如今，加密貨幣交易平台正展開一場激烈的對決——中心化交易所（CEX）與去中心化交易所（DEX），這場競爭正形塑著加密金融的未來。
主要中心化交易平台如 Binance、Coinbase 和 Kraken 目前依然主導著市場（僅 2025 年第一季交易量就超過 5 兆美元）。然而，Uniswap、PancakeSwap、dYdX 等去中心化新勢力正迅速崛起，DEX 交易量屢創新高（2025 年超過 2.6 兆美元）。
這場拉鋸戰不僅僅是市場佔有率或技術的較量，更觸及加密貨幣的核心理念。
一方強調在值得信賴仲介下提供人性化介面與流動性，另一方則主張自主以及「不是你的金鑰，不是你的幣」的原則。近期事件讓這場對抗更加白熱化。
2022 年前五大交易所之一 FTX 的轟然倒塌，揭示了信任被濫用的風險——事後發現多達 10 億美元的客戶資金失蹤，促使許多人「回歸加密貨幣的去中心化本質」。
監管機構同時也因合規問題對 CEX 加緊查緝，即便 CEX 巨頭積極追求上市和全球擴張。與此同時，去中心化交易所高速演進，不斷提升效能與易用性。本文將深入探討 CEX 與 DEX 之爭：它們是什麼、對一般用戶和專業人士的差異、背後的理念分歧，以及在去中心化世界中集權化可能帶來的風險。這場競爭的結果將深刻影響加密市場的未來發展走向。
什麼是 DEX？去中心化交易所興起
去中心化交易所（DEX）是一種無需中央仲介的加密貨幣交易平台。DEX 不像傳統公司控管你的資產、用自家伺服器撮合訂單，而是用戶可直接透過區塊鏈上的智慧合約，使用加密錢包進行交易。簡單來說，DEX 交易採點對點自動化進行——每筆交易都是區塊鏈上的操作，且你永遠不需將資金交給第三方託管。
這種模式體現了區塊鏈的「無信任」精神：正如某位觀察者所言，如今許多加密堅持者「正在以去除金融中介的方式傳承中本聰的原初願景，直上去中心化交易所」。
早期 DEX 雖然操作不便、流動性有限，但成長幅度驚人。
如今主流 DEX 交易量已經與傳統平台不相上下。最大 DEX Uniswap 僅在 2025 年 7 月單月就處理將近 1,000 億美元的交易量——這數字在幾年前是難以想像的。自創立以來，去中心化交易所總成交量接近 10 兆美元，突顯出市場對點對點交易的巨大需求。
不僅如此，其他主要 DEX 也在不同公鏈生態大放異彩。PancakeSwap 在 BNB Chain（原 Binance Smart Chain）成為 BEP-20 代幣交易樞紐；Curve 專攻穩定幣兌換；SushiSwap 多鏈發展；Layer-2 跟其他公鏈則有 GMX、dYdX 等創新槓桿交易模式。
甚至 Solana 上的 DEX Raydium 在 2024 年底因迷因幣熱潮一度搶占超過四分之一 DEX 市場份額。
DEX 之所以重要，原因之一是大幅降低新幣上市門檻。
任何人都能在去中心化交易所為新幣創建流動性池，許多新創與實驗性代幣往往都在 CEX 列出前，先於 DEX 登場。有志尋找下一波熱門 DeFi 或迷因幣的交易者，經常必須前往 DEX 早期參與。
例如，像 TRUMP 這種具有政治主題的代幣就先於鏈上出現，透過 DEX 交易推高市值，遠早於任何中心化平台上市。此種「鏈上優先」趨勢說明 DEX 已成為加密創新的搖籃，搶先捕捉機會，而 CEX 往往要等新幣爆紅才會上架。有經驗的加密投資者也開始注意，「許多資深投資人……逐步轉向 DEX 抓住交易先機」並追求更高收益與提前布局，根據某產業報告指出。
除了幣種上市，DEX 的功能也持續擴展。
最初的去中心化交易所主要採用簡單的「自動做市商」（AMM）機制——核心是利用代幣池，價格按公式自動調整——這套機制由 Uniswap 開創，雖然一度效率不高，但革命性十足。
現在我們看到越來越多複雜設計：有些 DEX 結合訂單簿或 Layer-2 技術，以提升交易速度與降低成本。還有專門提供永續合約等衍生品的去中心化平台（如 dYdX、GMX，或新興的 Hyperliquid 等）。其實，僅 2025 年，永續類型 DEX 已創下超過 2.6 兆美元的成交量，吸引用戶進行「免託管」槓桿交易，速度也持續提升。
雖佔整體衍生品市場比例仍有限，但成長極快——DEX 占加密期貨市場份額在 2024 年從不到 5% 攀至 10%，顯示態勢正在改變。
至關重要的是，DEX 用戶隨時都擁有自己的資產。你在 DEX 上交易時，只需連結錢包（如 MetaMask 或硬體錢包），交易自動透過智慧合約點對點完成。並無中央機構能凍結帳戶或侵占資金。
這種安全模式在中心化交易所遭遇危機時格外顯著。DEX 無法凍結提款、也不會未經同意挪用客戶資產——根本沒有這種機制，因為用戶資金一切都在自己地址內，直到交易兌換完成。所有交易與資金儲備全記錄在鏈上，任何人都可查證。因此 DEX 支持者認為這種架構避免了中心化平台的「單點故障」風險。Enclave Markets 執行長 David Wells 解釋：「DEX 的某些特點確實吸引用戶，因其減少了惡意操作或系統單點故障的機會。」
FTX 崩盤正見證了這項優勢——去中心化交易所完全沒有受到波及，因為在 DEX 交易的用戶壓根沒有任何中介人會吞掉他們的資產。在 FTX 風暴期間，DEX 交易量暴增（Uniswap 單週成交量幾乎增至超過 170 億美元），數萬顆比特幣也從 CEX 轉出投入自主管理。
「現在可以確定，資產存放在中心化機構確實存在風險。」DEX Hashflow 執行長 Varun Kumar 引述數據指出，「事件過後用戶紛紛轉向去中心化交易解決方案。」
儘管如此，DEX 依然面臨不少挑戰。
當自己的銀行，需要承擔更多責任與風險。使用 DEX 得具備一定技術知識：要自行保管錢包與私鑰、熟悉往往較複雜的操作介面，並理解滑點容忍度、Gas Fee 等概念。
若操作錯誤，像是轉錯地址或遺失助記詞，沒有人可以協助追回。
「最大挑戰之一仍是操作介面，」數位資產安全公司 CoinCover 的報告指出，「投資人必須理解如滑點等概念，並對操作負全責。」早期 DEX 介面確實令人卻步，如今雖已大幅優化，越來越多主流網頁或行動介面也相當易用。
另一方面，性能與可擴展性亦是問題：熱門區塊鏈容易壅塞，導致 DEX 交易（皆在鏈上發生）在高峰時段延遲或出現高額手續費。例如，以太坊上的 NFT 熱潮時，單筆交易費用動輒數十美元，對小額交易十分不便。
新一代 DEX 多建於高速公鏈（如 Solana 或 Layer-2），狀況略有改善，但在市場行情報發時，網路壅塞或交易處理延宕的風險依舊存在。
流動性也是一項考驗：雖然主流幣對的 DEX 流動池相當充沛，但冷門幣對大額交易仍可能引發嚴重價格滑點或波動。
歷來，DEX 的深度一般而言較大 CEX 訂單簿為低──但隨著流動性提升與聚合器劃分訂單，這個差距正在縮小。最後，智慧合約風險是 DEX 特有隱憂。程式碼錯誤或被駭，確實曾造成 DeFi 協議被盜。2024 年如 Velocore DEX 就因智能合約漏洞遭駭損失 680 萬美元。用戶只能信任 DEX 的原始碼經過審計，但仍無法保證完全無風險。儘管挑戰重重，DEX 前景仍明確向上。
使用去中心化交易所的人數快速增長──Uniswap 月活用戶一年內由 830 萬暴增至 1,950 萬（2024 年中至 2025 年中）──而功能亦不斷進步。憑藉社群驅動的創新，DEX 正穩步蠶食過去 CEX 的優勢。 of centralized trading venues.
什麼是CEX？中心化交易所依然佔據主導地位
中心化交易所（CEX）是一種傳統型態的加密貨幣交易中心，由公司（或組織）營運並作為中介。在這種模式中，用戶須註冊帳號——通常需提供個人身分驗證（KYC）——並將資金存入交易所託管。
交易在交易所的內部訂單簿上進行，由平台透過其專屬軟體撮合買賣雙方。某種程度上，CEX的運作就像是數位股票交易所加上銀行的組合：它持有客戶資產（如同銀行持有存款），同時促成下單成交（像股票交易所撮合買單與賣單），並通常在每次交易或提領時收取手續費。Binance、Coinbase、Kraken、OKX、Huobi（近期更名為HTX）、Bitfinex、Bitget、Upbit，以及過去的FTX——這些都是服務千萬用戶的知名中心化交易所。
在CEX上，交易通常極為迅捷流暢。用戶可受惠於熱門交易對的深度流動性，意味著即使大額交易也能最小化價格波動。
介面通常精緻且友善，提供進階圖表工具、各式訂單類型與客服支援——這些都降低了新手入門的門檻。難怪多數剛接觸加密貨幣的一般投資人，第一站往往就是中心化交易所。
路透社在FTX事件高峰時就曾指出，中心化交易所「更類似於華爾街的傳統交易所……使交易對新進投資人更加友好」。
你可以用電郵與密碼登入，若不慎失去帳號存取權也時常能夠找回，且可仰賴公司客服協助解決問題。此外，CEX普遍整合了法幣入金管道——通常可以透過銀行轉帳或信用卡存/提現法幣（如USD、EUR等），這是去中心化平台難以直接實現的功能。這種能夠輕鬆銜接加密與法幣世界的優勢，是CEX吸引主流用戶的關鍵。
以幾乎所有指標來看，CEX在總交易活動量上依舊遠遠超越DEX。2024年，儘管面臨逆風，中心化交易所全年的現貨交易量約達14.3兆美元。
相較之下，這比DEX在鏈上看到的交易量多出一個數量級左右。
光是2025年第一季，前十大中心化交易所就處理了5.4兆美元的現貨交易。
這些交易量凸顯，CEX仍是加密資產價格發現的主要場所，尤其對比特幣和以太坊等大型資產來說，流動性高度集中在龍頭平台。以Binance為例，早在2025年初，就占據了全球40%左右的現貨交易量。其巔峰甚至更甚——2023年初一度市占超過六成——直到監管施壓與競爭者瓜分市占為止。
即便如此，Binance每月成交額仍達數千億美元，全球註冊用戶據報超過1.5億。
其他大型CEX數字同樣亮眼：Coinbase作為美國最大且在那斯達克上市的交易所，服務破1.1億驗證用戶，每日成交額穩定在10到20億美元。Kraken（美國）則宣布擁有520萬客戶，2025年第三季交易量同比成長106%，搭上市場熱潮與即將上市的預期。OKX與Bybit則在衍生品領域壯大，常與Binance在期貨交易量緊密排名。
Crypto.com則於2021–2022年以積極行銷策略，迅速躍居頂尖交易量俱樂部。這些交易所如今不僅是交易場所，更是提供放貸、質押、加密卡、NFT市集與創投等一整套金融服務的綜合型公司。
它們已經成為加密經濟中的金融巨頭，甚至有些正積極尋求正式法規許可與證交所上市，與傳統金融日益趨同。
舉例來說，Coinbase與Kraken都朝公開市場前進——Coinbase 於2021年直接上市，Kraken則多輪融資，IPO在即——而海外金融科技應用如Revolut也瞄準雙重上市並整合加密交易。
由於其規模，CEX正日益面對嚴格監管。
2023–2024年，美國監管機構（主要為SEC）對多家大型交易所發起高調執法行動。Coinbase與Binance於2023年遭SEC控告未註冊經營證券平台，引發業界震撼。Binance遭遇尤其戲劇化：經歷長期調查後，終於在2023年底達成和解，執行長趙長鵬（CZ）高調下台，公司支付超過40億美元罰款。
雖然Binance在部份地區否認違規，但確實因監管壓力退出部分市場。
這些事件顯示大型交易所可能終究會被比照銀行或金融機構管理——需落實嚴格規範、風控和透明度措施。的確，PwC於2025年的分析警告，領先的CEX可能被視為「具系統性重要性」而必須符合類銀行的託管、資本和揭露標準。
在某種程度上，這類監管可強化信任（沒人想見到FTX失控重演），但也強調CEX本質上在標榜去中心化的業界帶入了中心化權力點。為恢復信心，許多CEX於FTX事件後匆忙發布資產儲備證明，安撫用戶資金確實有充分備付。這些措施雖有幫助，卻屬自願且執行標準不一。根本上的權衡仍在：使用CEX，就是必須信任交易所——如同存款於銀行——相信資產需要時一定還在。一旦這種信任瓦解，如同FTX用戶所受教訓，後果不堪設想。「像FTX這樣的公司理應善盡資產託管，結果卻挪用用戶資產」，CoinDesk編輯Tracy Wang如此指出，並表示這種行為「違反了加密貨幣的根本哲學」。
儘管有理念上的疑慮，CEX仍持續興旺，因為它們提供了平均大眾極為寶貴的關鍵優勢與服務。
便利為王：在CEX上，打開行動App、點幾下就能完成下單，操作體驗與券商/銀行App頗為相似。
許多CEX設有24/7客服、保險基金分擔特定損失，並有其他用戶保障機制。合法合規甚至成為優勢，而非僅為負擔——遵循KYC/AML規範，使其比純匿名DeFi更讓人覺得安全有保障。舉例來說，若你不幸遇上已知詐騙或駭客，合規交易所有機會凍結可疑帳戶或協助執法（已見於多起重點追贓案例），而在DEX則無等值的申訴對象。
此外，CEX通常提供更多與法幣掛鉤的交易對（如BTC/USD、ETH/EUR），讓用戶現金化操作更為直觀簡單，DEX則難以直接支援。
對於尚未準備好自行管理私有錢包的用戶，信任交易所的託管錢包也更為便利——雖然是以犧牲「真正擁有權」為代價。隨著加密產業擴張，愈來愈多企業與交易所努力讓買加密貨幣像登入App一樣容易，NBC News指出，這種便利其實反而讓人重新依賴起系統原本意圖消除的中介。
但必須肯定，最大型CEX本身也在積極轉型。
了解到DeFi與DEX具有吸引力，一些中心化平台開始擁抱混合模式。
比如Coinbase已將DEX交易功能整合進手機App，並自建區塊鏈（Base）以支援鏈上活動。Coinbase所言，其目標是讓用戶能在熟悉且受監管的介面內，存取「鏈上所有資產」。
這可被視為防禦性策略——承認用戶若渴望自主管理與更多資產選擇，前瞻性的CEX應主動促成而非坐以待斃。JPMorgan分析師日前亦指出，DEX對主流CEX造成的威脅目前有所減緩，原因之一正是頭部交易所紛紛引入DeFi功能。
其實，這種整合有望釋放重大價值：JPMorgan分析預測，Coinbase能憑藉其Base網路與DEX功能提升股票價值，增加數十億市值，並以新型鏈上手續費收入帶動獲利成長。
除了科技創新，CEX也在擴大布局——轉型為全方位的加密超級平台或「超級App」。
Binance等也提供存款理財、貸款，甚至逐步推出更多非加密服務（如旅遊訂票等），目標成為一站式金融App。
這種多角化是一把雙刃劍：一方面帶來源源新收入與用戶黏著，一方面卻使其愈趨近於加密領域本該反動的中心化金融科技模式。不過，在「成為加密首要金融樞紐」的競賽中，Binance、Coinbase、Kraken等皆在技術創新、合規及機構合作上大舉投資，鞏固領導地位。截至2025年，中心化交易所依舊是加密交易的骨幹，但亦可見整個生態正因應DEX競爭壓力而持續演變。regulatory forces externally.
一般加密貨幣用戶的主要差異
從一般加密貨幣用戶的角度來看，使用中心化交易所（CEX）與去中心化交易所（DEX）之間的差異相當顯著。每種模式都有其優缺點，最理想的選擇通常取決於個人的經驗程度、目標和價值觀。我們來以實際層面拆解這些關鍵差異：
使用便利性與可及性
對於新手來說，中心化交易所通常更為親近易用。如果小明（Alice）只是個想要用金融卡購買一些比特幣或以太幣的普通投資人，像 Coinbase 或 Kraken 這樣的 CEX 會提供一套簡單、熟悉的流程：用電子郵件註冊、設密碼，或許還要完成身分驗證，隨即透過乾淨直覺的介面開始交易。
它的用戶體驗經過精緻設計，與網路銀行或股票交易 app 十分相似，降低了初學者的門檻。相比之下，若要使用 DEX，小明必須事先設好加密錢包（還得準備好支付交易手續費的以太幣或其他原生代幣）、懂得如何連接錢包至去中心化應用（DApp），並領悟何謂代幣兌換。正如一份產業指南所說：「CEX 很適合新手」，而「DEX 對缺乏技術知識的人來說可能會較難入門」。
此外，CEX 通常也有附設行動 app，整合即時價格提醒、教學資源與客服聊天功能──對於新手來說，是個完整的學習和參與生態圈。DEX 則是建立在區塊鏈之上的網頁或 app 介面，雖然現今某些 DEX 的行動錢包 app 已經相當流暢友善，不過還是默認用戶具備更多基礎知識。
沒有中心化客服可以手把手協助你把錯誤的交易挽回；最多只是在社群論壇或 Discord 頻道求助。這種「有人帶路」和「單打獨鬥」的差別，對日常用戶來說至關重要。即使像忘記密碼這麼簡單的小事——在 CEX 上用「忘記密碼」+身分驗證就能輕鬆解決——但在 DEX 上，若私鑰遺失便無法取回，永遠無法再次登入。因此，許多休閒用戶還是會選擇 CEX 那種「直觀介面與保管安全網」，至少在建立信心之前如此。
資產保管與安全性
或許最根本的差異在於誰掌控你的資產。
在中心化交易所裡，你是把資產託管給交易所。即使你的帳戶餘額顯示你在交易所 X 擁有 1 枚比特幣，從法律和技術角度來看，實際持有錢包私鑰的是交易所 X。
這種安排很方便——交易所會在背後處理所有安全細節——但卻產生對手風險。如果交易所遭駭、系統故障，或從事詐騙行為，你的資產就會受害。
不幸的是，加密貨幣歷史上不乏慘痛的案例：從 2014 年臭名昭著的 Mt. Gox 被駭（損失 85 萬顆 BTC），到近年如 Bitfinex、KuCoin、Coincheck 等交易所受到攻擊，駭客一再盯上這些持有大量用戶資金的中心化平台。即便是 2023~2024 年間，依舊傳出事件（例如據報 Bybit 遭遇嚴重網路竊盜未遂，還有亞洲地區小型平台 Nobitex 被駭）──提醒大家，只要是中心化資金池，都容易成為攻擊目標。
相對地，在 DEX 上，你的資金始終存放在自己的錢包內。即使 DEX 的網站或智能合約遭到攻擊，只要你沒親自授權惡意交易，攻擊者也無法直接奪走你的資產。
這種自主管理型態，天生就更能防止中心化駭客事件，因為沒有單一金庫能一次被搶。
此外，由於 DEX 具有高度透明性，用戶可以查驗智能合約的原始碼，也能在鏈上即時看到流動池的儲備狀態。 DEX 用戶不會遇到因平台破產或資金不當運用而導致的提領受阻──這種情形過去在 CEX 很常見（例如 FTX 破產前就停止用戶出金，把資金困在裡頭）。
正如某派 DEX 擁護者打趣說：「用 DEX 就無需擔心交易所會暫停出金或私下用你的錢去賭博」。話雖如此，自主管理也讓安全責任落在用戶肩上。你得妥善保管私鑰或助記詞——如使用硬體錢包、抄寫種子短語、提高防釣魚意識。加密圈有句名言：「若非你的私鑰，就不是你的幣」，提醒民眾交給 CEX 代管形同放棄主權。許多用戶在 FTX 崩盤後記取教訓：區塊鏈銀行家 Caitlin Long 指出，FTX 鬧垮後，「大量」用戶將資產轉回自主管理。
但自保也意味著私鑰一失就回天乏術，對新手來說壓力很大。總之，用戶必須在 CEX 的便利與託管安全保障（但要求信任）以及 DEX 的自主管理與完全控制（需自行負責且較具技術門檻）之間選擇平衡點。
隱私與匿名性
使用中心化交易所通常要提交個人資料。
大型 CEX 在多數法域都需遵守 KYC（了解你的客戶）規定，新用戶會被要求上傳證件（如護照、駕照），並驗證地址。
之後，你在交易平台上的每一筆交易都會和你的身份綁定起來。對重視隱私的用戶，這是一大缺點──你做的每一筆交易都有可能被監管單位監控或回報。
有些人純粹是因為資安疑慮（如平台資料外洩歷史頻傳），或出於原則，不願意把政府核發的證件交給加密公司。反觀，大多數 DEX 都允許任何人只要有錢包就能匿名交易，不需提供個資。這些平台本質上只是與區塊鏈溝通的網頁或 App，智能合約壓根不在意你是誰，只憑錢包簽名驗證你是否有權動用該資產。
這種「偽匿名」意謂著無論你在奈及利亞、伊朗、委內瑞拉，只要有錢包就能進 DEX 兌換代幣，無需通過繁瑣的合規程序──而這些在受監管 CEX 可能受限，甚至直接封鎖特定地區。
對重視財務隱私，或身處受壓抑體制之下的用戶來說，DEX 無疑是救命繩索。
「DEX 讓投資人可以不用揭露個資或金融歷史就能交易，」CoinCover 指出，在有嚴格資本控管或銀行不穩的地區，這種偽匿名性極為珍貴。
舉例來說：一個住在惡性通膨的國家的人，可以透過 DEX，把本地貨幣儲蓄兌換成穩定幣來保值，而政府或銀行卻難以即時監管、干預。不過，值得留意的是，DEX 交易其實並非完全匿名——所有交易都公開記錄在區塊鏈，有能力的數據分析也可能將錢包地址與個人勾稽出來；但畢竟還是比在中心化平台上交出身份證來得隱私許多。
另一方面，有些用戶反而欣賞 CEX 的監管機制，因為能抑制邪惡行為，有時候還能提供補救空間──例如有人盜用你的 CEX 帳戶，交易所可以察覺並鎖定，而你的個人錢包遭駭就沒這種守衛了。總的來說，一般用戶的隱私取捨很明顯：CEX 需信任且須揭露身份，DEX 則能保障匿名，但必須自行承擔全部責任（若操作違法也須自負風險——DEX 不做 KYC 並不代表不違法）。
幣種選擇
另一個重要差異是資產種類的豐富度。中心化交易所（尤其是有執照或聲譽的）在上架新幣時往往非常挑剔。
它們通常有內部審核委員會，對新幣合規、安全性、市場需求等各方面進行評估。例如 Coinbase 過去歷來只上架數量有限的貨幣，多半專注於自認為合法且風險較低的幣種（雖然近年已明顯增加），
較小型交易所雖然可能會上更多小幣以吸引用戶，但像 Binance 這種知名以「海量幣種」著稱的大所，依然不會隨便收錄每一種冷門迷因幣。這代表，一般 CEX 用戶多只能交易市值排名前 200 的主流幣加上一些冷門新幣（對大部分投資人而言已足夠），卻無法摸到全部市場選項。
相比之下，DEX 幾乎可交易所有存在於底層鏈上的代幣。只要有新代幣發行並提供一定流動性，理論上第二天就在 DEX 可供兌換。對於平常用戶來說，如果想買 Twitter 熱議、各大 CEX 尚未上市的實驗性 DeFi 新幣，就必須碰 DEX。
這點既刺激又危險：刺激在於能「搶先卡位」新項目；危險則是缺乏審核機制——詐騙幣或「地毯式撤退」在 DEX 上屢見不鮮。許多散戶慘痛發現，只因一個幣能在 DEX 買到，並不代表值得或安全——不肖分子或仿冒幣早就準備等著割新手。
反觀，CEX 上架至少足以證明幣不是百分百詐騙（當然並不是no guarantee of investment merit). So, ordinary users who stick to CEXs get a curated menu, whereas DEX users get the open buffet of all tokens, with all the freedom and risk that entails.
（不保證投資價值）。因此，普通用戶如果選擇中心化交易所（CEX），他們就像從經過篩選的菜單中點菜一樣；而選擇去中心化交易所（DEX）的用戶，則像是面對開放式自助餐，所有代幣都能自由選擇，但也承擔全部的風險。
Costs and Fees
Users also care about how much it costs to trade.
用戶同樣很在意交易的成本。
Centralized exchanges typically charge a trading fee per transaction – often around 0.1% to 0.5% of the trade’s value, sometimes less for high-volume traders or via use of the exchange’s native token.
中心化交易所通常每筆交易會收取手續費——大約是交易價值的 0.1% 到 0.5%，大額交易者或使用平台原生代幣者，手續費有時會更低。
They may also charge for withdrawals (especially fiat withdrawals or small crypto withdrawals). Decentralized exchanges don’t have a conventional fee structure in the same way – there’s usually a small protocol fee (e.g. 0.3% on Uniswap trades, which often partly goes to liquidity providers), but more significantly, DEX users pay network gas fees to execute trades on-chain.
他們也可能會對提現收費（特別是法幣提現或小額加密貨幣提現）。去中心化交易所的收費結構則不同——通常僅收取少量協議費（例如 Uniswap 交易約收 0.3%，部分會分給流動性提供者），但更重要的是，DEX 用戶在鏈上執行交易時還需支付網路 Gas 費。
Those fees can dwarf other costs depending on the blockchain’s congestion. For example, a simple swap on Ethereum could cost $5 or $50 in gas fees during busy times, regardless of trade size.
根據區塊鏈擁塞情況，這些費用有時遠高於其他成本。例如，在以太坊上進行簡單的貨幣兌換，在高峰時段即使交易金額不變，光是 Gas 費就可能高達 5 美元或 50 美元。
On high-throughput chains like Solana or layer-2 networks like Arbitrum, gas fees are pennies, making DEX trading there very cheap. But the key point is, on a CEX, trades are off-chain and usually much cheaper for small-to-medium trades – you might pay a few cents or a couple dollars fee on a $1,000 trade (or even zero fee on certain pairs, as some exchanges offer promotions). On a DEX, a $1,000 trade on Ethereum might cost $10+ in gas plus a protocol fee, which is notably higher. Thus, for small everyday trades, CEXs can be more cost-effective, whereas for very large trades, CEX fees might accumulate and perhaps a DEX could be competitive if it offers better price execution and if done on a low-fee network. It’s a bit case-by-case; savvy users sometimes use aggregators to find if a DEX or CEX gives a better net price for a given trade after fees.
在像 Solana 這種高吞吐鏈或是 Arbitrum 這類二層網絡，Gas 費低到只需幾美分，因此在這些平台上的 DEX 交易非常便宜。不過，關鍵點在於，在 CEX 上的交易是鏈下進行的，對於小到中等規模的交易，費用通常會便宜許多——比如 1,000 美元的交易可能只需幾美分到幾美元的手續費（甚至某些幣對還有零手續費優惠）。但在以太坊上的 DEX，1,000 美元的交易光是 Gas 費再加協議費就可能超過 10 美元，成本明顯較高。因此，對於日常小額交易，CEX 較具成本效益；不過若涉及大額交易，CEX 手續費可能攤高，若獲得更好價格且用低手續費區塊鏈，DEX 也有競爭力。這要視具體情況而定，有經驗的用戶有時會用聚合器比價，找到手續費後淨價更佳的平台。
There’s also the question of slippage: on a big CEX like Binance, a market order for even $100k of Bitcoin will likely execute near the quoted price due to deep order books. On a DEX, that same trade might move the price noticeably if the liquidity pool isn’t huge.
還有滑點的問題：像 Binance 這樣大型中心化交易所擁有深度的訂單簿，即使是 10 萬美元的比特幣市價單，成交價格也會維持在報價附近。而在 DEX 上，如果流動池規模不夠大，做同樣規模的交易可能會明顯拉動價格。
Everyday users doing small trades (<$1,000) usually won’t notice slippage on either, but a more substantial trade in a less liquid DEX pool could get a worse rate. In practice, many casual users don’t crunch these details – they often just stick with whatever platform they’re comfortable with. But cost-sensitive users will choose the platform that gives them the best deal for their trade size and frequency; it might be a CEX for one scenario or a DEX for another.
普通用戶進行小額交易（1,000 美元以下），在兩種平台一般都感受不到滑點，但如果在流動性較低的 DEX 流動池做較大額交易，成交價格就會變差。實際上，多數輕度用戶並不會細算這些細節，他們通常只用自己習慣的平台；但對於在意成本的用戶，則會根據交易金額和頻率挑選最省的方案，有時選 CEX，有時則是 DEX。
Support and Recovery
Finally, from a user’s standpoint, there’s a comfort in knowing someone has your back if something goes wrong. Centralized exchanges often have customer support teams and sometimes even insurance policies.
最後，對用戶而言，遇到問題時知道有人支援會更安心。中心化交易所通常設有客服團隊，有時甚至有保險機制。
If you send your crypto to the wrong address via a CEX’s withdrawal, you might be out of luck, but if the mistake was due to an exchange error or a hack on their side, leading platforms have been known to compensate users (for instance, Bitfinex spread losses among users after a hack, and some exchanges have insurance funds for extreme events).
如果你通過 CEX 轉帳時將加密貨幣發錯地址，可能就很難追回，但如果是交易所自身的操作失誤或被駭客入侵時，知名平台有時會賠償用戶損失（例如 Bitfinex 遭駭後將損失分攤給所有用戶，部分交易所也有極端事件保險基金）。
Moreover, if you suspect fraudulent access to your CEX account, you can contact support to freeze it – an everyday user might take solace in that. By contrast, on a DEX, you are truly on your own. The concept of “fund recovery” doesn’t exist in DeFi if you lose funds due to user error or certain exploits.
此外，如果懷疑你的 CEX 帳號被盜用，可以聯繫客服凍結帳號——這對一般用戶來說相對有保障。相較之下，在 DEX 上則是「自食其力」，如果因為用戶自身操作錯誤或被攻擊而損失資金，在 DeFi 世界裡也沒有所謂的「資金找回」這個概念。
There is no centralized authority to undo a transaction; the immutability of blockchain is both a blessing and a curse. For many average users, this lack of recourse is daunting. It’s akin to carrying cash: if you drop a $100 bill on the street, it’s gone; if you lose crypto in a self-custodial scenario, there’s usually no getting it back. This is why many everyday users continue to prefer CEXs for day-to-day trading – it feels safer to have a managed environment with safeguards, even if it means giving up some control. As the saying goes, with great power (self-sovereignty) comes great responsibility, and not everyone wants that responsibility for routine transactions.
沒有任何中心化機構可以幫你回溯或撤銷交易——區塊鏈的不可變更性既是祝福也是詛咒。對普通用戶而言，這種無法挽回的風險令人卻步，就像現金掉在路上一樣找不回來；如果是在自我保管錢包失竊，大多也無法追回。這就是為什麼許多一般用戶在日常交易時依然偏好 CEX，因為有管控、有保障的環境讓人感覺更安全，即便這意味著要放棄部分資產主控權。如俗語所說，有了大權力（自主權）也就有大責任，並不是所有人都願意為日常交易承擔這份責任。
In summary, for the typical amateur crypto trader or investor, centralized exchanges offer convenience, familiarity, and hand-holding, making them the on-ramp of choice.
總結來說，對於普通的加密貨幣交易者或投資者來說，中心化交易所提供了便利、熟悉感與全程輔助，是他們首選的入門管道。
Decentralized exchanges offer freedom, control, and censorship-resistance, appealing to those who want to embrace crypto’s core principles or access the bleeding edge of tokens. Many users actually leverage both: for example, one might use Coinbase to cash in and out to their bank and a DEX like Uniswap to trade some DeFi tokens. As user education improves and DEX interfaces simplify (perhaps even integrating fiat gateways someday), the gap in user-friendliness is narrowing.
去中心化交易所則主打自由、主控權和抗審查，吸引想要完全實踐加密貨幣精神或參與最前沿代幣的族群。許多用戶會雙管齊下：例如，用 Coinbase 進出法幣，再用 Uniswap 這類 DEX 交易 DeFi 代幣。隨著用戶教育普及和 DEX 介面愈發簡化（甚至未來有機會整合法幣出入口），易用性的鴻溝正在縮小。
But the divide remains: CEXs cater to users who prioritize ease and trust, whereas DEXs cater to those who prioritize autonomy and permissionless access.
但這兩者的分野依然存在：CEX 迎合重視方便與信任的用戶，而 DEX 則滿足在乎自主權與無需許可自由存取的族群。
Key Differences for Professional Traders and Institutions
When it comes to professional traders – whether we mean individuals trading at scale, crypto-focused funds, or even traditional institutions dipping into crypto – the calculus between using CEXs vs DEXs involves another set of considerations.
談到專業交易者——無論是做大額交易的個人、加密貨幣基金，還是試水加密市場的傳統機構——在選用 CEX 還是 DEX 時，衡量的重點又有所不同。
These users demand high performance, advanced features, and are keenly aware of regulatory and execution risks. Here are the crucial differences from a pro’s perspective:
這類用戶要求高效能、進階功能，並且非常在意法規與執行層面的風險。以下是專業人士視角下的重大差異：
Liquidity and Market Depth
Professional traders typically move larger sums than retail players and often trade frequently. For them, liquidity is king – they need to be able to enter and exit positions without significantly moving the market. In this aspect, centralized exchanges still hold a big edge.
專業交易者的交易金額通常遠超散戶，且交易頻率高。對他們而言，流動性至關重要——要能順利進出、不會大幅影響市場價格。在這一點上，中心化交易所依然佔有明顯優勢。
The top CEXs aggregate enormous liquidity in their order books. A single venue like Binance or Coinbase can handle multi-million dollar orders in Bitcoin, Ether, or other top assets with negligible slippage. Even for altcoins, CEXs often have liquidity provided by market-making firms ensuring tight spreads.
頂級 CEX 的訂單簿匯聚了龐大流動性。一個像 Binance 或 Coinbase 這樣的平台，可以毫不費力地處理數百萬美元的比特幣、以太幣或其他主流資產訂單，幾乎沒有滑點。就算是山寨幣，CEX 也往往有做市商提供流動性，維持極小的買賣價差。
By contrast, while DEX liquidity has grown, it is fragmented across many pools and chains. Large trades on DEXs can incur slippage or require splitting across multiple protocols. For example, if a fund wants to sell $5 million worth of a mid-cap token, doing so on a DEX may either move the price significantly or not be feasible in one go, whereas a major CEX might have sufficient buy orders stacked in the order book to absorb it more gracefully (or the fund can negotiate an OTC block trade with a CEX’s desk). There are decentralized liquidity aggregators that help, but the reality is, as of 2025, deep liquidity tends to be “concentrated in the top five [centralized] venues,” according to crypto market data firm Kaiko. High-volume traders gravitate to where the liquidity is – and that’s still primarily the centralized exchanges.
相對來說，雖然 DEX 流動性有所提升，但分散在眾多流動池和不同鏈路。大額交易在 DEX 容易產生滑點，甚至必須拆分到多個協議執行。例如，某基金若想賣出 500 萬美元的中型市值代幣，在 DEX 上可能要麼價格大跳水，要麼根本不可能一次成交；而大型 CEX 則往往可以靠厚實的訂單簿吸收這筆訂單（或者基金可直接和 CEX 桌面談場外大額交易）。雖然有去中心化流動性聚合器，但根據加密數據公司 Kaiko，截止 2025 年，深度流動性事實上仍「主要集中於前五大中心化平台」。大量級的交易者都會追隨流動性——目前首選仍是中心化交易所。
This is especially true for derivatives: A pro trader wanting to trade Bitcoin futures with $100 million notional needs the likes of CME, Binance Futures, or OKX – no DEX can handle that size without enormous slippage. (Though interestingly, decentralized perpetuals like dYdX and GMX have started to see institutional interest for smaller allocations.)
這在衍生品領域尤其明顯：如果專業交易者想進行一億美元名義金額的比特幣期貨，只能依賴 CME、Binance Futures、OKX 這類平台——沒有哪個 DEX 能夠承載這個規模的訂單而不產生天價滑點。（有趣的是，dYdX、GMX 這些去中心化永續合約平台開始獲得機構小規模試水，但規模仍屬有限。）
Speed and Execution
In high-frequency trading or just active intraday trading, speed of execution and reliability are paramount. Centralized exchanges operate on high-speed matching engines capable of handling tens of thousands of transactions per second. Latency is often measured in microseconds on the matching engine – comparable to traditional financial exchanges.
對於高頻交易或積極日內交易者，執行速度和穩定性至關重要。中心化交易所有著高效的撮合引擎，每秒可處理數萬筆交易，延遲甚至能達到微秒級，媲美傳統金融市場。
Traders can colocate servers or use WebSocket APIs for real-time feeds. In contrast, DEX trades are bound by blockchain speeds – if it’s on Ethereum L1, you’re waiting ~12 seconds for a block confirmation (assuming you paid a high enough gas fee), which is an eternity for an HFT trader. Even on faster chains like Solana (where block times are ~0.5s) or layer-2 networks, a DEX transaction still has more latency and uncertainty (blockchain re-orgs, mempool delays) than an internal CEX match.
專業交易者甚至可以伺服器共置或用 WebSocket API 實時獲取市場數據。反觀 DEX 交易則受區塊鏈速度限制——如果在以太坊 L1，上鏈需等約 12 秒確認（還得假設你付了高額 Gas），對高頻交易者來說簡直是天文數字。就算搬到更快的 Solana（0.5 秒出塊）或 Layer 2，DEX 交易也還是比 CEX 撮合來得慢且更有不確定性（例如區塊重組或記憶池塞車）。
Furthermore, DEX transactions can fail (e.g., if price moves and your slippage setting is exceeded, your transaction might revert after waiting). Professional traders abhor failed trades because timing is often critical.
而且，DEX 交易還有失敗風險（例如價格變動超出預設滑點，等了老半天結果交易被退回）。專業交易者非常忌諱失敗交易，因為時機往往至關重要。
On a CEX, if your order doesn’t fill, you know immediately and can adjust; on a DEX, you might waste time and fees on a failed attempt. There’s also the concern of MEV (Miner/Maximal Extractable Value) on DEXs – savvy blockchain bots might detect a large order from a whale and insert their own transactions to profit, effectively front-running the trade. This can worsen execution price for a big trader on a DEX, a phenomenon that doesn’t exist on CEXs (where the exchange’s internal rules prevent such behavior, aside from unfair cases of exchange insiders, which are illegal).
在 CEX 若訂單沒吃到，立刻就能調整策略；但在 DEX 上可能白白耗時又損失手續費。還有 MEV（最大可提取價值）問題——區塊鏈上的機器人可能偵測到鯨魚大單，預先插隊套利，本質上就是「搶跑」，使大戶在 DEX 上成交價更糟。這類現象 CEX 基本不會有，因為交易所內規會防止這種行為（排除個別嚴重違法的內部人交易）。
Professional traders, especially quant and high-frequency firms, thus lean heavily toward CEXs where they can execute strategies with predictable timing. “Performance” is often cited: a CEX provides near-instant trade confirmations and high throughput, whereas most DEXs can’t meet the latency requirements of algorithmic trading.
因此，專業交易者，尤其是量化、超高頻公司，大都偏好 CEX，因為能確保策略具有可預測時效。大家常說的「性能」——CEX 幾乎能即時確認交易與承載高頻流量，而絕大多數 DEX 根本達不到演算法交易對延遲的要求。
That said, there are interesting developments like off-chain matching with on-chain settlement (hybrid DEX models) that aim to narrow this gap, but those often start to reintroduce some trust or centralization (e.g., dYdX’s current model uses an off-chain order book).
當然，領域內也有一些如鏈下撮合、鏈上結算（混合型 DEX）的創新進展，想要縮小這個落差，但這類方案常常又要重新引入信任或部分中心化因素（如 dYdX 目前採用鏈下訂單簿）。
Advanced Trading Features and Instruments
Professional market participants often require more than just spot trading. They use derivatives (futures, options, swaps), margin trading with leverage, short selling, stop-loss orders, and other sophisticated order types. Centralized exchanges have developed a rich suite of these offerings.
專業市場參與者所需功能遠不只現貨買賣。他們會用到衍生品（期貨、期權、掉期）、槓桿融資、做空、停損訂單、複雜類型的委託單等。中心化交易所這方面發展得相當完整與多元。
For example, Binance and Bybit offer perpetual futures on
例如，Binance 和 Bybit 提供永續期貨產品，...（以下內容請補上）。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.
數十種加密資產，槓桿高達100倍；Coinbase與Kraken為機構提供受監管的期貨產品；Deribit則專精於為專業人士提供加密選擇權。許多中心化交易所（CEX）還提供保證金借貸/融資功能，讓交易者能放大部位或做空資產。
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.
相比之下，去中心化領域還在追趕：已經有去中心化衍生品（如GMX、dYdX，以及較新的Perp專案Hyperliquid，或針對選擇權的Opyn、Lyra等），但這些平台的交易對選擇和流動性，與大型CEX相比仍屬有限。
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.
舉例來說，若專業交易者想在以太坊上操作特定執行價與到期日的選擇權價差策略，幾乎一定得用中心化平台（如CME或Deribit），因為DEX上的選擇權市場仍處於萌芽階段。此外，複雜的下單類型（如限價單、停損單、冰山單）在CEX很常見，但在大多數基於AMM的DEX上往往無法支援，除非靠第三方專用工具。有些進階DEX平台與聚合器開始加入限價單功能，但尚未普及。
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.
缺乏這些工具，對依賴它們來控管風險的專業人士而言，經常是致命缺點。機構級交易者還很重視報表與分析功能——CEX通常能提供帳戶報表、下載交易紀錄，甚至有時可提供機構所需的合規報告。
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.
在DEX上，交易者往往需自行手動匯總鏈上交易和部位市值，這又多了一層作業麻煩（雖然區塊鏈分析工具多少能協助）。總體來說，CEX當前提供的交易工具遠比DEX來得完整豐富——兩者差別就像彭博終端機和簡易兌換介面。
Counterparty Risk vs. Regulatory Risk
Interestingly, institutions and pros weigh risks differently.
有趣的是，機構與專業人士對各種風險的衡量標準並不一樣。
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（例如交易所違約或挪用資金）一直是顧慮點；我們已見識到連避險基金都被FTX暴雷措手不及、資產瞬間凍結。許多專業機構因此加強盡職調查，只會將有限資產留在單一交易所內。
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.
一些大型交易商現在即使在交易所交易，也會額外使用第三方託管，只有在操作前才將資金轉入交易所帳戶，以降低曝險。從純粹的交易對手風險來看，DEX在這方面頗具吸引力，因為不用再託付資產給中介方。基金可直接掌控資產、用智能合約交易，從而避開交易所違約的夢魘。正如一則市場總結在FTX事件後所言：「監管與信任問題…讓許多人探索去中心化備案。」但反過來，監管與合規的需求又帶來其他考量。
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.
專業基金通常有規定，只能在合規或至少落在某些法律範圍內的平台上交易。許多機構對直接使用DEX還感到不安（或投資授權根本不允許），一旦出事即有反洗錢或受託義務等疑慮。例如，若日後有監管單位認為你的DEX交易涉及未註冊業務，或與被制裁地址互動，機構會擔心怎麼辦？因此，截至目前，絕大多數機構明顯傾向選擇受監管的CEX。有份報告指出「機構偏好受規管交易所作為託管與風控」，他們看重Coinbase、Gemini等美國合規交易所的審計財報與可追溯性。
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.
還有很現實的一點：多數機構最終需要「出金」，把加密收益換回美元入帳——這目前只有CEX或數位貨幣券商能辦到。至於DEX，雖然監管關注度在提升（比如討論DeFi的KYC規定），但還多屬灰色地帶。
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.
因此，專業人士會認為用DEX有監管不確定性，而用有名的合規CEX，雖然仍有交易對手風險，但至少能達到合規要件。這是權衡取捨：有些加密避險基金會混合使用——例如部分策略（特別是挖礦或賺取DeFi收益）交給DEX執行，主體交易與資金管理則用CEX。越大、越傳統的機構，目前越偏好純用CEX。
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.
專業交易員常設置機器人、算法，或串接交易軟體與交易所，因此API支援非常關鍵。CEX一般提供完整的API（REST、WebSocket）可供市場數據與交易下單，交易公司可同時串接多個CEX API，實現套利、造市、量化等複雜策略。
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.
有些機構級交易所有FIX協議閘道，並保證部分成交時有回滾等功能。相較之下，要對接DEX，多半需直接對區塊鏈發送交易——可能得自己寫腳本（script），或使用能觸發鏈上交易的服務。
This is getting easier with SDKs and libraries, but it’s still a different paradigm.
雖然SDK與函式庫漸多，上手容易了些，但操作模式仍大不同。
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.
更不用說延遲問題：用DEX交易，往往還得自己運行區塊鏈節點或倚賴第三方RPC服務、處理鏈上故障，以及保管交易簽章密鑰的安全（沒人希望機器人私鑰被駭全數資產蒸發）。這些營運複雜度，令多數專業單位除非專精此道，否則難以全面轉向DEX。此外，CEX的風險管理工具更成熟——比如有子帳號區分資金，便於策略隔離。
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.
部分交易所還有內建槓桿或投資組合保證金，可高效運用資本。DEX正努力開發類似功能（如低擔保交易協議、去中心化Prime Brokerage），但還在初期階段。眼下專業交易員在大型CEX，可以獲得更即插即用、機構級的操作體驗。
Opportunity and Alpha
On the flip side, savvy professional crypto traders recognize that DEXs present unique opportunities that CEXs might not.
另一方面，精明的專業加密交易員也意識到DEX常有CEX所沒有的獨特機會。
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中的資金效率或市場縫隙能成為套利標的。例如DEX與CEX的報價落差就可操作（不少做市商正是靠跨所套利來對齊價格）。DEX常提供流動性挖礦獎勵，可有效補貼手續費，甚至因供給流動性而穫利——這在CEX只有公司自己賺手續費，並不存在。
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交易員可能同時布局數十個資金池，讓閒置資產賺息，還能維持交易曝險。
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.
這些策略，很多傳統自營商也陸續開始嘗試。同時，有些早期代幣或DeFi專案，若能在DEX平台趁主流前介入，獲利常有超額——這正是前瞻加密基金追求的Alpha。從投資的角度，全然無視DEX，可能就錯失產業創新和超額報酬的最前線。
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.).
這也解釋為何部分機構已開始嘗試DeFi：根據2023年調查，有相當比例的避險基金透過DeFi尋求收益或進行情緒交易。然而，這些嘗試通常規模有限、嚴格管控，正是因為上面提到的流動性、合規等顧慮。
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.
隨著DEX技術進步、交易執行與專業功能越來越完整（也許監管更明朗後），未來會有更多高交易量玩家加入這一領域。
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.
其實現在已可說兩派逐漸融合：CEX開始學習DEX元素（如自主託管、鏈上資產），而DEX則優化以吸引更多原本屬於CEX的交易量。
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.
未來若CEX推出免託管交易模式，或DEX針對大戶導入KYC，界線將進一步模糊。市場上已見不少混合型交易所（部分中心化、部分去中心化），希望兼得兩者優點。總之，專業交易圈持續觀察CEX與DEX的較量，哪邊有利就往哪走——但截至目前，大型加密交易仍以中心化交易所為主戰場。
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.
加密貨幣的起源源於一個理想主義願景：建立一個真正點對點、不依賴可信中介的電子現金體系。
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.
比特幣創辦人[Satoshi Nakamoto]在著名的2008白皮書中描繪了這一點，徹底提出應以密碼學與共識機制主導金融體系，而非銀行和經紀商。
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，去中心化與自主掌控的精神至關重要。諷刺的是，隨著加密貨幣普及，越來越多人湧向中心化交易所（如Mt. Gox，後來的Coinbase、Binance等），又把中間人帶回流程中。有些圈內老手認為這是必須的「必要之惡」——為促進生態成長，但對另一些人而言則像是背離了原則。在此脈絡下，去中心化交易所就代表了對加密貨幣本質的回歸。
They embody the notion that you can trade and transact directly on the blockchain, in a trustless manner, without permission from any authority.
DEX象徵著人人能直接透過區塊鏈交易與資產轉移，在無需信任也無需任何權威許可的條件下實現真正的去中心化交易。
“Somecrypto 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.
加密貨幣玩家正透過去除金融中介，轉向去中心化交易所，重現中本聰最初的願景。」路透社在 FTX 崩潰事件後如是寫道。
Indeed, the FTX debacle in late 2022 became a rallying point for the true believers of decentralization.
事實上，2022 年底的 FTX 爆雷，成為去中心化信仰者的凝聚焦點。
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.
一家集中化巨頭，因涉嫌挪用用戶資金和缺乏監管而瓦解，對他們來說證明了只有「無需信任」（trustless）的系統才能被信任。
Influential voices in the community began urging people to “double down on DEX” and self-custody.
社群內有影響力的人士開始呼籲大家「加倍投入去中心化交易所（DEX）」並自行保管加密資產。
A common refrain on crypto forums and Twitter at the time was exactly that old slogan: “Not your keys, not your coins.”
當時加密論壇和推特上最常見的口號正是那句老話：「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.
換句話說，如果你沒有持有私鑰，你就不是真正掌控自己的資產——而比特幣當初的宗旨，就是要讓個人能完全掌控自己的財富，與此背道而馳。
The ethos of DEXs aligns closely with the “Cypherpunk” and libertarian spirit that animated early crypto adopters.
去中心化交易所（DEX）的精神，與激勵早期加密圈人士的「賽博朋克」與自由意志主義理念密不可分。
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).
這種精神強調金融去中介化，讓世界上任何人都能自由交易，並抵抗來自中心化實體（無論是政府還是企業）的審查或控制。
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.
去中心化交易所允許點對點交易，因為智慧合約部署在公有區塊鏈上，且用戶可從世界各地連接，這類交易不易被關閉。
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.
從金融主權——每個人成為自己的銀行——到用戶以自己錢包進行交易的 DEX 設計，之間的理念是一脈相承的。
“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.
CoinDesk 的 Tracy Wang 形容 FTX 事件後的去中心化浪潮：「這就像把權力奪回自己手裡，掌控自己的資產。」
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.
在 DEX 上，不需再信任任何 CEO 或金融機構的承諾——一切交易由程式碼自動執行，就是如此簡單。
This self-sovereign approach is arguably closer to what early Bitcoin users imagined when they talked about a parallel financial system.
這種自我主權的方式，可以說比起 CEX，更貼近早期比特幣用戶所想像的「平行金融體系」。
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.
它也體現了無需許可（permissionless）的創新——任何人都能上架代幣、提供流動性或使用平台，毋須申請或事先批准。
In the same way that Bitcoin made sending value as permissionless as sending an email, DEXs aim to make exchanging assets just as open.
正如比特幣讓轉移價值如同發送電子郵件般無需許可，DEX 目標是讓資產交換同樣自由開放。
Prominent figures in the crypto space have often highlighted this philosophical divide.
加密貨幣界許多知名人士經常強調這種哲學層面的分歧。
Ethereum’s co-founder Vitalik Buterin, for instance, has been a vocal advocate for decentralization at all levels of the stack.
以太坊共同創辦人 Vitalik Buterin 就一向大力主張技術堆疊各層的去中心化。
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.
他多年前著名地說過，希望中心化交易所「下地獄」，因為它們扮演守門人、向項目收取巨額上架費。
Though hyperbolic, the sentiment underscores a resentment that many early crypto thinkers have towards centralized choke points.
雖然言辭誇張，但這反映出許多早期加密思想家對中心化瓶頸深惡痛絕。
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?
他們認為：如果加密貨幣最終只是在數位化上重現傳統（如大型銀行或證交所）中心化模式，那這一切創新的意義何在？
The real promise of blockchain is to empower individuals and communities directly, not to enrich a few new middlemen.
區塊鏈的真正價值，是直接賦能給個人與社群，而不是養肥一批新的中間人。
Decentralized exchanges, along with other DeFi protocols, represent that promise in action – finance without central authorities.
去中心化交易所和其他 DeFi 協議，正是這種承諾的具體實踐——無需中央主管機構的金融體系。
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.
同時，這也落實了加密資產難以審查的特性。例如，若政府或企業不喜歡某個代幣或用戶，在 DEX 幾乎無法干預；但中心化交易所卻可能被迫下架或凍結帳戶。
This freedom is very much in line with the “Satoshi-style” vision of an uncensorable financial system accessible to anyone with an internet connection.
這種自由正呼應了「中本聰風格」願景——讓任何有網路的人都能參與不可審查的金融體系。
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.
還有一點常被提出：許多 DEX 具備社群治理特性，如 Uniswap、Curve 等平台（至少在理論上）由持有其代幣的去中心化自治組織（DAO）治理。
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).
這代表用戶能參與平台未來方向——例如對手續費參數或新功能進行投票——體現比特幣早期支持者所推崇的去中心化治理理念。（比特幣本身沒有正式治理機制，僅以模糊共識運作，但「無中央決策」的原則是一致的。）
In contrast, a centralized exchange is run by a CEO and a corporate board, making decisions in a top-down way.
相對之下，中心化交易所由 CEO 及公司董事會運作，一切決策由上而下。
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.
雙方理念分野明顯：一方是「公司」，另一方是「協議」。許多人認為協議型才是加密真正的創新——透過程式碼運作、用戶共同治理，創造無法關閉的金融基礎建設。
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，也必須承認，並非所有加密圈人士都將理念放首位。DEX 使用量激增時，往往與現實動機有關（如追逐 DeFi 收益、或是受 CEX 事故驚嚇後出逃），未必全是因理念驅動。
Yet, the option of DEXs existing allows the ideologically driven users to live by their principles.
然而，只要有 DEX 存在，堅守信念的用戶就有機會實踐自己的理想。
Hardcore decentralists can point to DEXs and say: “See, we can have a thriving market without any centralized gatekeepers.”
鐵桿去中心化支持者可以指著 DEX 說：「看吧，我們不用中心化守門人也能有繁榮市場。」
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.
事實上，到 2025 年初，DEX 在全部加密交易量中的占比約為 15-20%——雖然仍不占多數，但這個數字遠高於幾年前的接近零，證明了去中心化信仰者的路徑是可行的替代方案。
In the broader cultural sense, DEXs help keep the “old-school blockchain spirit” alive in an industry that’s rapidly commercializing.
從更大文化層面看，DEX 保留了「區塊鏈舊時代精神」，讓這個正快速商業化的產業中仍有一席獨立之地。
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.
DEX 平衡了加密產業的企業化。當大型交易所把名字掛在體育場、砸大錢打超級盃廣告時，一些早期使用者內心刺痛，認為加密產業已失去叛逆精神。但在 Uniswap 流動池、SushiSwap 挖礦等基層區塊，草根實驗的氛圍依舊存在。
Anonymous developers can launch new financial primitives on DEXs without needing a business development deal with Coinbase or Binance.
匿名開發者可直接在 DEX 上推出新型態金融工具，無須與 Coinbase 或幣安商談商業合作。
This permissionless innovation is very much in the hacker spirit that Satoshi and the cypherpunks encouraged – releasing open-source code that anyone can use.
這種無需許可的創新，正是中本聰及賽博朋克所推崇的黑客精神——釋出開源程式碼，任何人均可自由利用。
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.
另一方面，即使去中心化的推崇者也承認，純 DeFi 不是萬靈丹。例如，FTX 倒閉後，比特幣長年倡議者 Caitlin Long 表示她一直警告大家「把幣提離交易所」，並看到大量資產流向個人錢包。
However, she and others also acknowledge that not everyone will do that, and some blend of solutions or regulated improvements might be needed.
但她和其他人也意識到，並非人人都會採取這樣的行為，也許需要多元解方或監管改革。
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.
然而從理念上看，DEX 比 CEX 更接近加密產業的初心。它們展現了「無需信任」的金融實踐——這正是比特幣回應 2008 年金融危機和紓困而誕生的核心精神。
Could CEXs Undermine Decentralization? The Centralization Concerns
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?
雖然中心化交易所在建立加密生態系時扮演關鍵角色，許多支持者和專家卻始終擔憂：CEX 是否會讓本該去中心化的產業，反遭過度集中威脅？
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?
換言之，如果加密經濟過度依賴少數大型交易所，難道不是重蹈比特幣本欲拋棄的傳統金融弱點與權力結構嗎？
These concerns are multi-faceted, touching on market concentration, systemic risk, censorship, and even the influence on protocol development.
這些疑慮涵蓋多方面，包括市場集中度、系統性風險、審查、甚至對協議發展的影響等。
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.
其中一大問題在於市場集中及單點失效。大型中心化交易所天生擁有巨大資產和權力。例如，幣安有時承接了全球三分之一以上的加密交易量。
Such dominance means the exchange’s policies, outages, or failure can have outsized effects on the entire market.
如此主導力意味著，該平台的政策、故障或倒閉，將對整個市場產生極大影響。
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.
我們見過這種情況：當幣安或 Coinbase 在市場劇烈震盪時宕機，往往引發恐慌，讓無法操作的交易者被困，影響甚至擴展到本平台以外的價格波動。
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.
極端案例就是 FTX——其倒閉蒸發了數十億美元用戶資產，並引發一連串牽連多家加密公司的災難。
FTX’s failure was a bit like a “Lehman Brothers moment” for crypto, reminding everyone that centralized entities can introduce systemic risks.
FTX 的失敗如同加密圈的「雷曼時刻」，提醒所有人中心化機構會帶來系統性風險。
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.
比特幣及以太坊這類區塊鏈因去中心化而沒有單一關閉開關，然而若大部分資金都停留在少數託管平台上，這些平台就成為關鍵瓶頸。
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.
若某個平台出問題或貪腐，整個社群都可能遭殃。批評者認為，此與加密消滅「單點失效」承諾背道而馳。
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 .
正如某位 DeFi 支持者所言，社群必須避免「大部分加密貨幣交易都發生在中心化交易所，資金的托管反而傷害了去中心化」，將原本希望解決的對手風險重新帶回。
Another aspect is censorship and surveillance.
另一個面向是審查和監控。
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（尤其是受監管的）可能被迫執行政府命令，如凍結資產、封鎖特定用戶、或下架當局不認可的幣種。
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.
這些情形已屢見不鮮：交易所常因國際制裁而禁用某些國家用戶，或執行嚴格實名制，也偶爾配合執法機關凍結或配合交出資金。
In a decentralized ideal, “code is law” and transactions are uncensorable.
在去中心化理想中，「程式即法律」，交易無法被審查。
But if most people keep their crypto on big exchanges, then effectively those exchanges become de facto gatekeepers.
但若大多數人將資產存放於大型交易所，這些平台實際就成了守門人。
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.
例如，若哪個政府決定禁止某個加密幣（假設監管機關認定門羅這類隱私幣為非法），他們就能施壓中心化交易所下架此幣，讓其流動性與用途大受限制。
We’ve seen hints of this: some exchangeshave delisted privacy coins in jurisdictions with strict regulations. Similarly, during political unrest or capital control situations, exchanges could be ordered to freeze withdrawals, which goes against the grain of crypto’s borderless nature.
在有嚴格監管的司法管轄區，已經有交易所下架了隱私幣。類似地，在政治動盪或資本管制的情況下，交易所也可能被命令凍結提領，這與加密貨幣強調無國界的本質背道而馳。
Those concerned about this scenario often point out that if the future of crypto is just a few mega-corporations controlling on/off ramps and holding everyone’s coins, then it starts to resemble the traditional banking system—only with crypto on the balance sheet.
對此情景感到擔憂的人常常指出，如果加密貨幣的未來只是由幾家大型企業壟斷出入金渠道並掌控大家的資產，那它就會開始變得和傳統銀行體系沒兩樣——只不過資產負債表上的資產變成了加密貨幣。
The excessive centralization could undermine the permissionless, open-access principle of cryptocurrencies. This is why decentralization advocates champion DEXs and decentralized custody: to ensure the system can’t be easily co-opted or controlled from the top.
過度集中化可能會破壞加密貨幣本來「無需許可」「開放存取」的原則。這也是去中心化支持者推崇去中心化交易所（DEX）和去中心化託管的原因：確保這個網路系統不會輕易被上層掌控或挾持。
Excessive power accumulation by exchanges is another worry.
交易所權力過度集中是另一個令人擔憂的問題。
Large CEXs can throw their weight around in various ways that might hurt the ecosystem’s decentralization. For instance, an exchange that lists a new coin tends to cause a price surge (the so-called “Coinbase effect” or earlier “Binance pump”), which means these companies act as gatekeepers for project exposure and success.
大型中心化交易所（CEX）擁有許多拉抬影響力的方式，並可能傷害生態系統的去中心化。例如，某家交易所上架新幣常常會引發價格飆升（這就是所謂的「Coinbase效應」或早期的「幣安拉盤」），這代表這些平台公司其實掌握了項目曝光度與成功的門檻。
There’s an argument that this centralizes influence – projects might tailor their behavior to please exchanges rather than the community, just to get that critical listing.
這造成影響力更進一步集中——專案團隊或許會為了獲得上架資格而迎合交易所，而非關注社群的需求。
Moreover, exchanges can engage in conflicts of interest: some have issued their own tokens (e.g. BNB for Binance, or FTT for FTX) and then used their platforms to promote and prop up those tokens, essentially acting as central banks controlling an economy.
此外，交易所也可能面臨利益衝突：有些發行了自家代幣（例如幣安的BNB、FTX的FTT），然後利用自己平台推動、抬升這些幣價，實質上就像成為一個控制經濟的中央銀行。
When FTX collapsed, it became evident that its token FTT was deeply intertwined with its solvency – a single centralized actor created a token out of thin air, assigned it value by listing it, and even used it as collateral. That’s a far cry from decentralized ethos; it was a form of centralized money printing. If more exchanges try to create ecosystems around their own tokens and products (which many do – consider exchange-launched blockchains and stablecoins), the risk is the crypto market could become a collection of walled gardens rather than an open network. A dominant exchange could potentially even sway blockchain governance if, say, it holds a lot of tokens that vote in protocols, or if it controls staking for many users (e.g., some exchanges offer staking services, effectively pooling customer coins and acquiring big voting power in proof-of-stake networks). This raises the specter of re-centralization of blockchain networks themselves via exchanges. It’s a paradox: people might use a decentralized network (like Ethereum) but through centralized nodes (exchanges’ wallets), giving the exchange leverage over that network’s direction or censoring transactions at their node level (we saw debates about miners/exchanges censoring certain transactions due to sanctions on Tornado Cash, for instance).
當FTX倒閉時，大家發現FTT幣與流動性綁得極深——一個中心化的主體無中生有創造代幣，靠自己上架決定價值，甚至還拿來做質押品。這與去中心化的價值觀完全相反，根本是另一種形式的中心化印鈔。如果更多交易所試圖在自家代幣與產品之上打造生態圈（事實上很多都這麼做，例如推出自有區塊鏈和穩定幣），那麼加密市場就有變成各自為政的「圍牆花園」的風險，不再是開放網路。某個主導交易所甚至可能左右區塊鏈治理——例如持有大量的治理代幣參與投票，或是幫許多用戶託管質押（不少交易所現在有提供質押服務，等於把用戶代幣匯聚、在權益證明網路裡集中投票力量）。這讓「交易所重新讓區塊鏈變回中心化」的威脅不斷升高。這很弔詭——人們雖然使用去中心化網路（像以太坊），但實際上卻透過中心化節點（交易所錢包）在操作，讓交易所有機會影響網路走向，甚至可選擇在節點層級審查交易（過去對Tornado Cash制裁時，礦工/交易所就曾有是否審查交易的辯論）。
There’s also an ideological and reputational angle.
此外，這裡面也有意識形態與形象面的考量。
As crypto gets more mainstream via CEXs, some fear that the narrative and direction of innovation might shift away from decentralization.
隨著加密貨幣因CEX而更加主流，有些人擔心它的敘事與創新方向會漸漸背離去中心化。
If newcomers’ primary experience of crypto is signing up on a big exchange, trading speculative altcoins, and never touching a blockchain wallet, the public may not appreciate the value of decentralization at all. The movement could morph into just a new fintech asset class, losing the transformative potential of decentralized technology. Thought leaders in the space have warned of this “re-centralization trap,” where the convenience of centralized services gradually erodes the decentralized architecture (a Forbes piece in 2024 talked about global regulation potentially forcing blockchain networks to “re-centralize” to comply ). The danger is a future where a handful of entities control most crypto flow, and through regulatory capture and business influence, they could make the crypto landscape look much like the current financial system (with all its same points of failure and exclusion).
如果新手接觸加密貨幣的經驗只是註冊大交易所、炒作各種山寨幣，從來沒用過區塊鏈錢包，大眾甚至可能壓根體會不到去中心化的價值。整個運動就只能淪為新型金融資產而已，去中心化技術變革社會的潛力則會消失。這也是產業領袖一直警告「再中心化陷阱」的緣故——中心化服務帶來的便利逐漸侵蝕原有的去中心化架構（如2024年《富比士》一篇就談到全球監管可能迫使區塊鏈網路為符合法規而「再次中心化」）。最大的危機，是未來只剩少數主體掌握絕大部分加密貨幣金流，再加上法規挾持與商業影響力，最終令加密貨幣生態變得和現有金融系統無異（同樣的失靈、排擠問題仍然存在）。
On a practical level, security and custodial risk with centralization remain a constant concern. Even as exchanges get bigger and (arguably) more professional, they are juicy targets for hackers. A single successful hack can loot billions (Mt. Gox and Coincheck hacks both had nine-figure losses).
在實務層面，中心化帶來的安全性及託管風險也始終存在。就算交易所做得再大、再專業，仍舊是駭客最愛的目標。有一次駭客得逞，就能一口氣洗走數十、數百億台幣（Mt. Gox及Coincheck兩次駭案都損失了超過十億美元）。
The more centralized things are, the more catastrophic a failure can be. If, say, one day a top exchange holding 10% of all crypto were to fail, it would make the FTX incident look small.
越集中，失敗時就越災難。例如有天某家交易所手握整體加密資產的10%，一旦倒閉，對市場的衝擊將比FTX事件還要大上數倍。
Decentralization proponents would argue that spreading assets across many self-custodied wallets and DEXs means no single failure can be that devastating – which is precisely why decentralization adds resilience.
推崇去中心化的人會主張，把資產分散在自管錢包與DEX等多處，任何一次單點失誤都不致於太嚴重——這也正是去中心化能帶來韌性的關鍵。
It’s important to note, though, that not everyone agrees CEXs are an existential threat. Some see them as a temporary crutch or a bridge – necessary until decentralization tech gets up to speed. The optimists might say: yes, a few exchanges are quite powerful now, but over time, market forces and technology will shift activity on-chain, much like how early internet had walled AOL-like services that eventually gave way to the open web.
不過，也不是每個人都認為CEX是生存威脅。有些人認為它們只是過渡時期的拐杖或橋梁——直到去中心化技術成熟之前的必要存在。樂觀者可能會說：是的，現在某些交易所確實極具影響力，但長遠來看，市場與技術會將資金與活動慢慢轉移到鏈上，就像早期網路曾有AOL等封閉花園，後來仍被開放網路所取代。
Already, we saw Binance’s share drop from 60% to ~35% over 2023 as competition and DEX usage increased, indicating that an overly dominant player can be reined in by the market and by users voting with their feet. Also, some exchanges themselves invest in decentralization tech (for example, Coinbase building Base and supporting decentralized apps, or Binance launching Binance Smart Chain which, while more centralized than Ethereum, still is an attempt to create decentralized infrastructure).
其實我們已經看到這趨勢：2023年幣安的市占率從60%降至約35%，一方面是因為競爭者變多，另一方面DEX的用量上升，說明市場與用戶「用腳投票」有機會制衡主導者。此外，也有些交易所本身大力參與去中心化技術——像Coinbase建立Base、支援去中心化應用，或幣安推出Binance Smart Chain（雖然比以太坊更中心化，仍屬打造去中心化基礎建設的嘗試）。
Nonetheless, the cautionary voices are loud after living through multiple exchange scandals.
不過，經歷過數次交易所醜聞的圈內人依然不斷提醒世人要時時警惕。
“Those of us grizzled veterans…get your coins off exchanges,” said Caitlin Long emphatically , encapsulating the deep distrust long-time crypto users have for centralized entities. It’s a lesson taught by pain for many – every cycle has seen at least one major exchange failure (Mt. Gox in 2014, Bitfinex hack in 2016, QuadrigaCX in 2019, FTX in 2022, etc.). Each time, it reinforces the notion that centralization is a single point of failure that can be exploited or can act maliciously.
「像我們這些老韭菜……一定要把你的幣提到自己錢包。」Caitlin Long語重心長地說，深刻道出老用戶對中心化機構的不信任——這是用慘痛代價換來的教訓。每一輪牛熊幾乎都爆過大交易所（2014年的Mt. Gox、2016年Bitfinex、2019年QuadrigaCX、2022年FTX等），每一次事件都再次印證了「中心化 = 單點失敗」這個恐怖現實，不論風險是外部駭侵還是內部黑手。
The DeFi purists argue that as long as people have the choice to exit the centralized system (e.g., withdraw to a wallet and trade on a DEX), the decentralization vision isn’t dead.
DeFi純粹派則強調，只要大家仍有選擇權隨時脫離中心化（例如直接提領到自家錢包，或去DEX交易），「去中心化」的願景就還活著。
The worry is if regulations or monopolistic practices ever remove that choice – for instance, if in a hypothetical future, governments ban DEXs and only allow regulated CEXs, or if a tech giant manages to lock users into a closed crypto ecosystem. That scenario would indeed be crypto in name but not in spirit. It’s why many in the community champion keeping DEXs and independent wallets thriving, to maintain an alternative. In a sense, CEXs and DEXs are in a balance; too much tilt towards CEX dominance, and crypto risks becoming just a new flavor of centralized finance (sometimes derisively called “CeFi”).
真正的憂慮在於，如果有朝一日法規或巨頭的壟斷手段剝奪了這種選擇權——比如政府禁止DEX，只允許受監管的CEX，或者科技巨頭讓用戶只能用自家加密園區等。這樣的未來即便名義上是加密貨幣，但精神已死。因此，社群才會極力支持DEX與獨立錢包，維持另一種可能性。說到底，CEX與DEX一直在某種平衡：只要CEX一面倒主導，整個加密世界就會變成新款「中心化金融」（CeFi）而已。
Closing Thoughts
結語
In the end, the intense competition between CEXs and DEXs is driving progress. Users are the ultimate beneficiaries of this battle.
說到底，CEX與DEX的激烈競爭正在推動整個產業進步，而最終受益的還是用戶本身。
Centralized exchanges, pressured by the decentralized alternatives, have had to step up their game on transparency (e.g., publishing proof of reserves), lower fees, and offer more coins and services to stay relevant. Decentralized exchanges, spurred by the huge user bases of CEXs, have been rapidly improving throughput, lowering costs (through layer-2s and better protocols), and enhancing usability. The entire industry is innovating faster as a result. As Bitget’s CEO Gracy Chen aptly noted, “Exchanges can no longer be just trading venues. They must act as bridges between centralized and decentralized worlds.” This suggests a future where the distinction between CEX and DEX might not be as stark – we might see hybrid models that combine the trustlessness of DeFi with the user-centric approach of CeFi.
在去中心化選擇的壓力下，中心化交易所必須在資訊透明（如公開儲備金證明）、降低手續費、提供更多幣種與服務等方面不斷提升自己，以維持競爭力；而因CEX用戶基礎龐大，去中心化交易所也在加速提升交易吞吐量、降低成本（靠Layer 2與優化協議）、改善易用性。雙方互相驅動下，創新速度遠勝以往。正如Bitget執行長陳慧慧所說：「交易所不能再只是撮合平台，必須成為中心化與去中心化世界的橋樑。」這預示著未來CEX與DEX的區隔可能沒那麼鮮明——或許更像CeFi與DeFi各取所長的混合型態。
Yet, even as they converge, the core debate remains: Should finance be fundamentally centralized or decentralized? That philosophical tug-of-war will likely persist. Regulatory developments will also play a huge role in tilting the balance – supportive regulation could allow CEXs and DEXs to flourish side by side, whereas heavy-handed rules might favor one over the other.
但即使雙方趨於融合，最核心的辯論依然存在：金融到底該以中心化或去中心化為本？這場哲學拉鋸戰恐怕還會持續很久。法規演變也將是決定勝負的關鍵——若能制定支持雙方共存的法規，CEX和DEX將一齊發展；反之，嚴苛的法令則可能利於一方、壓制另一方。
But given the genie of decentralization is out of the bottle, it’s hard to imagine a scenario where everything recentralizes without resistance. The genie might, however, coexist with the traditional system in new and interesting ways.
然而，既然去中心化的精靈已經被釋放，很難想像一切會完全再度回到舊有的中心化秩序，而不遭遇任何抗拒。不過，這個「精靈」未來可能會與傳統體系以全新、各種有趣的方式共存。