "asset custody center" for the crypto market.

OKX – CoinGlass reports it as "the closest centralized platform to Binance." With $28.7 billion in reserves against $6.8 billion in OI (0.24x), it ranks second in both derivatives trading volume and contract depth. Its even reserve ratio (106-109%) sets a benchmark for transparency in the industry.

Second tier: Each with its own focus

Bybit ranks third in contract trading volume and second in online liquidity ($11 billion), but its user assets are only $5.6 billion (tracked by CoinGlass) or $13.9 billion (official PoR). CoinGlass describes it as having a "relatively balanced performance across trading volume, online liquidity, and spot liquidity."

Bitget – OI $6.4 billion (Q1 average), with both trading volume and OI ranking in the Top 5. A unique advantage is its 237% BTC excess reserves. OI/PoR 1.14x is close to the Hyperliquid benchmark, indicating healthy real holdings.

Third Tier: OI and Reserve Mismatch

Gate.io—the biggest "outlier" in CoinGlass data. It ranks third in OI ($10.8 billion), but its assets rank only third-fourth ($4.8-6.8 billion). Its OI/reserve ratio consistently falls between 1.6 and 2.25x. CoinGlass states, "Gate has strong performance in derivatives trading volume and OI, but relatively weak asset retention."

KuCoin and MEXC – Although both rank at the bottom in terms of trading volume and OI (Online Investment), and their OI/Reserve ratios are both over 2, which may seem unusual, their trading volume and accumulated assets are astonishing, which should be related to continuous trading incentive activities, market maker incentives, and fee policies.

VIII. Methodology and Limitations

OI data time differences. The top 5 exchanges use CoinGlass Q1 quarterly average (accurate), while HTX/KuCoin/MEXC use real-time snapshots (which may deviate from the Q1 average).

There are two sets of data for reserve information. CoinGlass tracks assets that differ significantly from the official PoR (e.g., Bybit differs by 2.5 times). We primarily use the official PoR as the benchmark, but have provided the CoinGlass version for reference.

The applicability of the Hyperliquid benchmark. Hyperliquid's Q1 average OI/TVL was 1.23x (up from 1.05x in our previous live snapshot), indicating that Hyperliquid's leverage level was higher during Q1 than it has been recently.

Conclusion: Three numbers

0.22x — Binance's OI/PoR ratio (CoinGlass Q1 average OI / official PoR). $110 billion in reserves only supports $23.9 billion in OI — every $4.6 in reserves supports $1 in open interest. CoinGlass independently confirmed Binance's comprehensive leadership across four dimensions, especially its 73.5% share of user assets — this figure demonstrates that Binance's moat lies not in trading volume, but in trust.

2.25x — Gate.io's OI/PoR ratio. This is the most surprising finding in CoinGlass's Q1 report — Gate.io's OI ($10.8 billion) ranks third, even surpassing OKX. However, its reserves ($4.8 billion in official PoR) are far from matching this OI scale. Whether Gate.io's OI comes from genuine user demand or market maker incentives, such aggressive data may raise concerns in the market.

73.5% – Binance's user asset share, according to the CoinGlass report. This figure is more than double Binance's trading volume share (34.9%) and OI share (29.9%). However, the author believes that this figure uses data from these five exchanges as the denominator, and does not represent the market share of the entire industry, making the statistical methodology somewhat imprecise.

Disclaimer: This report is based on the CoinGlass 2026 Q1 Market Share Research Report and official PoR data from various exchanges, and does not constitute investment advice. Some exchanges use real-time OI snapshots instead of the Q1 average. There are discrepancies between the assets tracked by CoinGlass and official PoR data; these are listed in the report for reference.