現時，加密貨幣市場正上演一場激烈競爭，主角分別係中心化交易所（CEX）同去中心化交易所（DEX）——呢場角力正深刻影響未來嘅加密金融格局。
幾間大型中心化交易所，例如 Binance、Coinbase 同 Kraken，依然佔據大部分交易量（單單 2025 年第一季交易額就超過 5 兆美元）。不過，去中心化新勢力如 Uniswap、PancakeSwap 及 dYdX 等亦急速冒起，DEX 交易量屢創新高（2025 年突破 2.6 兆美元）。
呢場角力唔止係爭市佔或技術 —— 而係觸及加密圈核心理念。
一方面，CEX 重視用戶易用性同有流動性，由信得過嘅中介負責把關；另一方面，DEX 堅持自主、強調「唔控制自己私鑰就唔係你啲錢」嘅原則。近來形勢令這場戰線更加白熱化。
2022 年曾經排名前五嘅 FTX 交易所轟然倒下，暴露咗信任被濫用嘅風險——客戶損失多達 10 億美元資金——結果好多人都「回歸去中心化」。
同一時間，監管機構亦加強規管 CEX 合規問題，而各大 CEX 卻全力追求上市、擴展全球版圖。與此同時，DEX 進步神速，流暢度及易用性日日提升。本文將深入探討 CEX 同 DEX 之爭：兩者有咩分別、用戶同專業人士點樣揀、底層哲學分野，以及以「去中心化」為本嘅世界面對集中化會有咩風險。結果將深深影響整個加密市場嘅發展路向。
乜嘢係 DEX？去中心化交易所興起
去中心化交易所（DEX）係一種無需中央中介嘅加密貨幣交易平台。用戶無需將資產交畀某間公司保管，所有交易配對都透過智能合約喺區塊鏈上自動進行，用戶直接由自己嘅錢包交易。簡單嚟講，DEX 上每一單交易都係點對點（peer-to-peer）同碼自動處理，用戶資產全程都唔會比第三方接管。
呢種模式體現咗區塊鏈「無需信任」精神：有評論話，一部分加密原教旨者而家「實踐中本聰嘅最初設計理念，繞過金融中介，選擇去中心化交易」。
早期 DEX 用起嚟唔方便、流動性低，但依家已經成熟極多。
而家頂尖 DEX 嘅交易規模已逼近傳統市場。最大嘅以太坊 Uniswap ，2025 年 7 月單月交易額接近 1,000 億美元 —— 幾年前根本難以想像。統計自 DEX 誕生以來，去中心化交易所總成交已接近 10 兆美元，證明 P2P 交易需求甚大。
除 Uniswap 外，各大區塊鏈生態都出現咗成功嘅 DEX：BNB 鏈上嘅 PancakeSwap 係 BEP-20 代幣之選；Curve 專門穩定幣兌換；SushiSwap 跨鏈發展；Layer-2 及其他鏈上，GMX、dYdX 更率先試行去中心化槓桿交易。
Solana 鏈上嘅 DEX Raydium 亦因 2024 年 meme 幣狂潮喺短時間爆升，一度佔據超過四分之一 DEX 交易。
DEX 極重要原因之一，就係上新代幣無門檻。
任何人都可以喺 DEX 開設流動資金池，即係話新創項目同實驗性資產好多時都先喺 DEX 推出，等到 hit 爆先上 CEX。想搵下一隻爆升嘅 DeFi 幣或者 meme token，通常要去 DEX 才買到早期位置。
譬如有啲政治主題幣如 TRUMP，率先喺鏈上 DEX 開賣，未上架 CEX 就已經靠 DEX 交易炒起市值。咁嘅「鏈上先行」令到 DEX 成為加密創新搖籃，搶先俘虜市場熱點，而 CEX 到人氣爆棚先至肯上市。有行業報告指，好多資深加密投資者「逐步遷移至 DEX 尋找更高收益及早鳥機會」。
除咗上幣，DEX 能力亦不斷提升。
初期主要用簡單嘅「自動做市商」（AMM）機制，令代幣可自由兌換——雖然創新但有時效能有限（Uniswap 最早推出），而家唔少 DEX 採用更進階架構，例如 order-book 混合模式或 layer-2 支持，令交易更快更平。此外，仲有提供期貨、永續合約（例如 dYdX、GMX 或 Hyperliquid 等新平台）嘅去中心化衍生品交易所。2025 年，單係去中心化永續合約 DEX 交易量就破 2.6 兆美元，吸引用戶嘅係「零託管」槓桿交易加不斷進步嘅交易效率。
呢方面雖然暫時只佔整體衍生品市場一小部分，但增長極快——2024 年 DEX 佔加密期貨總成交已由 5% 升至近 10%，動力明顯轉向。
重要嘅係，DEX 用戶全程自主保管資產。只要連接自己錢包（例如 MetaMask 或硬件錢包），交易就通過智能合約直接同對方執行，冇一間中心化公司可以凍結你戶口或者擅自挪用你資金。
呢種安全設計喺中心化交易所有事故時特別突出。DEX 唔會停你提款或擅自借用客戶資金——因為所有資產都存喺用戶自己錢包，無咩機制俾平台動用。所有操作同資金流都公開透明寫喺鏈上，人人都查到。因此 DEX 支持者認為，呢啲安排有效避開困擾 CEX 嘅「單點失敗」風險。Enclave Markets 行政總裁 David Wells 解釋：「好多用戶都覺得 DEX 吸引，因為可以減低畀奸商搞事或者系統單點失效風險。」
FTX 出事後，呢一點更加明顯——DEX 完全冇受災情拖累，因為用戶本身並無交資產俾中央中介，損失唔會波及。事發期間，DEX 交易量急升（Uniswap 單周成交由 60 億暴增至逾 170 億美元），成千上萬個比特幣都由 CEX 轉出，自我託管趨勢大增。
「而家好明顯，資產託管喺中心化機構都有風險」，DEX Hashflow CEO Varun Kumar 引用數據指，「愈來愈多用戶出事後會轉向去中心化交易」。
不過，DEX 都有唔同挑戰。
「自己做自己銀行」本身就多咗責任同風險。用 DEX，要自己管理錢包、保密私鑰，介面有時複雜，而且要識咩叫滑點（slippage）、要預咗 gas 費等概念。
而且，唔會有客服熱線俾你，如果送錯地址或者唔見 recovery phrase 就好大鑊。
數碼資產安全公司 CoinCover 報告指出：「DEX 最大挑戰之一係用戶介面…投資者要識理解滑點等風險，亦要為自己操作全權負責。」雖然初期 DEX 介面好嚇人，但依家已經進步咗好多，部份仲有靚 UI Web 同手機 app。
另一問題係效能同擴展性：熱門區塊鏈一塞車，全部交易都喺鏈上進行，DEX 交易可能出現交易緩慢或 gas fee 高企。例如以太坊遇上 NFT 熱潮，一次交易分分鐘收幾十美元手續費——細額交易無運行。
新一代 DEX 用咗高速鏈（如 Solana 或 layer-2），希望解決，但當市場熾熱時，網絡塞車與「處理訂單需時」風險依然存在。
流動性亦係問題：主流 token 嘅大池雖然十分快，但冷門幣對大量交易就會出現高滑價或價格波動。
歷史上，DEX 深度普遍低過大 CEX order book ——不過 gap 正不斷收窄，因為資金池愈來愈深，還有聚合器會拆單分流。最後，DEX 都有智能合約風險。程式有漏洞會被攻擊，DeFi 平台都有過類似事件。如 2024 年 Velocore DEX 就因智能合約漏洞被駭，損失 680 萬美元。用戶要信 DEX 程式夠安全（雖然通常會審計，但始終冇 100% 保證）。即使有唔同挑戰，DEX 整體趨勢都係向上。
用緊去中心化交易所嘅人數創新高——Uniswap 月活躍用戶一年內由 830 萬激增至 1,950 萬（2024 年中至 2025 年中），功能持續升級。靠社群推動創新，DEX 正慢慢蠶食傳統優勢。
of centralized trading venues.
（集中式交易場地）
什麼是CEX？集中式交易所仍然佔主導地位
集中式交易所（CEX）是一種傳統風格的加密貨幣買賣樞紐，由一間公司（或機構）運作，並擔任中介角色。在這個模式下，用戶會註冊開戶——通常需提供個人身份資料（KYC）——並把資金存放在交易所托管。
交易在交易所的內部訂單簿進行，交易所會用自家軟件撮合買賣雙方。在很多方面，CEX就像是「網上股票交易所＋銀行」的組合：它像銀行一樣存放客戶資產，又像股票交易所一樣進行交易撮合，通常每次交易或提現都會收取手續費。Binance、Coinbase、Kraken、OKX、Huobi（近期改名為HTX）、Bitfinex、Bitget、Upbit，再加上早前的FTX——這些都是曾經服務數千萬用戶的著名集中式交易所。
在CEX上，交易通常快捷順暢。熱門交易對的流動性很深，用戶可執行大額訂單、而價格只會有輕微波動。
介面通常精美易用，配備先進圖表工具、各種下單類型及客戶服務——這些都為新手降低入門門檻。難怪大多數零售投資者初次接觸加密貨幣時，首站都會選擇集中式交易所。
正如路透社在FTX風波最熾熱期間所言，集中交易所「更像華爾街傳統交易所……令買賣體驗更貼合新投資者。」
你只需用電郵和密碼登入，萬一失去帳戶存取權，也常可找回，並相信公司支援團隊可以幫手解決問題。此外，CEX支援法定貨幣入金——用戶可以用銀行過數或信用卡方式直接存取現金（如USD、EUR等），這是去中心化平台做不到的。這種便捷地銜接加密與法幣世界的能力，令CEX在吸引主流用戶上具極大優勢。
論各項指標，如今CEX仍然遠超DEX（去中心化交易所）。2024年，即使面臨阻力，集中式交易所在一年內錄得約14.3萬億美元的現貨交易量。
相比之下，這大約是DEX鏈上交易額的十倍左右。
頭十位的集中交易所在2025年首季就處理了5.4萬億美元現貨交易。
這些數字證明，CEX仍是加密資產主要的價格發現場地，特別是對於市值較大的資產，例如比特幣和以太幣。流動性高度集中於頂尖平台：Binance（一哥）在2025年初就佔了全球現貨交易約40%。它最高峰甚至在2023年初達到市佔60%以上——直到監管收緊及對手搶市。
即使如此，Binance每月仍處理數千億美元交易量，據報全球註冊用戶超過1.5億。
其他大型CEX亦有驕人成績：Coinbase為美國最大交易所（並於納斯達克上市），服務超過1.1億認證用戶，每日成交量經常達10至20億美元。Kraken（美國）有520萬客戶，2025年第三季交易量按年激增106%，一方面受市場重新興起，另一方面或與預期上市有關。OKX及Bybit在衍生品領域亦變成巨頭，期貨成交量常僅次於Binance。
Crypto.com則於2021-22年靠進取的市場推廣晉身一線巨頭。這些交易所已不單止是買賣平台，更拓展出貸款、質押、虛擬信用卡、NFT市場、創投基金等多元金融服務。
它們基本上已成加密經濟的金融巨無霸，部分甚至準備申請正式監管批核及股票上市，與傳統金融界界線漸模糊。
舉例說，Coinbase及Kraken都已朝公開市場邁進（Coinbase於2021年直接上市，Kraken亦完成大型集資，計劃IPO），海外如Revolut這類金融科技App，亦都準備開展加密業務。
因規模龐大，CEX正面臨愈來愈嚴格監管。
2023至2024年，美國監管機構（如SEC）對多間主要交易所展開高調行動。2023年，SEC起訴Coinbase及Binance，指控它們經營未經註冊的證券平台，令全行震動。Binance更牽涉連場調查，最後於2023年底達成和解，CEO趙長鵬（CZ）辭職，公司需支付超過40億美元罰款。
雖然Binance否認於部分地區有不當行為，但亦因監管壓力撤出部分市場。
這些事件預示，大型交易所終將被當作銀行或金融機構，需要落實嚴謹合規、風險管控及資訊透明等措施。事實上，PwC於2025年分析警告，領先CEX可能會被界定為「系統重要性」，需達到銀行級託管、資本及資訊披露的要求。
某程度上，這些監管有助重建信任（沒有人想重演FTX管理失當的事件），但同時凸顯了CEX在標榜去中心化的行業內，帶有必然的中央控制點。為回應FTX風波，眾多CEX緊急公開資產儲備報告，安撫存戶資金有足夠擔保。雖然有幫助，但做法自願、審查深度不一。根本取捨－用CEX時，你須像存錢進銀行一樣，信任交易所會好好管理及歸還你的資產。信任一旦崩潰，如FTX客戶所痛失的，後果堪虞。 「FTX本應安全存放你的資產，結果卻借去做其他用途，」CoinDesk編輯Tracy Wang如此批評，並指這種行為「背離了加密貨幣的基本理念」。
雖然理念有爭議，CEX仍然興旺，因為它們提供了一般人極度重視的便利及核心服務。
便利是關鍵：在CEX上，只需幾下Tap就能在手機App買賣，操作體驗一如證券或銀行App。
很多平台提供24/7客戶服務、保險基金保障部分損失，還有其他用戶保護措施。合規守法其實可以是一個賣點——知名交易所遵守KYC/AML（反洗黑錢）規則，提供用戶安全感和追索途徑，是純匿名DeFi沒法比的。例如你若遇上知名詐騙或黑客事件，受監管交易所可以凍結對方戶口或協助執法（如部份高調資產追回個案）；但在DEX則無途徑上訴。
此外，CEX往往有更多法幣交易對（如BTC/USD、ETH/EUR），提款現金直接又方便，是DEX無法直接支援的。
另外，不會管理私隱錢包的用戶，交託交易所託管錢包更方便——雖然這樣犧牲了真正的資產擁有權。據NBC News指出，隨着加密貨幣發展壯大，交易所提供一按即買的便利，諷刺地又重新依賴了當初Satoshi設計要消除的中介角色。
值得一讚，最大的CEX同時也在適應轉變。
了解到DeFi和DEX的吸引之處，部分集中平台正採納「混合路線」。
以Coinbase為例，已將DEX交易功能整合進手機App，並推出自家區塊鏈（Base）以支援鏈上活動。其目標是讓用戶在熟悉、受監管的介面內，接觸「鏈上一切資產」。
某程度上，這是自保——承認如果用戶要自主管理資產及更多選擇，一間有遠見的CEX應該協助，而非坐以待斃。亦呼應了摩根大通分析師早前的觀點：DEX對主流CEX業務的威脅暫時減退，部分原因是主流CEX本身積極吸納DeFi功能。
事實上，這些整合或可創造龐大價值：摩根大通分析指出，Coinbase可藉其Base網絡及DEX功能推高股價，創造數十億美元市值，並通過鏈上手續費帶動盈利增長。
除了科技創新，CEX同時亦在擴闊業務範疇，搖身變成全面加密平台或「超級App」。
Binance等現已提供儲蓄產品、加密借貸，甚至越來越多非加密領域服務（機票旅遊預訂等），意圖打造一站式金融App。
這種多元化一方面可帶來新收入及用戶黏性，但同時越來越似傳統金融科技公司——這正是加密圈起初想反對的模式。無論如何，在「競逐加密金融樞紐」的戰場上，Binance、Coinbase、Kraken等正大手投資於創新、合規與機構合作，務求穩固霸主地位。截至2025年，CEX仍是加密買賣的中流砥柱，不過競爭壓力和行業格局已因DEX而變得動態……regulatory forces externally.
（外部監管力量）
Key Differences for Everyday Crypto Users
（日常加密貨幣用家的主要分別）
From an ordinary crypto user’s perspective, the differences between using a centralized exchange versus a decentralized exchange are significant. Each model has its pros and cons, and the best choice often depends on a person’s experience level, goals, and values. Let’s break down the crucial differences in practical terms:
對於一般加密貨幣用家嚟講，集中式交易所同去中心化交易所嘅分別好明顯。每種模式都有優劣，最啱用家嘅選擇好多時要視乎佢哋嘅經驗、目標同價值觀。我哋而家用實際角度分析下幾個重要分別：
Ease of Use and Accessibility
（易用性及可達性）
For newcomers, centralized exchanges are generally far more approachable. If Alice is a casual investor who just wants to buy some Bitcoin or Ethereum with her debit card, a CEX like Coinbase or Kraken offers a straightforward, familiar process: sign up with an email, set a password, perhaps complete an ID verification, and you’re ready to trade via a clean, guided interface.
對於新手嚟講，集中式交易所通常親民得多。如果Alice只係想用自己張扣帳卡買少少比特幣或以太幣，Coinbase 或 Kraken 呢啲CEX就提供咗個簡單又熟悉嘅流程：用電郵註冊、設置密碼、可能仲要做一次身份認證，之後已經可以用清晰指引嘅介面交易。
The user experience is polished and akin to online banking or stock trading apps, which lowers the intimidation factor. In contrast, using a DEX would require Alice to already have a crypto wallet set up (with Ether or another native token to pay transaction fees), understand how to connect that wallet to a DApp, and grasp what swapping entails. “CEXs are ideal for beginners,” as one industry guide puts it, whereas “DEXs can be challenging for newcomers” without technical know-how.
個用戶體驗設計得好流暢，感覺同用網上銀行或者炒股票嘅App好似，唔使有壓力。相反，如果用DEX，Alice就要預先整好個加密錢包（同時裏面要有Ether或相關原生幣用嚟交手續費）、識得點樣駁錢包入DApp、同埋明咩係swap。正如業界有指，「CEXs係新手最啱用」，但「DEXs只適合有技術知識嘅人，新人用會有困難」。
Moreover, CEXs often have mobile apps that integrate price alerts, educational resources, and customer support chat – a comprehensive ecosystem for a novice to learn and participate. Decentralized exchanges, being web or app interfaces on top of blockchains, are improving in usability (some now have smooth mobile wallet apps), but they still assume more baseline knowledge from the user.
CEX通常都有手機App，入面有價錢提示、教學資源同即時客戶支援，屬於一個整合式生態圈，好適合新手入門。DEX作為搭建喺區塊鏈上嘅網頁/應用程式介面，近年易用度提升咗（個別已經有流暢嘅手機錢包App），但始終預設用家有一啲基本認知。
There is no centralized customer support to walk you through a mistaken transaction; at best, one might find help in community forums or Discord channels. This difference in hand-holding is crucial for everyday users. Even something as simple as retrieving a forgotten password – trivial on a CEX via “Forgot Password” and identity verification – is impossible on a DEX, where losing your private key means losing access forever. Hence, many casual users stick with the relatively “intuitive interfaces and custodial safety nets” of CEX platforms , at least until they gain more confidence.
如果出錯，無咩集中式客服帶你逐步解決；最多都係去論壇或者Discord搵人問。呢個保持「有人幫手」嘅分別，對普通用家好重要。例如好簡單嘅「唔記得密碼」：CEX可以按「忘記密碼」、做身份核實就搞掂，但DEX就無可能，因為私鑰一失就冇得救。所以好多人都寧願先係CEX用戶，享受「直覺式介面」同「托管保障」，等自己熟習咗再慢慢轉用DEX。
Custody and Security of Funds
（資產保管與安全）
Perhaps the most fundamental difference is who controls your assets.
最根本分別就係：邊個控制住你啲資產。
On a centralized exchange, you are entrusting your coins to the exchange’s custody. Your account balance may show that you have 1 Bitcoin on Exchange X, but legally and technically, Exchange X holds the private keys to the wallets that control that bitcoin.
用CEX時，你係將啲幣交俾交易所托管。你個賬面可能顯示你有1粒比特幣，但事實上管理嗰粒幣嘅私鑰屬於交易所。
This arrangement can be convenient – the exchange manages all the security behind the scenes – but it introduces counterparty risk. If the exchange gets hacked, suffers a technical failure, or engages in fraudulent activity, your funds could be at risk.
呢種安排方便用家，因為所有保安工作交咗俾平台搞掂，不過都會帶嚟對手風險：若果交易所俾人攻擊、技術故障，或者有內部舞弊，你嘅資產隨時有危險。
Unfortunately, crypto history has several cautionary tales: from the infamous Mt. Gox hack in 2014 (850,000 BTC lost) to more recent breaches at exchanges like Bitfinex, KuCoin, and Coincheck, hackers have repeatedly targeted centralized platforms holding large troves of users’ coins. Even in 2023-2024, there were incidents (for example, Bybit reportedly faced a serious cyber theft attempt , and a smaller Asian platform Nobitex was hacked ) – all reminders that any centralized honeypot is a tempting target. 可惜加密貨幣界有唔少慘痛教訓：由2014年著名Mt.Gox失竊（850,000粒BTC蒸發），到較近年Bitfinex、KuCoin、Coincheck等被攻擊，黑客次次都專針對擺住大量用戶幣嘅集中平台。2023—2024年都仍然有事故，例如Bybit傳出嚴重網絡盜竊企圖，小型亞洲平台Nobitex都曾中招。換句話講，集中式「蜂蜜罐」係黑客最愛目標。
By contrast, on a DEX, you hold your own funds in your personal wallet at all times, so even if the DEX’s website or smart contracts were compromised, an attacker cannot directly seize your assets unless you approve a malicious transaction.
相反，喺DEX入面，你啲錢完全係自己個人錢包度。就算DEX個網站或者智能合約出咗事，黑客都直接攞唔到你啲幣，除非你親自批核咗啲惡意交易。
This self-custody model is inherently more secure against centralized hacks because there’s no single vault to break into.
自主保管模式本質上更安全，因為冇一個中央金庫畀人攻破。
Furthermore, the transparency of DEXs allows users to verify that the smart contract code is open-source and that reserves in liquidity pools are visible on-chain. DEX users never face a situation where withdrawals are frozen due to insolvency or misuse by the platform – scenarios that have occurred on CEXs (e.g., FTX infamously halted customer withdrawals as it spiraled into bankruptcy, trapping users’ funds).
而且，DEX的運作極為透明，用家可以自行檢查智能合約係咪開源，流動資金池都喺鏈上公開睇到。用DEX基本唔會遇到因為平台破產或者濫用資金而凍結提款，CEX反而出現過（例如FTX破產前突然禁止提款，凍結用家資金）。
As one DEX proponent quipped, using a DEX means never having to worry about a withdrawal pause or whether an exchange operator is secretly gambling with your deposits. On the flip side, self-custody puts the onus of security on the individual. An everyday user has to safely manage private keys or recovery phrases – which might involve using hardware wallets, writing down seed phrases, and being vigilant against phishing. There’s a saying in crypto: “Not your keys, not your coins,” underlining that if you let someone else hold your keys (as in CEX), you don’t truly own the crypto. Many users have taken that lesson to heart post-FTX: Caitlin Long, a blockchain banker, noted that after FTX collapsed, a “huge wave” of users moved their coins off exchanges into self-custody.
有DEX擁躉說笑：「用DEX唔驚平台凍結提款，更唔會有人暗中攞你啲存款去賭錢」。但自我保管令安全責任落在自己手上，日常用家要謹慎管理私鑰同恢復碼—有時要用硬件錢包、手寫種子詞，隨時防範釣魚騙案。加密圈講明：「Not your keys, not your coins（無鑰即無幣）」，由他人托管就唔算真正擁有。經歷FTX事件後，呢個教訓更加多人記住—Caitlin Long（區塊鏈銀行家）都提過，FTX執笠後，大量用家將資產由交易所搬回自保。
But keeping custody means you must not lose those keys – a scary prospect for the uninitiated. In summary, a typical user must choose between the convenience and guided security of a CEX (with an added layer of trust in the operator) versus the empowerment and direct control of a DEX (with the responsibility and potential technical complexity that entails).
不過，自己管資產就唔可以整失私鑰或恢復碼，否則血本無歸，對新手嚟講真係好驚。總括嚟講，一般用家要抉擇—CEX側重方便同可靠（但要信平台），DEX側重自主同自由（但要自己揹晒風險同複雜度）。
Privacy and Anonymity
（私隱同匿名）
Using a centralized exchange often requires personal identification.
用CEX通常要做身份驗證。
Top CEXs comply with know-your-customer rules in most jurisdictions, meaning a new user will be asked to provide documents like a passport or driver’s license and proof of address.
大部分主流CEX都要跟足「認識你的客戶（KYC）」條例，用戶開戶時一般要交護照或駕駛執照、住址證明等文件。
Your transactions on the exchange are then linked to your identity in the company’s database. For a user who values privacy, this is a drawback – every trade you make could potentially be monitored or reported under regulatory requirements.
你的交易都會喺平台資料庫對應番你嘅真身。對重視私隱嘅用家嚟講，呢個缺點唔細，每單交易都可能被監察或報告俾監管機構。
Some people simply don’t feel comfortable providing their government ID to a crypto site due to hacking risks (exchange data leaks have happened) or on principle. In contrast, most DEXs allow anyone to trade directly from a wallet with no personal information required. They are typically just web applications interacting with the blockchain; a DEX smart contract doesn’t know or care who you are, only that a valid wallet signature is providing a transaction.
有啲人驚駭客外洩資料（以往有CEX被黑客洩漏身份文件），或者本身唔想交出證件。相反，大部份DEX都歡迎任何人直接用錢包交易，唔需要提交任何身份資料，只係同區塊鏈通訊。DEX嘅智能合約，唔識你係邊個，只認有效錢包簽名。
This pseudonymity means a user in, say, Nigeria or Iran or Venezuela can access a DEX and swap tokens without jumping through compliance hoops – something that might not be possible on a regulated CEX that geoblocks certain regions or activities.
呢種「偽匿名」令用戶可以係尼日利亞、伊朗或者委內瑞拉咁嘅地方一樣用DEX換代幣，無需經過繁複合規程序—有啲受監管CEX甚至會封鎖某啲地區或活動。
For ordinary users who value financial privacy or who live under restrictive regimes, DEXs provide a lifeline.
對一啲住喺管制嚴或重視財務私隱嘅人嚟講，DEX真係救命草。
“DEXs enable investors to trade without revealing their personal information or financial history,” notes CoinCover, highlighting that in regions with strict capital controls or unstable banking, this pseudonymity is highly valued.
CoinCover指出：「DEX令投資者毋須披露自己個人資料或交易紀錄都可以炒幣」，尤其係資金管制嚴、銀行體系唔穩定國家，呢種偽匿名好珍貴。
An everyday example: a person in a country facing hyperinflation could convert their local savings to stablecoins via a DEX to preserve value, all without their government or bank being able to easily interfere or surveil them. However, it’s worth noting that using a DEX is not totally private – the transactions are public on the blockchain. Sophisticated analytics can sometimes tie wallet addresses to individuals, but it’s still more private than handing over one’s identity to a centralized entity.
舉個例：喺巨額通脹國家，有人可以經DEX將儲蓄換成穩定幣，保住價值，唔會咁易畀政府或銀行監控或凍結。不過要留意，DEX唔係完全匿名，所有交易都公開喺鏈上，有啲高級分析方法始終能夠間接追蹤用戶身份，但相比直接交晒證件畀中心化公司，私隱度都高好多。
On the other hand, some users appreciate the regulatory oversight on CEXs as it can deter outright criminal activity and sometimes provides recourse – e.g., if someone hacks your CEX account, the exchange might notice suspicious behavior and lock the account, whereas if your personal wallet is hacked, there’s no similar guardian. In any case, for the average user, the privacy trade-off is clear: CEXs require trust and disclosure, DEXs offer anonymity but at the cost of taking on all responsibility (and some risk of running afoul of laws if one isn’t careful, since just because a DEX doesn’t KYC you doesn’t make an illegal trade legal).
另一方面，有啲人都欣賞CEX嘅監管，因為可以減少犯罪活動，有時仲有追討渠道，例如有人hack咗你CEX帳戶，交易所有機會發現異常，及早凍結賬戶；但如果你個人錢包中招，就冇人幫得你。總之，一般用家要清楚：CEX要求你信平台並交出身份，DEX保障匿名但責任及風險都要全部自己揹（有啲行為雖然DEX收唔你KYC，但唔等於佢合法，如果唔小心有機會犯法）。
Selection of Assets
（可交易資產類型）
Another difference is the range of assets available. Centralized exchanges, especially those that are licensed or have reputations to uphold, tend to be selective in listing new cryptocurrencies.
另一個分別係資產選項。CEX尤其係有牌照或注重聲譽嗰啲，通常會對上新幣都好審慎。
They usually have internal review committees to evaluate coins for compliance, security, demand, etc. For example, Coinbase historically listed relatively few assets compared to the thousands out there, focusing on those it deemed legitimate and legally safe – though it has broadened its listings over time.
一般會有審核團隊，逐隻新幣審乜合規、安全、需求等。例如Coinbase傳統上只上架好少幣，專揀合法、合符標準嗰啲，雖然近年已經多咗選擇。
A smaller exchange might list more tokens to attract users, but even Binance (known for having a wide array) won’t list every obscure meme coin. This means a regular user on a CEX might only have access to, say, the top 200 cryptocurrencies by market cap and a handful of smaller ones – which is plenty for most investors, but not the full universe. In contrast, DEXs offer virtually any token that exists on their underlying blockchain network. If someone creates a new token tomorrow and pairs it with some liquidity, it’s immediately tradable on decentralized exchanges. For an everyday user, this means if you’re trying to buy a very new or niche token (perhaps you read about an experimental DeFi project on Twitter that isn’t on big exchanges yet), you’ll likely need to venture to a DEX.
細規模交易所為咗吸客，會上多啲冷門幣，但即使係以多選擇聞名嘅Binance，都唔會乜都上，特別係啲奇怪meme coin。所以普通CEX用家，通常只可交易市值Top200幣，加埋小量新幣，大多數投資者都夠用，但唔算全部加密世界。相反，DEX理論上任何上咗該鏈嘅token都可以交易，今日有人發新幣再注入流動性，即刻可以喺DEX買賣。對日常用家嚟講，如果你想買啲新成品或冷門代幣（例如唔係大所都未上架嘅DeFi項目），大概要靠DEX出手。
This is both exciting and perilous: exciting because you get access to the ground floor of projects; perilous because there’s no exchange due diligence – scams or “rug pulls” are common among unvetted tokens on DEXs. Many retail users have learned the hard way that just because you can buy something on a DEX doesn’t mean you should; malicious tokens or copycats can trap the unwary.
呢個制度刺激亦危險：刺激在於第一時間參與新項目；危險在於冇平台幫你審查，DEX經常有未核實資產、騙局或「抽地氈」事件。有啲散戶中招咗先知唔係𠵱家DEX有得買就等於應該買，惡意幣或者冒牌貨好多，唔小心變韭菜。
By contrast, a CEX listing at least signals a token isn’t an outright scam (though it’s
（相對之下CEX上架，至少代表該幣唔至於百分百係騙局……）不保證投資價值）。所以，普通用戶如果選擇用中心化交易所（CEX），會得到一個挑選過的交易菜單，而用去中心化交易所（DEX）的則像去自助餐廳，所有代幣都自由選擇，但同時亦帶來全部風險和自由。
成本和手續費
用戶都會關心交易的成本。
中心化交易所通常每次交易會收取手續費 — 通常介乎每宗交易金額的0.1%至0.5%，大量交易者或使用交易所自家代幣有機會收更低費率。
亦可能會對提款收費（特別是法幣提款或小額加密幣提款）。去中心化交易所的收費結構則不太一樣 — 一般會有一個小額協議費（例如Uniswap交易收0.3%，部分會分予流動性提供者），但更重要的是，DEX用戶需要支付區塊鏈鏈上操作的Gas費。
視乎區塊鏈擠塞狀況，呢啲費用有時會遠遠高於其他成本。例如，以太坊在繁忙時段，就算只是進行一次簡單兌換，Gas費都可能要$5甚至$50，無論交易金額大小都一樣。
喺Solana等高頻鏈或Arbitrum等Layer-2，Gas費只需幾毫子，喺嗰啲地方做DEX交易就平好多。但重點係，CEX的所有交易都喺鏈外進行，以中小額來講通常會平好多 — $1,000的交易，手續費可能只需幾毫子到幾蚊（甚至有時部分交易對做推廣會免手續費）。但喺以太坊DEX做同樣$1,000交易，Gas加協議費可能要$10以上，明顯貴咗。所以，平時做小額交易CEX會更化算；但如果做大額單，CEX手續費可能開始積少成多，而DEX如果有更好報價加上低Gas網絡，可能反而吸引。最終都係要case by case，有啲精明嘅用戶會用聚合器比較，計算扣除所有費用，係DEX定CEX落完單實際淨價好啲。
都要說說滑點：在如Binance這啲大CEX，即使你下一張$10萬美金嘅比特幣市價單，因為訂單簿夠深，成交價通常會貼近即時報價。DEX則未必，特別係流動性池唔夠大，咁大單就有機會推動價格。
一般散戶做小單（<$1,000）兩邊都少有滑點，但如果做大啲、或者揀個流動性較低的DEX池，就幾可能會遇到較差匯率。現實上，唔少較休閒的小用戶根本唔會計咁多 — 佢哋通常揀自己用開、覺得順手的平台。但對成本敏感的用戶，就會根據自己交易額、頻率揀最抵的平台；可能某種情況係CEX抵，另一些則DEX更化算。
支援與損失補救
最後，從用戶角度嚟睇，有種安全感係「有事有人幫手」。中心化交易所有時有客服，部分更有保險。
你如果喺CEX提款時錯地址，可能救唔返，但如果損失因為交易所操作出錯或平台被黑，較大型的平台有時會賠償用戶（例如Bitfinex出事分攤損失，有啲交易所更設有極端事件的保險基金）。
再者，如果你懷疑有騙案入侵你CEX帳戶，可以搵客服凍結帳號 — 一般用戶都會因為有呢種支援功能而放心啲。至於DEX，一切靠自己。喺DeFi世界，所謂「資金追回」基本係零機會。如果你因為用戶失誤或被攻擊失咗啲錢，無中央權威機構可以將交易還原；區塊鏈的不可逆性一方面好，一方面亦係缺點。對好多普通用戶來講，無得追討係壓力來源。就好似你袋住現金，張$100鈔票跌咗喺街就冇得追；自我保管加密貨幣輸咗資金，亦通常無得翻兜。所以好多日常用戶會偏向用CEX落盤，因為有管理、有backup，即管少咗啲自主權都會覺得安全啲。正如有句話：有大權、就有大責任（With great power comes great responsibility），唔係個個願意為日常交易承擔晒。
總結來講，如果係一般業餘炒幣／投資者，CEX好處係方便、熟悉又有手把手教學，成為新手入場首選。
DEX就主打自由、控制權同唔怕被審查，啱啲真係信加密精神、或追新奇Token的玩家。好多人其實兩邊齊用：例如用Coinbase幫錢出入銀行，再用Uniswap炒幾隻DeFi Token。隨住教育改進、DEX操作簡化（將來可能連法幣出入口都整合埋），用戶體驗的差距縮窄緊。
不過，分野依然明顯：CEX迎合重視易用性、信任的用戶；DEX照顧重視自主及無需授權使用的群體。
專業交易員同機構的主要分別
講到專業交易員 — 無論係一人獨食，定係加密基金、甚至傳統金融機構入場 — CEX vs DEX的選擇，又有另一套考慮。
呢批用戶要求高效表現、高級功能，對監管及執行風險非常敏感。專業角度主要有以下分別：
流動性及市場深度
專業戶一般落大額單、交易頻密。對佢哋嚟講，流動性至關重要 — 著重進出唔會拉動市價。呢方面，中心化交易所依然領先。
大型CEX訂單簿聚集大量流動性。類似Binance、Coinbase咁嘅平台，可以淡定處理幾百萬美金嘅比特幣、以太幣等Top Coin交易，滑點極低。即使係炒Altcoins，CEX都有做市商托場，Spread收窄。
反觀DEX流動性雖然近來增長，但分散喺多個池及鏈之間。大額交易喺DEX會有滑點風險，甚至要分拆幾個協議執行。例如基金要沽$500萬中型幣，如果喺DEX，有機會推爆價格或者根本一次過做唔到；但大型CEX訂單簿可能頂得住（或可直接與交易所OTC台討價還價）。有啲聚合器可以幫手，但現實係，以2025年來講，據數據公司Kaiko指「最深流動性都集中喺頭5大中心化交易所。」高頻大戶自然去有流動性的地方，而家依然係CEX。
尤其衍生品更明顯：專業戶要炒$1億美金等值的比特幣期貨，絕對要CME、Binance Futures、OKX等級平台 — 無一個DEX可以應付咁大交易量而唔大滑點。（話雖如此，去中心化永續合約平台如dYdX和GMX，近一年都開始有部分機構細額參與。）
速度同執行力
做高頻或者主動交易，執行速度同穩定性極關鍵。CEX用高速撮合引擎，可以一秒搞萬幾單。Latency（延遲）用微秒計，媲美傳統金融交易所。
專業戶可以將伺服器放到交易所、或用WebSocket API實時追價。相比之下，DEX交易受鏈本身速度所限 — 例如Ethereum L1，一個區塊~12秒（要出得順利還要出高Gas），對HFT（高頻交易）來講極之慢。即使用快鏈如Solana（區塊~0.5秒）或Layer-2，DEX依然有鏈上延遲同不確定性（例如re-org、mempool卡單）影響下單，比CEX內部撮合引擎慢。
再者，DEX交易可能失敗（例如市價波動，滑點設定不足，自動revert，等幾秒結果發現未成交還要浪費Gas）。專業交易員最怕落單失敗，因為要搶Timing。
CEX，訂單唔成交即時知道；DEX有時白等、又要畀Gas。仲有MEV（可提取最大價值）問題 — 有啲Blockchain Bot見大鯨魚落單會插隊食差價，變相前置交易，令大戶喺DEX更難取得最佳價格。CEX完全冇呢個問題（只要合法，內部插單係違規），交易守則管理咗。不少量化、高頻公司因此特別依賴CEX，因為搵到快捷、可預測執行。而「表現」呢方面，CEX提供近乎即時回單同高容量，DEX多數根本未堪算法交易要求。
但都要提下，市面開始有Hybrid DEX模式 — 例如離鏈撮合/鏈上結算（如現時dYdX），試圖縮細差距，但同時引入咗部分信任或中心化元素。
進階交易功能與工具
專業市場參與者好多時唔只做現貨交易。佢哋用衍生品（期貨、期權、掉期）、槓桿孖展、沽空、止蝕單等進階訂單類型。CEX發展咗一大堆相關功能。
例如Binance、Bybit有永續期貨 dozens of crypto assets with leverage up to 100x; Coinbase and Kraken offer regulated futures for institutions; Deribit specializes in crypto options for pros. Many CEXs provide margin lending/borrowing facilities so traders can leverage positions or short assets.
有數十款加密資產可選，槓桿高達100倍；Coinbase同Kraken會為機構提供受監管嘅期貨產品；Deribit就係專做專業人士加密期權嘅平台。好多中心化交易所（CEX）都有孖展借貸服務，等交易員可以開槓桿或做淡。
By contrast, the decentralized world is still catching up: decentralized derivatives exist (GMX, dYdX, and a newer player like Hyperliquid for perps, or projects like Opyn and Lyra for options), but the selection of trading pairs and the liquidity on these is limited relative to big CEXs.
相反，去中心化世界仲係趕緊上。雖然而家已經有去中心化衍生品（例如 GMX、dYdX；新啲仲有 Hyperliquid 主打永續合約、或者 Opyn、Lyra 呢啲做期權），但係同大CEX比，無論交易對選擇定流動性都仲好有限。
For instance, a pro who wants to trade an option spread strategy on Ethereum with specific strikes and expiries will almost certainly need to use a centralized platform (like CME or Deribit) because DEX options markets are nascent. Additionally, complex order types (like limit orders, stop orders, iceberg orders) are standard on CEXs but often not available on AMM-based DEXs without specialized third-party tooling. Some advanced DEX platforms and aggregators are introducing limit order functionality, but it’s not universal.
例如一個專業交易員想喺Ethereum度做期權跨價差策略，需要用到指定行使價同到期日，基本一定要用CME或者Deribit呢啲中心化平台，因為DEX上面啲期權市場仲好初步。再加上好多複雜落單類型（例如限價單、止損單、冰山單）CEX都係標準配置，但大部分基於AMM嘅DEX都未有，除非靠第三方外掛。有啲進階DEX平台同聚合器開始試下做限價單，但都未普及。
The lack of these tools can be a deal-breaker for professionals who rely on them for risk management. An institutional trader might also care about reporting and analytics – CEXs generally provide account statements, downloadable trade history, and sometimes compliance reports that institutions need.
缺乏呢啲工具，對追求風險管理嘅專業人士嚟講，真係一大障礙。機構級交易員仲要睇重報表同分析—CEX通常有帳戶結單、可以下載交易記錄，有時甚至有配合機構要求嘅合規報告。
On a DEX, a trader would have to manually aggregate their on-chain transactions and value positions, which is an extra operational hassle (though blockchain analytics tools can help). In summary, CEXs currently offer a far more comprehensive trading arsenal – akin to the difference between a Bloomberg terminal and a simple swap interface.
要喺DEX住戶口，交易員要自己手動統計所有鏈上交易，計返資產倉位，煩都幾煩（雖然有啲區塊鏈分析工具會幫手）。總括嚟講，CEX而家啲功能多好多—就好似用Bloomberg terminal同用簡單swap介面差天共地。
Counterparty Risk vs. Regulatory Risk
Interestingly, institutions and pros weigh risks differently.
有趣嘅係，機構同專業投資者衡量風險嘅方式好唔同。
Counterparty risk (the exchange defaulting or misusing funds) is a concern; we saw even hedge funds get caught off guard by FTX’s collapse, losing access to significant assets. Many professional outfits have since adopted stricter due diligence and limits on how much they keep on any single exchange.
交易對手風險（即係交易所違約或者挪用資金）係好大顧慮；FTX爆煲，連對沖基金都有中招，大筆資產一夜蒸發。自此之後，唔少專業團隊都加強盡職審查，同埋限制會放幾多資金喺一間交易所。
Some large trading firms now use third-party custodians even when trading on exchanges – keeping funds in external custody and only moving them to trading accounts when needed, to reduce exposure. DEXs, from a pure counterparty perspective, are attractive here because they eliminate the need to trust an intermediary with custody. A fund can keep control of their assets and trade via a smart contract, avoiding the nightmare scenario of an exchange credit risk event. Indeed, “regulatory and trust concerns…prompt many to explore decentralized alternatives,” as one market review noted post-FTX. However, regulatory and compliance requirements introduce other considerations.
有啲大戶而家喺交易時都會用第三方託管，即係錢唔放喺交易所，交易時先臨時轉去戶口，分散風險。純以交易對手風險嚟講，DEX吸引之處就係你唔使信託中介，資產自己掌控，再經智能合約交易，唔怕出現交易所爆煲連累戶口。事實上，FTX事後市場有評論話「監管同信任問題…令好多大戶開始探索去中心化方案」。但係，監管合規又會帶嚟其他考慮。
A professional fund often has mandates to only trade on venues that are compliant or at least fall within certain legal parameters. Many institutions are not yet comfortable (or allowed by their investment mandates) to directly use DEXs, which could raise questions about AML compliance or fiduciary duty if things go wrong. For instance, an institution trading on a DEX might worry: what if down the line a regulator flags that as facilitating unregistered trading or interacting with a sanctioned address? These concerns mean that, to date, institutions strongly prefer regulated CEXs. One report observed that “institutions prefer regulated exchanges for custody and risk management” – they like the fact that a Coinbase or Gemini operates under U.S. laws, has audited financials, and can be held accountable.
好多機構型基金有公司政策，只可以喺合規或者有法律基礎嘅平台交易。依家大部分機構其實唔太放心（甚至唔俾）直頭用DEX，因為一出事可能有合規問題、反洗黑錢疑慮、甚至信託責任之嫌。例如有間機構喺DEX落盤，有日俾監管機構插話你涉及未註冊交易活動，或者同受制裁地址互動，咁點算？基於呢啲顧慮，而家絕大部分機構仍堅持用監管CEX。有報導都直接講：「機構用監管交易所做資產託管同風險管理最放心」——佢哋鍾意Coinbase或Gemini咁，受美國監管、有審計、追得到責任。
There’s also often the practical need for an on/off-ramp: an institutional trader might eventually need to convert crypto profits to USD in a bank account – something only a centralized exchange or broker can provide. Meanwhile, regulatory scrutiny on DEXs is rising (e.g., talk of DeFi KYC rules), but it’s still a gray zone.
仲有實際問題：機構交易員最終都會想將crypto換返做USD落戶口——呢啲功能得CEX或brokers先做得到。與此同時，監管機構已漸關注DEX，譬如開始討論DeFi要唔要做KYC，但而家都仲係灰色地帶。
So a professional might view DEX usage as carrying regulatory uncertainty, whereas using a known compliant CEX, while carrying counterparty risk, at least checks the compliance box. It’s a balancing act: some crypto hedge funds blend both – using DEXs for a portion of their strategy (especially yield farming or accessing DeFi yields) and CEXs for core trading and cash management. The bigger and more traditional the institution, the more likely they are to stick with CEXs exclusively for now.
所以，專業投資者會覺得用DEX有監管風險，用CEX起碼查表合規，雖然多咗對手風險。好多加密對沖基金會混合用法——用DEX做啲策略（例如挖礦賺收益或玩DeFi高息），CEX就做主盤同現金流管理。越大越傳統嘅機構，暫時越清一色捧CEX場。
Infrastructure and Integration
Professional traders often deploy bots, algorithms, or connect trading software to exchanges. API access is thus crucial. Centralized exchanges offer robust APIs (REST and WebSocket) for market data and trade execution. Trading firms can create complex strategies (arbitrage, market making, statistical trading) hooking into multiple CEXs’ APIs concurrently.
專業交易員成日會用bot、演算法、交易軟件同交易所對接，API接口必不可少。CEX一般都提供好強大API（REST、WebSocket）俾用戶 for market data同落單。交易公司可以同時連幾間CEX API，做套利、市場造市、統計策略等等複雜玩法。
They also have the benefit of things like FIX protocol gateways on some institutional exchanges, and can count on certain guarantees like transaction rollback in case of partial fills, etc. Interfacing with DEXs, in contrast, typically means interacting with the blockchain directly – either via writing custom scripts to send transactions or using intermediary services that can trigger on-chain trades.
有啲機構級交易所仲有FIX協議gateway，部分操作例如只成交一半可以roll back，靈活保障多。相比之下，用DEX基本要直接對住區塊鏈——要唔就自己寫script發送交易，要唔就靠第三方服務橋接on-chain落單。
This is getting easier with SDKs and libraries, but it’s still a different paradigm.
雖然而家有多啲SDK、library出現，好咗啲，但都始終係另一種玩法。
Latency aside, managing a trading operation with DEXs might involve running blockchain nodes or relying on third-party RPC services, handling on-chain failures, and ensuring security of the keys that sign transactions (one wouldn’t want their bot’s private key compromised and all funds stolen). Such operational complexities make many professional shops hesitant to go all-in on DEX trading unless it’s their specialty. Additionally, risk management tools are more developed for CEXs – for example, an exchange can offer sub-accounts with separate balances, so a trader can compartmentalize strategies.
除咗延遲問題，想用DEX嚟操作交易，更要自己run node或者靠第三方RPC服務，要識處理由鏈上事故，又要確保落單私鑰唔外洩（唔通俾人hack咗，錢都唔見哂）。咁多Operational細節，普遍專業團隊都唔敢full force玩DEX，除非本身對呢板斧有研究。再者，CEX啲風控工具成熟好耐——可以開sub-account分倉，方便管理唔同策略。
Some exchanges provide built-in leverage or portfolio margining that efficient capital deployment. DEXs are working on equivalents (like protocols for under-collateralized trading or decentralized prime brokerage services), but those are in infancy. For now, a pro trader gets a more plug-and-play, institutional-grade experience on major CEXs.
有啲交易所仲有槓桿同組合保證金功能，幫交易員提升資本效率。DEX雖然開始做啲對應產品（例如少抵押做槓桿、去中心化prime brokerage服務），但依家都仲開發初期。專業交易員而家要plug-and-play，真係CEX先有institutional級體驗。
Opportunity and Alpha
On the flip side, savvy professional crypto traders recognize that DEXs present unique opportunities that CEXs might not.
講返轉頭，有經驗嘅專業crypto交易員都知，DEX有啲CEX冇得玩嘅獨特機會。
The inefficiencies or gaps in DeFi can be arbitraged by those who know how. For instance, price differences between DEXs and CEXs can be traded (and indeed many market makers arbitrage cross-market to keep prices aligned). Liquidity mining incentives on DEXs can effectively subsidize trading fees or even yield profits for providing liquidity – something not available on CEXs where only the company benefits from fees.
DeFi委效率、價差，都俾識玩嗰啲人搵到profit。例如DEX同CEX價錢有出入，可以套利（現實中好多做市商都喺兩邊來回喺炒，令價格keep住一致）。DEX有啲流動性挖礦獎勵，可以實現「交易零手續費」，甚至做LP賺錢——CEX只會公司收費，無呢啲玩法。
A professional DeFi trader might deploy capital across dozens of liquidity pools, earning yields on idle assets while still maintaining trading exposure.
專業DeFi交易員可以分散啲錢去成十幾個流動性池，閒錢都有息收，同時又保持市場倉位。
These are strategies traditional prop trading firms have started exploring. Also, some early-stage tokens or DeFi projects can generate outsized returns for those who participate on DEX platforms before the mainstream catches on – the kind of alpha that a forward-looking crypto fund seeks. So from an investment perspective, completely ignoring DEXs could mean missing the cutting edge of crypto innovation and returns.
連傳統自營交易行都開始試行呢類高階策略。再者，啲新token或者初創DeFi項目喺DEX先上架，齋喺早期平台參與已經食到極高回報，呢啲真係forward-looking crypto fund搵緊嘅alpha。換言之，投資嘅角度嚟睇，完全唔入DEX，等於放棄最創新嘅機會同潛在回報。
This is why we’ve seen a trend of even some institutional players tiptoeing into DeFi: a 2023 survey found a notable percentage of hedge funds were experimenting with DeFi for yield or trading. Nonetheless, these ventures are usually limited and carefully managed, precisely because of the aforementioned concerns (liquidity, compliance, etc.).
呢個原因令到連某啲機構都開始細細力踏足DeFi：2023年有調查話，唔少對沖基金都試下玩DeFi，諗住收息或者炒波幅。不過呢啲進軍DeFi通常都係限量、監控住風險——都係之前提過啲流動性、合規等疑慮。
As DEX technology evolves to offer better execution and more professional features (and perhaps if regulatory clarity improves), we can expect more high-volume traders to engage.
相信隨住DEX技術成熟，交易效率提升，加咗多啲專業功能（同時如果監管趨向明朗化），未來會有愈嚟愈多高頻專業交易員加入。
Already, one could argue we’re heading toward a convergence: CEXs are borrowing ideas from DEXs (like self-custody options, on-chain asset support), and DEXs are improving to attract more volume that typically sat on CEXs.
事實上，啲CEX都開始抄DEX功能（例如提供自我託管、on-chain資產支援），而DEX亦追住搞多啲吸走CEX成交量嘅功能。
The line may blur if, say, a CEX offers a non-custodial trading mode, or a DEX implements KYC for large traders to satisfy institutions. There are also hybrid exchanges emerging (partially decentralized, partially centralized) aiming to offer the best of both worlds. All of this is to say, the professional trading community is closely watching the DEX vs CEX battle and will go wherever there’s an edge to be had – but as of now, centralized exchanges remain the primary arena for big-league crypto trading.
如果CEX出無custody模式，或者DEX做KYC專門對大戶客，界線就會愈嚟愈模糊。坊間亦有出現一啲所謂Hybrid Exchange（半中心化半去中心化），目標想兩邊好處都攪埋一齊。話到底，專業交易圈都好緊貼DEX同CEX邊個更值得玩，邊個有優勢會即刻轉，但真係大額主場，今時今日中央交易所始終係大部分專業資本必爭之地。
DEXs and the Original Crypto Spirit: Back to Satoshi’s Vision?
Cryptocurrency was born from an idealistic vision: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system without reliance on trusted intermediaries.
加密貨幣其實係來自一個理想主義願景：一個唔需要信任第三方中介、真正點對點架構嘅電子現金系統。
Bitcoin’s creator Satoshi Nakamoto outlined this in the famous 2008 whitepaper, fundamentally proposing a financial system governed by cryptography and consensus rather than banks and brokers.
比特幣創始人[Satoshi Nakamoto]喺2008年經典白皮書就講得好清楚：設想一種金融系統，唔靠銀行同券商，而係由密碼學同共識去管治。
In the early days of Bitcoin, this ethos of decentralization and self-sovereignty was paramount. It’s ironic, then, that as crypto gained popularity, users flocked to centralized exchanges (like Mt. Gox, then later Coinbase, Binance, etc.) which reintroduced intermediaries into the process. Some veterans of the space view this as a necessary evil – practical for growth – while others see it as betraying the core philosophy. In this context, decentralized exchanges represent a return to crypto’s roots.
比特幣早期，去中心化、自主權呢種精神可以話係最核心。但好諷刺，隨住加密貨幣普及，人哋又返去用中心化交易所（例如舊時Mt Gox，後來Coinbase、Binance等），其實又做返中介人，一班圈內老將覺得呢啲係為咗擴張生態而出現嘅「必要之惡」，實用啫，但都有人認為背叛咗加密原意。喺呢個context，去中心化交易所就像係帶返用戶去crypto初心。
They embody the notion that you can trade and transact directly on the blockchain, in a trustless manner, without permission from any authority.
佢哋代表住加密世界一種理想：你可以喺區塊鏈上，無需信任任何中介、唔使等人批准，直接自由交易。crypto players are channeling Satoshi’s original vision by cutting out the financial middleman and taking to decentralized exchanges,” wrote Reuters during the fallout of FTX’s collapse. Indeed, the FTX debacle in late 2022 became a rallying point for the true believers of decentralization. The implosion of a centralized giant, due to alleged misappropriation of user funds and lack of oversight, was evidence (to them) that only trustless systems can be trusted. Influential voices in the community began urging people to “double down on DEX” and self-custody.
加密貨幣玩家正透過排除金融中介直接轉向去中心化交易所，回歸Satoshi原有的願景，Reuters於FTX崩潰期間這樣寫道。事實上，2022年末FTX事件成為去中心化信徒的集結號。一家中心化巨頭因涉嫌挪用用戶資金及缺乏監管而爆煲，對他們而言正好說明了只有無需信任的系統才值得信任。社群內具影響力的聲音開始呼籲大家「加碼用DEX」及自行保管資產。
A common refrain on crypto forums and Twitter at the time was exactly that old slogan: “Not your keys, not your coins.”
當時，於加密論壇及Twitter上最常見的呼聲正是那句老話：「不是你的私鑰，就不是你的幣。」
In other words, if you don’t hold the private keys, you’re not truly in control – which is antithetical to why Bitcoin was created in the first place, to give individuals full control over their money.
換句話講，如果你並非持有自己的私鑰，其實你並沒有真正掌控自己的資產——這剛好有違比特幣當初的創立理念，就是讓每個人都可完全掌控自己的金錢。
The ethos of DEXs aligns closely with the “Cypherpunk” and libertarian spirit that animated early crypto adopters. That spirit is about disintermediating finance, enabling anyone in the world to transact freely, and resisting censorship or control by centralized entities (be it governments or corporations).
DEX的核心理念，與早期加密貨幣支持者熱衷的「賽博朋克」及自由主義精神十分一致。這種精神主張去中介化金融，讓全世界任何人都能自由交易，反抗由中心化機構（如政府或企業）所帶來的審查及控制。
Decentralized exchanges allow for peer-to-peer trading that cannot be easily shut down because the smart contracts live on public blockchains and users can connect from anywhere. There is a straight line one can draw from the vision of financial sovereignty – people being their own banks – to the design of DEXs where users trade from their own wallets.
去中心化交易所讓用戶可以點對點交易，由於智能合約部署於公開區塊鏈上，加上全球用戶皆可隨時連接，難以被輕易關閉。從「金融主權」——即每個人成為自己銀行的願景——一直延伸到DEX的設計理念，用戶直接用自己的錢包參與交易。
“This is like taking power back and being in charge of your own money,” as Tracy Wang of CoinDesk said about the post-FTX shift to decentralization. On a DEX, there’s no need to trust a CEO or a financial institution’s promise; the code executes the trades and that’s that. This self-sovereign approach is arguably closer to what early Bitcoin users imagined when they talked about a parallel financial system. It harks back to the ideals of permissionless innovation too – anyone can list a token, provide liquidity, or use the platform without asking for approval. In the same way that Bitcoin made sending value as permissionless as sending an email, DEXs aim to make exchanging assets just as open.
正如CoinDesk的Tracy Wang談及FTX後去中心化趨勢時所說：「這就像重新取回主導權，自主管理你自己的錢。」在DEX裡，你毋須相信CEO或金融機構的承諾；程式碼直接執行交易，就是這麼簡單。這種自主權正正貼近早期比特幣用戶所設想的平行金融體系。這也呼應無需許可的創新理想——任何人都可上架代幣、提供流動性或使用平台，無須經他人批准。正如比特幣讓價值傳送變得如發電郵一樣無需許可，DEX亦旨在令資產兌換變得同樣自由開放。
Prominent figures in the crypto space have often highlighted this philosophical divide.
加密領域裡不少具影響力的人物都曾強調過這種理念上的分歧。
Ethereum’s co-founder Vitalik Buterin, for instance, has been a vocal advocate for decentralization at all levels of the stack.
例如，以太坊聯合創辦人Vitalik Buterin多年來一直大聲疾呼，每個層面都要去中心化。
He famously quipped years ago that he “hopes centralized exchanges burn in hell” for their gatekeeping role and extraction of huge listing fees from projects. Though hyperbolic, the sentiment underscores a resentment that many early crypto thinkers have towards centralized choke points. Their argument: if cryptocurrencies simply recreate the same centralized structures (like big banks or stock exchanges) but with digital tokens, then what was the point of all this innovation? The real promise of blockchain is to empower individuals and communities directly, not to enrich a few new middlemen.
他早年就曾語出驚人地嘲諷說「希望中心化交易所下地獄」，因為它們扮演著守門人角色，還從項目方收取巨額上架費。雖然說法誇張，卻凸顯了早期加密思想家對這類中心化卡點的反感。他們認為：若加密貨幣最終只是用數碼代幣複製了傳統的中心化結構（如大銀行或證券所），又何談創新？區塊鏈真正的承諾是直接賦權個人及社群，而非只換了一批新的中介人發達。
Decentralized exchanges, along with other DeFi protocols, represent that promise in action – finance without central authorities. They also invoke the censorship-resistant nature of crypto. For example, if a government or corporation doesn’t like a particular token or user, on a decentralized exchange they have little recourse to stop trading, whereas a centralized exchange could be pressured to delist tokens or freeze accounts. This freedom is very much in line with the “Satoshi-style” vision of an uncensorable financial system accessible to anyone with an internet connection.
去中心化交易所與其他DeFi協議一樣，正正實踐了無需中央權威的金融承諾。它們同時展現了加密圈反審查的本質。例如，若某政府或公司不喜歡某個代幣或用戶，去中心化交易所基本無法阻止其進行交易，但中心化交易所卻可被迫下架代幣或凍結帳戶。這份自由，極度貼近「Satoshi式」不可審查、全球可及的金融系統願景。
Another aspect often cited is the community governance of many DEXs. Platforms like Uniswap or Curve are governed (at least in theory) by decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) composed of their token holders.
另一點經常被提及的，是不少DEX擁有社群自治治理。例如Uniswap或Curve這類平台（至少理論上）由持幣者組成的去中心化自治組織（DAO）所管治。
This means users can have a say in the platform’s evolution – for instance, voting on fee parameters or new features – embodying the decentralized governance ideals that Bitcoin’s early adopters championed (Bitcoin itself doesn’t have formal governance aside from rough consensus, but the principle of no central authority deciding things is shared). In contrast, a centralized exchange is run by a CEO and a corporate board, making decisions in a top-down way.
這意味著用戶可以參與平台未來發展的決策——例如投票決定手續費參數或新功能——體現出早期比特幣用戶推崇的去中心化治理理念（比特幣本身並無正式治理機制，主要靠鬆散共識，但「不由中央權威拍板」的原則相同）。相比之下，中心化交易所由CEO與公司董事會頂層拍板，一切自上而下。
The contrast in ethos is stark: one is a “company”, the other is a “protocol”. Many see the protocol approach as the true innovation – building unstoppable financial infrastructure that is run by code and governed by users.
這種核心信念的對比十分鮮明：一邊是「公司」，一邊是「協議」。不少人認為協議模式才是真正的創新——用程式碼營運且由用戶治理的不可阻擋金融基礎設施。
That said, it’s worth acknowledging that not everyone in crypto prioritizes ideology. The surge in DEX usage often correlates with practical motives (like making profit in DeFi yield farms or fleeing CEXs after a scare) rather than purely philosophical alignment.
當然，現實是並非所有加密用戶都把理念擺第一。DEX用量暴升更多時出於實際因素（如DeFi挖礦賺利潤，或CEX驚魂後搬錢避險），而非純粹理念共鳴。
Yet, the option of DEXs existing allows the ideologically driven users to live by their principles.
然而，DEX的存在讓有理念的用戶得以堅持實踐自己的信念。
Hardcore decentralists can point to DEXs and say: “See, we can have a thriving market without any centralized gatekeepers.”
極端去中心化擁護者可以指著DEX說：「睇吓，我哋冇咗中間人，一樣可以有蓬勃市場。」
And indeed, by early 2025 DEXs accounted for roughly 15-20% of all crypto trading volume – still a minority, but a sizable one that demonstrates a working alternative. This figure was near zero just a few years prior, so the growth of DEXs has been validation for believers in decentralization.
而事實上，到2025年初，DEX已佔據全球約15-20%的加密交易量——雖然仍然是少數，但這份分量已經充份證明DEX是一個可運作的選擇。這個佔比在幾年前幾乎是零，所以DEX崛起對去中心化信仰者來說是一大勝利。
In the broader cultural sense, DEXs help keep the “old-school blockchain spirit” alive in an industry that’s rapidly commercializing.
在更大的文化意義上，DEX幫助保住區塊鏈行業在高速商業化過程下的「開荒精神」。
They serve as a counterbalance to the corporatization of crypto. When large exchanges plaster their names on stadiums and run Superbowl ads, some early adopters cringe that crypto has lost its rebel edge. But in the trenches of Uniswap pools or SushiSwap farms, the vibe of grassroots experimentation persists.
這成為了對抗加密圈企業化的一股力量。當大型交易所名字貼滿球場、登上超級碗廣告，有些早期擁躉會覺得加密世界已失去反叛銳氣。但在Uniswap流動池或SushiSwap農場這些前線，草根實驗精神仍然存在。
Anonymous developers can launch new financial primitives on DEXs without needing a business development deal with Coinbase or Binance. This permissionless innovation is very much in the hacker spirit that Satoshi and the cypherpunks encouraged – releasing open-source code that anyone can use.
匿名開發者可以喺DEX上推出新型金融產品，毋須同Coinbase、Binance等交易所談合作。這份無需許可的創新，正是Satoshi及賽博朋克推崇的駭客精神：發布任何人都用得著的開源程式碼。
On the flip side, even some decentralization proponents concede that pure DeFi isn’t a panacea. For instance, after the FTX collapse, Caitlin Long – a long-time Bitcoin advocate – said she had been warning people to “get your coins off exchanges” and saw a big movement of coins into personal wallets. However, she and others also acknowledge that not everyone will do that, and some blend of solutions or regulated improvements might be needed. But philosophically, DEXs are seen as truer to the original intent of crypto than CEXs. They are the manifestation of trustless finance, which was essentially the whole point of Bitcoin’s creation in response to the 2008 financial crisis and bailouts.
但話得說回來，即使是某些去中心化擁護者，都承認純粹依靠DeFi也非萬能。例如FTX崩潰後，長年比特幣支持者Caitlin Long表示自己一直警告大家「資金唔好擺喺交易所」，並見證了大量資產被移回私人口袋。不過，佢同其他人都同意，不是所有人都會這樣做，未來或需要混合式方案或監管改良。但在理念上，DEX被視為比CEX更接近加密資產原初意圖——它們正好體現無需信任的金融系統，而這本來就是比特幣為對抗2008年金融危機與救市而誕生的原因。
Could CEXs Undermine Decentralization? The Centralization Concerns
中心化交易所會削弱去中心化嗎？過度集中的隱憂
While centralized exchanges have been critical in building the crypto ecosystem, there is a persistent worry among many enthusiasts and experts: Do CEXs pose a threat of excessive centralization in an industry that’s supposed to be decentralized? In other words, if the crypto economy becomes too dependent on a handful of large exchanges, are we recreating the same vulnerabilities and power structures of traditional finance that Bitcoin aimed to escape?
雖然中心化交易所對加密生態建設貢獻巨大，但不少業內熱心人士和專家一直擔心：CEX會否令本應去中心化的行業出現過度集中？換句話說，如果加密經濟過份依賴小量巨型交易所，會不會重演比特幣原先打算擺脫的傳統金融漏洞和權力結構？
These concerns are multi-faceted, touching on market concentration, systemic risk, censorship, and even the influence on protocol development.
這些隱憂涉及層面繁多，包括市場集中度、系統性風險、審查管控、以至對協議發展的影響。
One major issue is market concentration and single points of failure. By their nature, big centralized exchanges concentrate a lot of power and assets. For example, Binance at times has facilitated well over a third of all crypto trading volume globally.
其中一大問題是市場過份集中和「單點故障」風險。大型中心化交易所天生集中大量權力和資產。例如Binance有時候佔了全球三分一以上交易量。
Such dominance means the exchange’s policies, outages, or failure can have outsized effects on the entire market. We’ve seen instances of this: when Binance or Coinbase goes down (even briefly during volatile trading hours), it can cause panic or trap traders who can’t act, impacting prices beyond the platform itself.
這種壟斷令交易所的政策、系統故障或倒閉都會對整個市場造成極大影響。過去確實有例子：當Binance或Coinbase於交易高峰時段閃斷，會令投資者恐慌，無法操作，價格波動亦會影響其他平台。
The extreme case, of course, was FTX – its collapse vaporized billions in user assets and caused a contagion that hit multiple crypto companies and tokens. FTX’s failure was a bit like a “Lehman Brothers moment” for crypto, reminding everyone that centralized entities can introduce systemic risks.
極端例子莫過於FTX——其倒閉令用戶資產蒸發數十億，並引發連鎖反應波及多家加密企業及代幣。FTX崩潰正如加密世界的「雷曼時刻」，提醒大家中心化機構會造成系統性風險。
Blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum are decentralized enough that they don’t have a single kill switch, but if a massive portion of crypto capital sits on a few custodial platforms, those platforms become chokepoints. If one fails or is corrupt, it can drag down a large swath of the community. Critics argue this is antithetical to crypto’s promise of eliminating single points of failure.
比特幣、以太坊這類公鏈本身已充分享有去中心化，故難以一鍵關閉。但如果大部份加密資金都集中在少量託管平台，這些平台就變成了瓶頸。一旦其中一間出事或腐敗，會拖垮大半個圈子。批評者認為，這完全違背了加密技術希望消滅「單點故障」的初衷。
As one DeFi proponent mused, the community must avoid a future where “most cryptocurrency trading occurs on centralized exchanges, where custody of funds undermines decentralization”, bringing back the very counterparty risks decentralization was meant to solve .
正如一位DeFi倡議者所慨歎，大家必須避免走向這樣的未來：「大部份加密貨幣交易仍然在中心化交易所進行，由他人託管資產，結果去中心化變得毫無意義。」這樣一來，正是將去中心化想要解決的對手風險重新引入。
Another aspect is censorship and surveillance.
另一個問題是審查及監控。
Centralized exchanges, especially regulated ones, may be compelled to enforce government mandates, such as freezing assets, blocking certain users, or delisting coins that authorities dislike.
中心化交易所，尤其是受監管者，可能被迫執行政府命令，例如凍結資產、封鎖某些用戶，或下架當局不滿意的代幣。
This has already happened in various forms: Exchanges have had to ban customers from certain countries due to sanctions, implement strict identity checks, and sometimes comply with law enforcement requests to freeze or surrender funds. In a decentralized ideal, “code is law” and transactions are uncensorable.
這些事情早已屢見不鮮：交易所必須因應制裁禁止某些國家客戶、實施嚴格KYC，甚至應執法人員要求凍結或交出資產。在去中心化理想裡，「程式即法律」，交易本該無法被審查。
But if most people keep their crypto on big exchanges, then effectively those exchanges become de facto gatekeepers. For example, if a government decided it doesn’t like a certain cryptocurrency (imagine a scenario where regulators label a privacy coin like Monero as illicit), they can pressure centralized exchanges to drop it, severely limiting its liquidity and usability. We’ve seen hints of this: some exchanges
但如果大多數人仍把資產放在大型交易所，這些交易所事實上就成為了新的守門人。例如，一旦政府不喜歡某種加密貨幣（譬如監管機關將Monero這種私隱幣定為非法），他們可以向中心化交易所施壓，令其下架該幣，大幅影響其流動性及實用性。至於這一點，我們已見到不少端倪——部分交易所…Certainly! Here is your translation in zh-Hant-HK, following the instructions to skip markdown links:
已於監管嚴格嘅地區下架私隱幣。同樣地，喺政治動盪或者資本管制嘅情況下，交易所都可能收到命令凍結提款，而呢啲做法其實同加密貨幣本來「無國界」嘅理念背道而馳。
對呢個情況感到憂慮嘅人經常指出，如果加密貨幣未來只係由幾間大型企業控制入金出金通道，兼且由佢哋托管所有人嘅資產，咁整個系統就只係換咗個殼嘅傳統銀行—只不過資產變成加密貨幣咁解。
過度集中化會動搖咗加密貨幣「毋須許可、開放進入」呢個原則。都係因為咁，去中心化支持者會主張用DEX同去中心化託管，務求唔會咁容易俾上層機構攞走主導權或者控制到成個系統。
另一個憂慮係交易所權力過度集中。
大型CEX（中心化交易所）可以用好多方式左右整個生態，甚至傷害去中心化。例如，當有交易所上新幣，成日都會引發幣價急升（人稱「Coinbase效應」或者之前講過嘅「Binance pump」），即係話呢啲公司做咗專案曝光同成功嘅守門人。
有啲人認為咁樣就過度集中影響力，令到項目要迎合交易所而唔係社區，只為求可以成功上市。
更甚者，交易所自己都可以有利益衝突：有啲發行自己平台幣（例如Binance發BNC，FTX發FTT），然後用自己平台支持同推高呢啲幣，等於變相做咗「中央銀行」來控制經濟。
當FTX出事嗰陣，好清晰見到佢啲平台幣FTT同佢嘅償付能力緊密相連——一間中心化機構可以憑空造一隻幣，靠自己上架賦予佢價值，甚至可以拿嚟做抵押物。呢啲就同去中心化精神背道而馳，本質上係一種中心化「印銀紙」玩法。如果越來越多交易所建立以自己平台幣、生態產品為主體嘅生態圈（事實上而家好多咁做——例如推出自己嘅區塊鏈、穩定幣等），風險係加密生態會變成一個個圍牆花園，而唔係開放網絡。萬一有間大交易所擁有大量Token，可以參與各種協議投票、或者攞住大量用戶資產做Staking（例如某啲交易所提供Staking服務，其實等於大家集資一齊Vote，變相攞咗網絡大票權），咁就有機會令區塊鏈網絡本身都被再度中心化。呢個現象幾諷刺：即使大家名義上用緊去中心化網絡（如Ethereum），但實際上係攞緊交易所作為「節點」入面使用，加密資產方向同審查權會集中喺交易所（好似Tornado Cash事件， 有討論過礦工/交易所會唔會因制裁去審查指定交易）。
同時，去中心化都面對住理念同聲譽挑戰。
隨住CEX帶動加密貨幣愈來愈主流，有啲人擔心創新方向同故事會偏離去中心化。
如果新人接觸加密只係開個大交易所戶口，炒下山寨幣、從來冇用過區塊鏈錢包，外界根本唔會欣賞去中心化嘅價值。整個運動最後只係變咗新一代Fintech資產，失去咗去中心化科技原本嗰種改變世界嘅力量。行內都有人警告有個「再中心化陷阱」：太方便嘅中心化服務會慢慢蠶食原有架構（Forbes 2024都有提過全球監管壓力可能會逼區塊鏈再中心化，以便合規）。咁樣走落去，最終就係俾少數機構控制絕大部分加密資金流，靠監管同業務滲透，將加密世界變返而家金融系統（同樣有獨點失敗、排斥在外等問題）。
實際上，中心化帶嚟嘅安全風險同託管風險係不斷存在嘅問題。 即使交易所規模更大、更專業，但都係駭客眼中肥美嘅目標。一單成功嘅黑客入侵，分分鐘損失以十億計（好似Mt. Gox、Coincheck都試過損失幾億元美金）。
越集中，失敗危機就越大。萬一有日有個頂級交易所攞住成個市場10%加密貨幣嘅時候出事，後果可以遠超FTX。
去中心化支持者會話，如果大家資產散落唔同自主管理錢包同DEX，就唔會有單一失誤而導致毀滅性失敗。正正因咁，去中心化先至可以提升抗逆力。
不過，都要指出唔係個個都覺得CEX係生存危機。有啲人認為而家CEX叫做過渡期拐杖——頂住條路，等去中心化技術成熟。樂觀嘅人仲會話：雖然而家有幾間交易所好勁，但其實市場競爭、技術演進，一定會推動更多on-chain活動，好似當年網絡發展最後都係由封閉AOL服務變成開放互聯網。
其實例子都有，Binance 2023年市佔率由60% 跌到去約35%，因為競爭同DEX用戶數上升，表示即使係巨無霸都有機會俾市場、用戶用腳投票拉落嚟。再加部分交易所本身都會投資去中心化技術（如Coinbase開發Base、支持去中心化應用，Binance推Binance Smart Chain，雖則中央化成份重，但都係想做基礎去中心化設施）。
雖然咁，喺歷練咗N次交易所事件之後，警世之聲依然響亮。
“有歷練嘅老手……快啲攞走你啲幣唔好放喺交易所，”Caitlin Long斷然話——好貼切表達咗老一代加密用家對中心化嘅不信任。呢個教訓係痛苦換嚟——差唔多每一輪都會有重大交易所爆災（2014年Mt. Gox、2016年Bitfinex、2019年QuadrigaCX、2022年FTX等等）。每次都印證，中間一粒「中央點」既可遭人入侵，亦可以玩嘢。
DeFi原教旨者就會話，只要大家仲可以揀離開中心化——例如提幣去自己錢包、喺DEX交易——咁去中心化願景都未死。
佢哋擔心一旦有日政府或壟斷企業取消咗呢個選擇 —— 假設某啲國家禁晒DEX，只准用有牌CEX，或者有科技巨企將用戶困住喺自家閉環，咁就會變成只有名無實嘅「加密」。就係因為咁，社群成日鼓勵大家用DEX同獨立錢包，keep住有選擇。某程度上，CEX/DEX係個天平，一邊過重，整個加密圈就變成「中心化金融」(CeFi)。
結語
講到底，CEX vs DEX 嘅激烈競爭其實推動緊成個行業進步，最終得益係用家。
中心化交易所受住去中心化對手壓力，搞透明度（例如公布儲備證明）、降手續費、加多啲幣同服務去搶市場。DEX見到咁多用戶，亦加快提升吞吐量、減低成本（靠Layer2同協議改進），改善易用度。成個行業都加快創新。Bitget CEO Gracy Chen講得好啱：「交易所唔只係交易場所，仲要做中央化同去中心化世界嘅橋樑。」其實將來CEX/DEX界線可能會模糊——會有混合式模式，結合DeFi信任機制同CeFi用戶體驗。
即使大家咁接近，核心討論仲係：金融本質係咪應該中心化定去中心化？呢個哲學拉扯肯定會長期存在。監管走向都會係關鍵——良性規管可以令CEX DEX共存，如果嚴苛規定就只得一方生存。
但而家「去中心化基因」已經出咗瓶，想全部再中心化肯定唔易。佢可能而家會以新奇方式同傳統系統並存。