MEXC remains one of the most controversial crypto exchanges in terms of regulatory compliance and user protection. Scam-Or Project has repeatedly reported on structural opacity and licensing deficiencies surrounding the platform. Since our earlier publications, additional regulatory warnings and persistent negative user feedback further reinforce MEXC’s high-risk classification.

The overall compliance profile has not improved. On the contrary, signals from regulators, review platforms, and whistleblowers continue to converge around the same core concerns.

Regulatory Status & Official Warnings

Several major financial authorities have issued public warnings or placed MEXC-affiliated entities on alert lists:

• United Kingdom – Financial Conduct Authority
  MEXC Global Ltd appears on the FCA Warning List as an unauthorised firm allegedly targeting UK users.
• Germany – Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin)
  BaFin has issued a consumer warning and investigation notice concerning MEXC’s services.
• Austria – Financial Market Authority (FMA)
  The FMA has publicly stated that MEXC is not authorised to provide licensable banking or financial services in Austria.
• Hong Kong – Securities and Futures Commission
  MEXC has been added to the SFC’s “Suspicious Virtual Asset Trading Platforms” alert list.

These regulatory actions represent a consistent pattern across multiple jurisdictions, indicating unresolved compliance deficiencies.

Scam-Or Project Dossier & Historical Signals

The Scam-Or Project investigative file on MEXC includes prior references to its former Estonian payment structure and its inclusion on the Red Compliance List. These earlier findings remain relevant when assessing current risk exposure.

Despite structural changes and rebranding activities, the fundamental licensing and transparency questions remain unanswered.

Reputation & User Risk Indicators

Trustpilot Profile

• Current TrustScore: 1.8/5 (“Poor”)
• High concentration of 1-star reviews
• Common complaints include:
• Frozen or withheld funds
• Withdrawal restrictions
• Delayed or ineffective customer support
• Unresolved account issues

The low Trustpilot rating is publicly visible and reflects an ongoing negative user-experience trend.

Additional Review Aggregators

Other review platforms show similarly weak averages, indicating a persistent reputational decline rather than isolated complaints.

Whistleblower Allegations (Corroborated Where Possible)

A whistleblower report submitted to the Scam-Or Project outlines the following concerns:

1. Absence of effective licensing in major markets
2. Concealed ownership structures and masked domain registration data
3. “Suspicious” classification on ScamAdviser
4. Alleged index-price irregularities on certain perpetual pairs
• Example: TRADOOR/USDT reportedly used 100% MEXC spot pricing as the index for approximately two weeks
• Resulting divergence allegedly reached ~13%, triggering liquidations
5. Funding rate allegedly stuck at –0.50%
6. Customer support loops lacking case IDs or formal remediation

ScamAdviser does flag certain MEXC domains with low trust scores, which supports the general “suspicious” risk signal. However, it should be noted that domain privacy alone is common in crypto and not conclusive evidence of misconduct.

Nevertheless, when combined with regulatory warnings and user complaints, these allegations contribute to a broader pattern of concern.

The DEX+ Model: Structural Risk Amplification

The DEX+ product powered by MEXC presents additional contractual risk factors:

• Broad disclaimers limiting liability
• Custody ambiguity
• No guaranteed execution
• Near-zero liability caps
• Private keys reportedly “entrusted” to unnamed third-party providers

MEXC simultaneously claims:

• It acts merely as an “agent placing orders”
• It is not responsible for users’ private keys or seed phrases

However, if keys are entrusted to a third-party provider, this arrangement resembles quasi-custodial infrastructure. The absence of transparency regarding the third-party provider’s identity or licensing status introduces material counterparty risk.

From a regulatory perspective, acting as an “order placement agent” may fall within the scope of Crypto-Asset Service Provider (CASP) activity under MiCA or analogous investment-service classifications, depending on the asset structure.

This appears inconsistent with the narrative of being a “pure aggregator” or “information platform.”

The Oceanblue Fintech UAB Connection

A refreshed compliance review indicates that MEXC’s bank-transfer deposits for crypto purchases are routed through:

Oceanblue Fintech UAB (registration code 306111081)
Vilnius, Lithuania
Formerly: MEXC Lithuania UAB

MEXC materials state that its fiat services are operated by Oceanblue Fintech UAB.

Licensing Status Concerns

Oceanblue markets itself as a “regulated” crypto service provider. In Lithuania, this typically refers to:

• Legacy VASP registration
• Not a MiCA crypto-asset service provider licence from the Bank of Lithuania

No publicly verifiable MiCA licence for Oceanblue was identified.

Payment Infrastructure

Oceanblue’s terms indicate that payment accounts are provided by:

Paytend Europe UAB (Electronic Money Institution)

This structure effectively means:

• Oceanblue provides fiat rails for EU deposits
• MEXC itself does not hold an EU MiCA licence
• Customer funds are collected via a third-party EMI account

The rebranding from “MEXC Lithuania UAB” to “Oceanblue Fintech UAB” suggests continued operational linkage to the MEXC deposit framework.

Key Red-Flag Takeaways

With the MiCA transitional period ending on 31 December 2025, users should treat this structure as high-risk unless clear and verifiable authorisations are published.

Governance & Transparency Concerns

Ownership & Accountability

Opaque governance structures hinder:

• KYC/AML assurance
• Incident response
• Legal recourse

Public records identify Yichen Peng as the ultimate beneficial owner of MEXC Estonia OÜ (source: Teatmik, Estonian Business Register). However, compliance disclosures across MEXC-related domains remain inconsistent.

Market Integrity Issues

If index composition, weightings, or ±3% exclusion rules are not applied as disclosed, fair pricing and funding-rate mechanisms may be distorted — particularly relevant for derivatives traders.

User testimony aligns with broader complaint patterns visible in public reviews.

Customer-Service Weak Signals

A persistent volume of unresolved 1-star complaints related to withdrawals and support interactions is commonly observed in platforms with structural compliance gaps.

Such patterns warrant caution, particularly in jurisdictions where statutory investor protections do not apply to unauthorised firms.

Scam-Or Project Position (Updated)

Given:

• Accumulating regulator warnings
• Persistently low Trustpilot ratings
• Whistleblower allegations regarding pricing and funding mechanics
• Ongoing EU licensing ambiguity

MEXC remains listed on the Red Compliance List.

We advise avoiding:

• Deposits
• Trading activity
• Referral participation

Until:

1. Clear and verifiable licensing exists in key jurisdictions
2. Ownership and compliance contacts are transparently disclosed
3. Independent audits confirm index and funding-rate governance

MEXC – Key Data Overview

Call for Information

Insiders, counterparties, PSPs, and affected users are invited to submit documentation — including compliance notices, internal tickets, pricing logs, and index-component snapshots — via the Scam-Or Project website to support further forensic review.

Continued transparency remains essential for clarifying the true regulatory and operational posture of MEXC.