Resolving a Cryptocurrency Exchange Dispute in Singapore

When a cryptocurrency exchange dispute arises, the key question is not simply whether you have a claim, but how and where that claim can be pursued. This depends on jurisdiction and on the dispute resolution mechanisms set out in the cryptocurrency exchange’s user agreement. These user agreements are typically accepted at the point of account creation and govern the legal avenues available to you if a cryptocurrency exchange breaches its contractual obligations.

Traditionally, contractual disputes are resolved through court proceedings in national courts. However, many commercial contracts now depart from this model by requiring disputes to be resolved through alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”), most commonly arbitration. Arbitration is a form of ADR in which the parties agree to submit their dispute to one or more independent arbitrators, whose decision is final and binding. Arbitration allows parties to choose the forum, procedure, and decision-maker in advance, and these choices can significantly affect cost and timing.

Cryptocurrency exchanges almost invariably require disputes to be resolved through arbitration under their user agreement. As a result, the first and most important issue to consider when an exchange dispute arises is the arbitration mechanism mandated by the contract. The user agreement may require disputes to be seated in a particular jurisdiction, under specified arbitral rules, and subject to mandatory procedural preconditions. Engaging a law firm with experience in cryptocurrency arbitration at an early stage can be critical to navigating these requirements correctly.

The article compares the user agreements of seven commonly used cryptocurrency exchanges: Independent Reserve Pte. Ltd. (“Independent Reserve”), Gemini Digital Payments Singapore Pte. Ltd. (“Gemini SG”), Binance.com (“Binance”), Crypto.com, Coinbase, Kraken, and Hyperliquid, and focuses on:

• cryptocurrency exchanges that adopt a Singapore-based arbitration framework;
• cryptocurrency exchanges that adopt a Hong Kong-based arbitration framework;
• cryptocurrency exchanges that adopt a United States or United Kingdom-based arbitration framework. 

1. Cryptocurrency Exchanges with Singapore-Based Arbitration Frameworks

Of the seven cryptocurrency exchanges reviewed in this article, only Independent Reserve and Gemini SG require disputes to be resolved in Singapore under their user agreements. 

Independent Reserve is licensed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (“MAS”) under the Payment Services Act 2019 (“PSA”). Gemini SG has received in-principle approval from MAS for a Major Payment Institution licence, which authorises the provision of regulated payment services in Singapore, and is progressing toward full licensing.

As both exchanges operate within Singapore’s regulatory environment, their user agreements are shaped by Singapore’s legal framework, which determines how disputes are initiated, who decides them, and which courts may supervise or enforce awards. These choices directly influence cost, timelines, and the level of legal protection available to you. The key clauses from each cryptocurrency exchange’s user agreement are set out below, together with the main advantages and disadvantages of their Singapore-based arbitration frameworks.

1.1 Advantages Under the Gemini SG and Independent Reserve Legal Agreements

1.1.1 Why Singapore as the Seat, Governing Law, and Enforcement Forum Benefits You

(a) Gemini SG: Dispute Resolution Key Clauses

• Arbitration must be administered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”), in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of SIAC for the time being in force. Gemini SG and its affiliates shall have the sole discretion to commence proceedings in the Singapore courts if it deems fit. You agree not to raise any cross-claim, counter-claim, or defence of set-off (including, without limitation, equitable set-off) in such Singapore court proceedings. Any cross-claim, counter-claim, or defence of set-off that you might otherwise have raised must instead be brought in arbitration (Clause 10.1 of the Gemini SG User Agreement) (“Gemini UA”).
• The seat of the arbitration is in Singapore, and the language of the arbitration is English. The Tribunal shall consist of one arbitrator appointed by the President of the SIAC Court of Arbitration. The law governing the arbitration agreement is Singapore law (Clause 10.2 of the Gemini UA). 
• You and Gemini SG and its affiliates irrevocably and unconditionally waive any objection to the venue of any action or proceeding relating to the enforcement of the arbitral award in the courts located in Singapore (Clause 10.13 of the Gemini UA).
• If, for any reason, this arbitration agreement becomes not applicable, or for any other reason litigation proceeds in court, you and Gemini SG submit to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the courts located in Singapore, and you agree not to institute any such action or proceeding in any other court in any other jurisdiction (Clause 10.15 of the Gemini UA).

(b) Independent Reserve: Dispute Resolution Key Clauses

• These terms and conditions are governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Singapore (Clause 14.1 of the Independent Reserve User Agreement) (“IR UA”). 
• If the dispute is not resolved through negotiation, the parties may, by mutual agreement, submit the dispute to arbitration administered by the SIAC. The arbitration will be conducted by a single arbitrator appointed in accordance with the SIAC Rules for the time being in force. The arbitration will be conducted in English, and the award will be final and binding on the parties (Clause 14.3 of the IR UA).
• Despite the above provisions, either party may seek injunctive or interim relief from the courts of Singapore to prevent irreparable harm or to preserve rights pending arbitration (Clause 14.4 of the IR UA).
• Subject to the dispute resolution mechanism above, the parties irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Singapore (Clause 14.5 of the IR UA).

This structure benefits you because it places every major component of the dispute resolution process within Singapore, creating a familiar and predictable legal environment. The arbitration is administered by SIAC, so the process follows established rules and timelines commonly used in commercial disputes. The seat of arbitration is Singapore, meaning the proceedings are supervised under Singapore arbitration law, which governs procedural matters such as how the Tribunal conducts the case and the circumstances in which Singapore courts may support or intervene. Furthermore, the language of the arbitration is English, reducing translation burdens and costs. 

Singapore is widely regarded as one of the most preferred seats for international arbitration globally. According to the 2025 International Arbitration Survey by Queen Mary University of London and White & Case, Singapore ranks among the top five most preferred arbitration seats worldwide and is selected by 31% of respondents, placing it second globally. Interviewees highlighted Singapore’s strong governmental support for arbitration, its substantial investment in legal infrastructure, and the efficiency and predictability of its courts, even in complex enforcement proceedings. The survey also identified the SIAC Rules as one of the five most preferred sets of arbitral rules worldwide, reflecting SIAC’s strong international standing. By situating the arbitration process in Singapore, Gemini SG and Independent Reserve offer a coherent and predictable arbitration framework that avoids foreign-law uncertainty and reduces overall complexity, an advantage most other cryptocurrency exchanges do not provide.

1.2 Disadvantages Under the Gemini SG and Independent Reserve User Agreements

While both Gemini SG and Independent Reserve’s user agreements offer important advantages by locating the dispute resolution process in Singapore, there are also some disadvantages that you should be aware of. These disadvantages differ between Gemini SG and Independent Reserve, and the key issues are set out below.

1.2.1 Court Proceedings May Be Initiated Only by the Cryptocurrency Exchange 

(a) Gemini SG: Dispute Resolution Key Clauses

• Arbitration must be administered by the SIAC, in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of SIAC for the time being in force. Gemini SG and its affiliates have the sole discretion to commence proceedings in the Singapore courts if it deems fit. You agree not to raise any cross-claim, counter-claim, or defence of set-off (including, without limitation, equitable set-off) in such Singapore court proceedings. Any cross-claim, counter-claim, or defence of set-off that you might otherwise have raised shall instead be brought in arbitration (Clause 10.1 of the Gemini UA).
• You and Gemini SG and its affiliates expressly agree that any dispute about the scope of this arbitration agreement and/or the arbitrability of any particular dispute shall be resolved in arbitration. You and Gemini SG and its affiliates expressly agree that an arbitrator may issue all appropriate declaratory and injunctive reliefs necessary to ensure the arbitration of disputes (Clause 10.3 of the Gemini UA). 

When read together, Clauses 10.1 and 10.3 of the Gemini UA create an asymmetric dispute resolution structure. While you are required to resolve all disputes through arbitration, Gemini SG retains discretion to bring proceedings in the Singapore courts if it considers litigation more suitable. 

Singapore courts have accepted that such asymmetry is permissible. In Wilson Taylor Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Dyna-Jet Pte Ltd [2017] SGCA 32, the Singapore Court of Appeal held that “a contractual dispute resolution agreement conferring an asymmetric right (in other words, a right enjoyed by only one party to the agreement but not by the other) to elect whether to arbitrate a future dispute” is nevertheless valid, rejecting arguments based on “lack of mutuality”. Accordingly, a dispute resolution clause may validly be asymmetric, even if it allows one party to elect between arbitration and court proceedings, while the other party is confined to arbitration.

If Gemini SG elects to commence court proceedings, you are contractually barred from raising counter-claims or set-offs in that proceeding, even where they arise out of the same facts. Any such claims must instead be pursued through a separate arbitration, requiring you to initiate fresh proceedings and incur additional filing fees and legal costs. This fragmentation of related disputes across multiple forums may substantially increase cost and procedural burden on you. 

1.2.2 Strict Pre-Arbitration Requirements That Delay or Risk Your Ability to Commence Arbitration

(a) Gemini SG: Dispute Resolution Key Clauses

• A party seeking arbitration must first send to the other a written notice of dispute (“Dispute Notice”). Any Dispute Notice must include: (a) the name, address, and email address of the party providing the Dispute Notice; (b) a description of the nature and basis of the claim or dispute; (c) an explanation of the specific relief sought, including the total damages claimed and the basis for the damage calculations; (d) a signed statement from the party providing the Dispute Notice verifying the accuracy of the contents of the Dispute Notice; and (e) if the dispute is from you, and you have retained an attorney, a signed statement from you authorizing Gemini to disclose your account details to your attorney if necessary in resolving your claim or dispute. Compliance with these informal dispute resolution procedures is a condition precedent to commencing arbitration, and the arbitrator shall dismiss any arbitration filed without fully and completely complying with these informal dispute resolution procedures (Clause 10.8 of the Gemini UA). 
• If you and Gemini SG or its affiliates do not reach an agreement to resolve a claim within 60 days after a Dispute Notice is received, you or Gemini SG or its affiliates may commence an arbitration proceeding; except that, if either you or Gemini SG or its affiliates send the other an incomplete Dispute Notice, the 60-day period begins only after a complete Dispute Notice is received. The statute of limitations and any filing fee deadlines shall be tolled while the parties engage in these informal dispute resolution procedures (Clause 10.9 of the Gemini UA).

Clauses 10.8 and 10.9 of the Gemini UA can prevent you from obtaining any timely remedy at all. Before arbitration is available, you must submit a Dispute Notice that complies with detailed technical requirements, including a quantified damages claim and formal verification statements. If those requirements are not met, the arbitrator is required to dismiss the arbitration, with no opportunity to correct defects within the proceedings. Where a Dispute Notice is treated as incomplete, arbitration cannot begin, and the 60-day waiting period does not start. You must then correct the Dispute Notice and restart the entire process, increasing cost and delay. 

Even where you face urgent problems, such as frozen accounts, unauthorised transactions, or forced liquidation, SIAC arbitration cannot be commenced until at least 60 days after a complete Dispute Notice is received, even if immediate relief is necessary. If the Dispute Notice is defective, access to arbitration may be delayed for months. During that period, losses may continue to accrue while you have no ability to commence arbitration or seek interim relief. In practical terms, this may render arbitration ineffective precisely when timely intervention matters most.

Singapore courts enforce such pre-arbitration requirements strictly when they are drafted in mandatory terms. In International Research Corp PLC v Lufthansa Systems Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and another [2013] SGCA 55, the Singapore Court of Appeal held that contractual dispute resolution steps drafted in “mandatory fashion” and intended to “precede the commencement of arbitration” are enforceable as conditions precedent and must be complied with before arbitration may proceed. 

1.2.3 Arbitration Is Available Only by Mutual Agreement

(a) Independent Reserve: Dispute Resolution Key Clause

• If the dispute is not resolved after negotiation, the parties may, by mutual agreement, submit the dispute to arbitration administered by the SIAC. The arbitration will be conducted by a single arbitrator appointed in accordance with the SIAC Rules for the time being in force. The arbitration will be conducted in English, and the award will be final and binding on the parties (Clause 14.3 of the IR UA).

As Clause 14.3 of the IR UA provides that disputes may be submitted to SIAC arbitration only by mutual agreement, there is no binding arbitration agreement unless and until Independent Reserve agrees. If Independent Reserve withholds consent, the user cannot establish even a prima facie valid arbitration agreement, meaning an arbitration agreement that appears valid on its face. In such circumstances, the Singapore courts will not pause court proceedings in favour of arbitration. As the Singapore Court of Appeal explained in Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals [2015] SGCA 57, arbitration cannot be compelled in the absence of a prima facie valid arbitration agreement.

Singapore courts treat pre-arbitration procedural requirements as binding components of the arbitration agreement. In KVC Rice Intertrade Co Ltd v Asian Mineral Resources Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 32, the defendant objected that arbitration was “premature” because the contract required disputes to be first “settled by discussion and mutual agreement”. The party seeking to commence arbitration was therefore required to demonstrate that this contractual precondition had been satisfied before arbitration could proceed.

Therefore, you have no unilateral right to elect arbitration. Even where arbitration may be the more appropriate forum, because of confidentiality, speed, or the availability of specialist arbitrators, the choice of forum ultimately rests with the cryptocurrency exchange. If Independent Reserve refuses to consent, the dispute must proceed by court litigation, depriving you of the procedural features commonly associated with SIAC arbitration and leaving the dispute resolution pathway outside your control.

2. Cryptocurrency Exchanges with Hong Kong-Based Arbitration Frameworks

Among the cryptocurrency exchanges reviewed in this article, Crypto.com and Binance provide for disputes to be resolved through arbitration administered by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC”). Both cryptocurrency exchanges adopt Hong Kong as the seat of arbitration, either expressly or by reference to the applicable arbitration rules.

Crypto.com and Binance both operate internationally and provide services to users through overseas companies, rather than through Singapore-incorporated entities. Neither platform is licensed by the MAS under the PSA. 

The key dispute resolution clauses from each cryptocurrency exchange’s Legal Agreement are set out below, together with an analysis of their implications for you. 

2.1 Advantages Under the Crypto.com and Binance Legal Agreements

2.1.1 Why Hong Kong as the Seat, Governing Law, and Enforcement Forum Benefits You

(a) Crypto.com: Dispute Resolution Key Clauses

• Unless otherwise specified, the agreement, your use of the service or website is governed by the law in force in Hong Kong (Clause 26.9(a) of the Crypto.com User Agreement) (“Crypto.com UA”).
• The law of this clause is Hong Kong law (Clause 26.10(c)(i) of the Crypto.com UA). 
• The seat of arbitration will be Hong Kong (Clause 26.10(c)(ii) of the Crypto.com UA). 

(b) Binance: Dispute Resolution Key Clauses

• Aside from where the applicable law requires or provides you with a choice otherwise, you and Binance agree that, any claim shall be determined by mandatory final and binding individual arbitration administered by the HKIAC in accordance with the HKIAC Rules for the time being in force (Clause 32.1 of the Binance User Agreement) (“Binance UA”). 
• The seat of arbitration shall be Hong Kong (Clause 32.2 of the Binance UA).
• The Tribunal shall consist of one (1) arbitrator to be appointed in accordance with the HKIAC Rules for the time being in force (Clause 32.3 of the Binance UA).
• The language of the arbitration shall be in English (Clause 32.4 of the Binance UA).

These clauses require disputes to be resolved by HKIAC-administered arbitration seated in Hong Kong and governed by Hong Kong law, with supervisory jurisdiction vested in the Hong Kong courts. The arbitration is conducted in English, which reduces translation costs in cross-border disputes. 

If you are based in Singapore, Hong Kong is a major regional arbitration hub with frequent direct flights from Singapore, which may reduce travel time and logistical inconvenience if in-person hearings are required. 

In 2024, HKIAC received 352 arbitration filings involving parties from more than 50 jurisdictions, and a large proportion of those cases involved at least one non-Hong Kong party. This shows that HKIAC-administered arbitrations seated in Hong Kong are commonly used in disputes involving international parties, which supports the relevance of selecting HKIAC and Hong Kong as the forum in the Legal Agreements. Furthermore, as Hong Kong is a New York Convention jurisdiction, arbitral awards rendered in Hong Kong are generally enforceable in other Convention jurisdictions.

2.1.2 Requirement for Technologically Competent Arbitrators

(a) Crypto.com: Dispute Resolution Key Clause

• The number of arbitrators will be 1, and that arbitrator must have relevant legal and technological expertise (Clause 26.10(c)(iii) of the Crypto.com UA). 

Clause 26.10(c)(iii) of the Crypto.com UA requires the sole arbitrator to possess both legal and technological expertise. This can be advantageous because disputes involving cryptocurrency exchanges often turn on how the exchange’s systems operate in practice, such as how trades are executed, how positions are liquidated, or how users interact with the exchange through its interface. An arbitrator with relevant technological expertise is better placed to understand the evidence relating to these issues and to assess disputed factual questions, alongside the legal analysis of the parties’ rights and obligations.

2.2 Disadvantages Under the Crypto.com and Binance Legal Agreements

2.2.1 Strict Pre-Arbitration Requirements That Delay or Risk Your Ability to Commence Arbitration

(a) Binance: Dispute Resolution Key Clauses

• In the event the dispute cannot be resolved satisfactorily, and you wish to assert a claim against Binance, then you agree to set forth the basis of such a claim in writing in a Notice of Claim, as a form of prior notice to Binance. The Notice of Claim must (1) describe the nature and basis of the claim or dispute, (2) set forth the specific relief sought, (3) provide the original ticket number, and (4) include your custody account email. The Notice of Claim should be submitted to the following web address: https://www.binance.com/en/chat (Clause 31.2 of the Binance UA). 
• For the avoidance of doubt, the submission of a dispute to Binance for resolution internally and the delivery of a Notice of Claim to Binance are prerequisites to commencement of an arbitration proceeding (or any other legal proceeding) (Clause 31.3 of the Binance UA).

Clauses 31.2 and 31.3 of the Binance UA require you to complete Binance’s internal dispute resolution process and submit a compliant Notice of Claim before arbitration may be commenced. As a result, compliance with these procedural requirements is a condition precedent to arbitration. As with the Gemini SG UA discussed above, such mandatory pre-arbitration requirements are enforced strictly. Unless and until those requirements are satisfied, arbitration is contractually unavailable, and any defect or omission in the Notice of Claim will delay access to arbitration, even where time-sensitive relief may be required.

2.2.2 One-Year Contractual Limitation Period

(a) Crypto.com: Dispute Resolution Key Clauses

• If you and Crypto.com cannot reach an agreement to resolve the claim within 30 days after such notice is received, then either party may submit the dispute to binding arbitration in accordance (Clause 26.10(a) of the Crypto.com UA).
• Any claim from you arising out of or related to the agreement, the exchange and/or services must be filed within one year after such claim arose. Otherwise, the claim is permanently barred, which means that you will not have the right to assert the claim (Clause 26.10(d) of the Crypto.com UA). 

When read together, these clauses impose a short contractual limitation period that operates alongside a mandatory pre-arbitration waiting period. In practice, issues such as erroneous trade execution, delayed withdrawals, or account discrepancies may only become apparent after you review transaction histories sometime after the event. By the time the issue is identified, a significant portion of the one-year period may already have elapsed. This is further compounded by the mandatory 30-day informal resolution period under clause 26.10(a) of the Crypto.com UA, which reduces the time available to investigate the issue, obtain advice, and commence arbitration. If the one-year deadline is missed, clause 26.10(d) of the Crypto.com UA permanently bars the claim.

In Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v China Construction (South Pacific) Development Co Pte Ltd [2005] SGCA 59, the Singapore Court of Appeal confirmed that a cause of action founded on breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach, and that subsequent discovery of damage does not extend the limitation period. 

(b) Binance: Dispute Resolution Key Clause

• Any arbitration against Binance must be commenced by filing and serving a Notice of Arbitration in accordance with the HKIAC Rules within one (1) year after the date that the user asserting the claim first found out or reasonably should have found out the alleged act, omission or default giving rise to the claim (Clause 32.7 of the Binance UA).  

Clause 32.7 of the Binance UA provides that the one-year time limit for commencing arbitration begins when you first become aware of the issue giving rise to the claim, or when you reasonably should have become aware of it. However, the reference to when a user “reasonably should have become aware” creates uncertainty about exactly when the time limit starts, particularly in disputes involving technical trading systems or delayed account access.

In addition, the one-year period is short in practical terms. You must identify the issue, gather evidence, and file a Notice of Arbitration within that period, and the clause expressly provides that the pre-arbitration dispute resolution period counts toward the one-year deadline. While this is less restrictive than Clauses 26.10(a) and 26.10(d) of the Crypto.com UA, it continues to place significant time pressure on users, especially in complex or technically intensive disputes.

2.2.3 You Bear the Risk of Missing Important Notices

(a) Binance: Dispute Resolution Key Clause

• If Binance commences arbitration against you, Binance will give you notice at the email address or mailing address you have provided. You agree that any notice sent to this email or mailing address shall be deemed effective for all purposes (Clause 32.8 of the Binance UA). 

Clause 32.8 of the Binance UA treats notice as effective once it is sent to the email or mailing address on record, placing the responsibility on you to keep those details up to date. The risk is that you may be treated as having been notified even if you did not actually read the email. 

Singapore courts have recognised that where parties specify an address for communications in their contract, service at that address will generally constitute proper notice. In Re Shanghai Xinan Screenwall Building & Decoration Co, Ltd [2022] SGHC 58, the Singapore High Court explained that “where an address is given in a contract, it is a simple inference that the address has been included to facilitate communication between the parties” and that “service of a notice of arbitration in respect of that contract at that address will usually amount to proper notice of the arbitration” unless a change of address has been notified. 

If a notice is filtered, overlooked, or sent to an inaccessible account, important deadlines may be missed, potentially resulting in loss of procedural rights in arbitration.

3. Cryptocurrency Exchanges with the United States or United Kingdom-Based Arbitration Frameworks

3.1 Disadvantages Under the Coinbase, Hyperliquid and Kraken User Agreements

Among the cryptocurrency exchanges reviewed in this article, Coinbase, Kraken, and Hyperliquid require disputes to be resolved through arbitration seated in the United States or the United Kingdom, pursuant to their respective user agreements. 

The key dispute resolution clauses from each cryptocurrency exchange’s user agreement are set out below, followed by an analysis of how these clauses may impact you.

3.1.1 Why United States or United Kingdom as the Seat, Governing Law, and Enforcement Forum Disadvantages You

(a) Coinbase: Dispute Resolution Key Clause

• The arbitration will be administered by the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), in accordance with the Consumer Arbitration Rules then in effect (Clause 4 of the Coinbase User Agreement) (“Coinbase UA”). 

(b) Hyperliquid: Dispute Resolution Key Clause

• These terms are governed by and will be construed under the laws of England and Wales. Any dispute that remains unresolved after the informal resolution process will be finally resolved by arbitration under the rules of the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”), as amended from time to time. Arbitration will be conducted in English, in London, United Kingdom, by a single arbitrator appointed under the LCIA Rules (Clause 11.4 of the Hyperliquid User Agreement (“Hyperliquid UA”). 

(c) Kraken: Dispute Resolution Key Clause

• You and Kraken agree: (a) to attempt informal resolution prior to any demand for arbitration; (b) that any arbitration will occur in San Francisco, California; (c) that arbitration will be conducted confidentially by a single arbitrator in accordance with the rules of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (“JAMS”); and (d) that the state or federal courts in San Francisco, California have exclusive jurisdiction over any appeals of an arbitration award and over any suit between the parties not subject to arbitration. Any dispute between the parties will be governed by these terms and the laws of the State of California and applicable United States law (Clause 11.4 of the Kraken User Agreement (“Kraken UA”).

These clauses require disputes to be resolved through arbitration seated in the United States or the United Kingdom. This is a serious disadvantage because it makes enforcing your rights expensive, difficult, and often impractical in reality. The arbitration seat determines which national courts exercise supervisory control over the process. As a result, any application for interim relief, challenges to an arbitrator, procedural objections, or challenges to the final award must be brought before courts in the United States or the United Kingdom.

For users based in Singapore, this creates an immediate and concrete problem. You must engage foreign counsel, navigate unfamiliar court procedures, and pursue proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction. In many cases, the legal costs alone may exceed the value of the claim, effectively deterring you from pursuing disputes regardless of their merits.

Singapore is a United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”) Model Law jurisdiction. The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“UNCITRAL Model Law”) is a uniform framework developed by UNCITRAL and is designed to minimise judicial intervention in arbitration. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law, courts generally do not review the merits of arbitral decisions. By contrast, in ST Group Co Ltd and others v Sanum Investments Ltd [2019] SGCA 65, the Singapore Court of Appeal observed that “English courts will subject the arbitrators’ decision to a measure of substantive review”, unlike courts in UNCITRAL Model Law jurisdictions. The Singapore Court of Appeal further explained that “an agreement as to the seat of the arbitration is analogous to an exclusive jurisdiction clause”, such that “[a]ny claim for a remedy going to the existence or scope of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction or as to the validity of an existing interim or final award is agreed to be made only in the courts of the place designated as the seat of the arbitration”. The practical consequence is that selecting a United Kingdom seat places the arbitration under a materially different and more interventionist judicial regime than a Singapore-seated arbitration governed by the UNCITRAL Model Law.

This framework heavily favours the cryptocurrency exchange. Coinbase, Hyperliquid, and Kraken are headquartered or legally anchored in the United States or the United Kingdom and can absorb these legal costs as part of doing business. Individual users cannot. As a result, arbitration exists largely in form rather than substance, serving less as a genuine avenue for dispute resolution and more as a deterrent to claims.

3.1.2 You and the Cryptocurrency Exchange Are Both Barred from Court Proceedings

(a) Hyperliquid: Dispute Resolution Key Clause

• Except for claims that must be heard in a small claims court of England and Wales or any other applicable jurisdiction, you and the company agree to waive the right to have any and all disputes or claims arising from these terms, your use of, or access to, the interface, or any other disputes with the company resolved in a court. Instead, all disputes will be resolved through binding arbitration (Clause 11.1 of the Hyperliquid UA).

Clause 11.1 of the Hyperliquid UA requires both you and Hyperliquid to waive access to court proceedings for almost all disputes, mandating resolution through arbitration. For you, the practical effect is a highly restrictive forum arrangement. Even in situations where court proceedings may be preferred, you are contractually required to arbitrate. 

3.1.3 Strict Pre-Arbitration Requirements That Delay or Risk Your Ability to Commence Arbitration

(a) Coinbase: Dispute Resolution Key Clause 

• If you initiate the arbitration, you must provide Coinbase a copy of your request by email at arbitration@coinbase.com or through Coinbase’s registered agent for service of process. The request must include: (1) the name, telephone number, mailing address, email address of the party seeking arbitration, and the email addresses (if any) associated with the applicable Coinbase developer platform account(s); (2) a statement of the legal claims being asserted and the factual bases of those claims; (3) a description of the remedy sought, including an accurate, good faith calculation of the amount in controversy in United States Dollars; (4) if you are the party making the request, a statement certifying completion of the formal complaint process; and (5) evidence that the requesting party has paid any necessary filing fees in connection with such arbitration. If the party requesting arbitration is represented by counsel, the request shall also include counsel’s name, telephone number, mailing address, and email address (Clause 4 of the Coinbase UA).

(b) Hyperliquid: Dispute Resolution Key Clause

• Notice to the company shall be provided by sending an email to support@hyperliquid.zendesk.com. Your notice must include: (1) your name, postal address, and email address; (2) a description of the nature or basis of the dispute; and (3) the specific resolution or action that you are seeking. If the dispute cannot be resolved informally within thirty (30) days of receipt, either party may commence arbitration (Clause 11.3 of the Hyperliquid LA).

These clauses impose mandatory pre-arbitration notice and procedural steps that must be satisfied before arbitration is available. In both cases, access to arbitration is conditional on compliance with prescribed formal requirements and, for Hyperliquid, the expiry of a fixed waiting period. These steps operate as practical barriers to immediate recourse to arbitration, particularly for individual users who may be unable to quantify losses, frame legal claims precisely, or wait through a mandatory pre-arbitration period while losses continue to accrue.

As explained above in relation to the Gemini SG UA, courts generally enforce pre-arbitration notice and dispute resolution steps strictly where they are drafted in mandatory terms and intended to operate as conditions precedent to arbitration. The same concern arises here.

3.1.4 Short 30-Day Notice Requirement May Cause Users to Lose Claims 

(a) Kraken: Dispute Resolution Key Clause

• You and Kraken agree to notify each other in writing of any dispute within 30 days of when it arises (Clause 14 of the Kraken UA).

(b) Hyperliquid: Dispute Resolution Key Clause

• You agree to notify us, in writing, of any dispute within thirty (30) days of when it arises so that the parties can attempt, in good faith, to resolve the dispute informally (Clause 11.3 of the Hyperliquid UA).

Both clauses require you to give written notice of a dispute within a fixed 30-day period as a condition of pursuing any further dispute resolution steps, including arbitration. The issue is that you may not discover account anomalies or disputed transactions within 30 days, especially if you trade infrequently, hold long-term assets, or review your account only periodically.

This creates a real risk of forfeiting rights. The notice obligation is rather ambiguous as it is tied to when a dispute “arises”, not when you become aware of it. If Kraken or Hyperliquid treats a dispute as having arisen at the time of the underlying transactional event, such as an execution error, fee deduction, liquidation, or access restriction, you may be regarded as out of time even before you knew there was a problem. This is particularly problematic where the issue is technical, intermittent, or only becomes apparent after delayed account access or later investigation.

4. Comparative Table: Dispute Resolution Clauses Across Cryptocurrency Exchanges

5. Farallon Law Corporation: Strategic Guidance on Cryptocurrency Exchange Dispute Resolution Clauses

If you are facing a significant or high-value dispute with a cryptocurrency exchange, it is important to engage a cryptocurrency law firm at an early stage. Cryptocurrency disputes often involve strict contractual notice requirements, short time limits, and procedural steps that, if missed, may prevent a claim from being pursued at all.

An informed procedural strategy at the outset can help avoid inefficient steps, unnecessary cost, and missteps that may later limit or weaken your claim. As cryptocurrency disputes can escalate quickly, particularly in cases involving account restrictions, liquidations, or unauthorised transactions, early and timely action is critical to preserving your rights.

At Farallon Law Corporation, we have extensive experience advising clients on cryptocurrency arbitration, dispute resolution clauses in cryptocurrency exchange user agreements, and the procedural risks they create. For advice on how these clauses may affect your position, please contact Farallon Law Corporation by email or via our contact form.

Frequently Asked Questions About Cryptocurrency Exchange Disputes

Is it possible to dispute a crypto transaction?

Yes, but the process depends on which cryptocurrency exchange you used and the terms of its user agreement. Most exchanges require crypto disputes to be resolved through arbitration rather than court proceedings. The applicable jurisdiction, arbitral rules, and pre-arbitration steps will determine whether a cryptocurrency exchange dispute can be effectively pursued.

Can I get my scammed crypto back?

Recovering scammed cryptocurrency is difficult but not impossible. Whether you have a viable claim depends on the exchange’s user agreement, the nature of the fraud, and whether the platform bears any contractual responsibility. Seeking legal advice early is essential, as strict time limits and procedural steps govern crypto disputes of this nature.

How do I file a complaint against a crypto exchange?

Start by reviewing the dispute resolution clause in your user agreement. Most exchanges require a formal written notice before arbitration can begin. Where SIAC arbitration or Singapore courts apply, a lawyer or law firm, such as Farallon Law Corporation, experienced in cryptocurrency exchange disputes, can help you comply with pre-arbitration requirements and avoid procedural missteps that could bar your claim.