Written by: danny

Did you really understand the market analysis report of Coinglass Q1?! Isn’t it strange that CoinGlass emphasized the scale of Open Interest (OI) and Proof of Reserves (PoR) in the report but surprisingly did not analyze the two together for each exchange? Market dynamics? Did they not think of this?!

This article attempts to articulate what CoinGlass wished to say but could not express, using the OI/PoR formula to shed light on its “unspeakable difficulties.”

Using the OI data from CoinGlass's official Q1 report, we cross-referenced the reserve proofs of the top eight centralized exchanges (CEX) and discovered a noteworthy issue driven by trading volume rankings:

Gate.io ranked third in OI, even surpassing OKX, yet its reserves are less than half of its OI. Isn't that strange?

MEXC and KuCoin have open positions that exceed their reserves by more than twice. Is that possible?

Meanwhile, Binance’s $4.6 in reserves can only support $1 in OI—how conservative is that?

More intriguingly, CoinGlass disclosed a figure: Binance’s user asset share is as high as 73.5%, double its trading volume share. Is that possible?!

Introduction

In the previous report, we revealed issues regarding market share and trading volume using the trading volume/reserve ratio. However, using trading volume to confirm the credibility of market share is always limited—market makers' wash trading, project KPIs, trading incentive activities, zero-fee volume boosting... all influence trading volume to varying degrees.

This time, we changed the dimension: Open Interest (total outstanding contracts).

OI has relatively more solid numbers than trading volume (though some exchanges may inflate OI as well). Trading volume is fleeting—it disappears after execution; OI is a stock—every open contract requires real margin locking. You can inflate volume without spending money, but you cannot create OI out of thin air—unless you actually put real money in.

This time we directly used the OI data published by CoinGlass in their official Q1 2026 market share research report (quarterly average, not a single day snapshot) and cross-referenced the official Proof of Reserves of various exchanges to recalculate the OI/PoR ratio.

The CoinGlass report itself also provides a set of independent "user asset tracking" data, which shows significant discrepancies with the official PoR—that discrepancy itself is an important finding.

1. Data Sources and Methods

Data source: CoinGlass 2026 Q1 Market Share Report (OI), official PoR of each exchange (reserves)

OI Data

Derived from CoinGlass 2026 Q1 market share research report, utilizing the average daily OI for Q1 (not a single day snapshot). The exchanges noted in CoinGlass reports have precise data, while others use real-time snapshots as approximations.

Reserve Data: Two Standards

We use two sets of reserve data for comparison: (I am also surprised why the discrepancy between the two sets of data is so significant?!)

CoinGlass tracks assets—CoinGlass's own on-chain tracking system covers the top 10 exchanges. Its advantage is a unified data source and consistent standards; the disadvantage is potential underreporting of third-party custodial assets (similar issue as DefiLlama).

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

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

Official PoR—audited data released by exchanges themselves. Its advantage is comprehensive coverage (including third-party custodians); its disadvantage is self-disclosure, which requires trusting the auditor.

The discrepancies between the two data sets reveal issues of industry transparency (to be discussed later)

2. CoinGlass Q1 Report: Binance Dominance

Derivatives Market Landscape (Contracts Rule)

The average daily trading volume of the entire derivatives market in Q1 2026 was approximately $209.3 billion, with a ratio of derivatives to spot trading at 9.6 times—indicating that traders prefer to use derivatives for hedging and short-term trading (i.e., today’s market is full of gamblers).

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

Binance Leads Across Four Dimensions

The CoinGlass report highlights Binance's absolute dominance:

The most noteworthy point is the last line: Binance's user asset share (73.5%) far exceeds its trading volume share (34.9%) and OI share (29.9%). CoinGlass's own words are: "The degree of Binance's lead in liquidity depth and asset custody far surpasses its trading volume, meaning that its role as a core infrastructure of the crypto market is much deeper than what simple trading volume rankings imply."

3. OI/Reserve Ratio: Dual Standards Comparison

The logic of this article is: in the same environment, trading similar assets, serving the same types of people, following identical trading rules, it stands to reason that the capital efficiency should also be similar. Thus, we used data metrics specifically designed for trading from Hyperliquid as a benchmark. Let’s see which exchanges show anomalies?

To illustrate, the comparison is divided into two tables:

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

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

2. Using CoinGlass tracked assets as the denominator

3. Comparing both together:

It is important to note that the official PoR used in this article only calculated BTC/ETH/USDT/USDC—logically, the assets tracked by CoinGlass should be higher than the PoR in this article, but the result is this?!

What do the discrepancies between the two standards reveal? Or rather, what does this difference represent?

Bybit showed the most significant contradiction. CoinGlass tracked Bybit’s assets at only $5.6 billion, but the official PoR shows $13.9 billion. According to CoinGlass’s assets, Bybit’s OI/asset ratio reaches 1.96x (warning level); using the official PoR, it only shows 0.79x (healthy level). This $8.3 billion gap indicates that CoinGlass might have significantly underreported Bybit’s on-chain wallets—which may be multi-signature wallets, cold wallets, or third-party custodial assets that were not tracked. (Or they did not provide advertising fees?! Sponsorship? The two sides should communicate.)

OKX is the opposite. CoinGlass tracked $15.9 billion, while the official PoR reported $28.7 billion. Using CoinGlass assets (0.43x) is higher than the official PoR version (0.24x)—but both versions are within a safe range. This $12.8 billion gap aligns with the deviation we previously discovered from DefiLlama (+152%), reconfirming that OKX’s scale of third-party custodial assets is significant while data platforms have intentionally or unintentionally avoided it?! Why is that?

The discrepancy regarding Gate.io is the most concerning. CoinGlass tracked $6.8 billion in assets, while the official PoR only reported core assets amounting to $4.8 billion. However, CoinGlass’s $6.8 billion might include non-core assets (such as GT tokens). Regardless of which data set is used, Gate.io's OI/reserve ratio ranges from 1.59x to 2.25x—significantly higher than the benchmark.

4. Gate.io's OI Anomaly

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

To use CoinGlass's own words: This is severely mismatched with Gate.io’s asset scale. Whether using CoinGlass's tracked $6.8 billion or the official PoR’s $4.8 billion as the denominator, Gate.io's OI significantly exceeds its reserves. This could be due to the following reasons:

Aggressive contract product strategy. Gate.io has launched numerous small-cap contracts, providing traders with exposure unavailable on other platforms. The combined OI of these small contracts can be substantial, but the liquidity of individual contracts may be thin.

High leverage attracts speculators. Gate.io offers leverage up to 125x, allowing small margins to create a large OI.

Market maker incentives. Gate.io may have provided aggressive incentive policies for contract market makers, encouraging holding positions instead of frequent trading.

Regardless of the reason, the $10.8 billion OI relative to reserves of $4.8-6.8 billion is a notably aggressive and abnormal signal—under extreme market conditions, Gate.io's liquidation system may face pressure.

5. Dual-Dimension Comprehensive Analysis

6. Verification of CoinGlass

CoinGlass’s Q1 report provides multiple layers of independent validation for our analysis framework:

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

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

Validation 3: Hyperliquid has entered mainstream competition. In Q1, derivative trading volume was $492.7 billion, and OI was $6 billion, officially entering the Top 10. This verifies the rationale for selecting Hyperliquid as the "benchmark"—it is no longer a marginal participant but a substantial on-chain benchmark.

Validation 4: Liquidity depth is the true moat. Binance's BTC contracts have a ±1% depth of $284 million, which is nearly double that of the second-place OKX ($144 million). CoinGlass comments: "No platform can simultaneously exert comprehensive pressure on Binance across all four core sub-markets." This means that even if certain exchanges approach Binance through volume inflation, their actual liquidity remains far behind.

7. Industry Landscape

Combining CoinGlass Q1 data with our PoR analysis, the landscape of the crypto derivatives market is as follows:

First Tier: Industry Infrastructure

Binance—The only platform that ranks first across all dimensions. $110 billion in official reserves, $23.9 billion in OI, $4.9 trillion in quarterly derivative trading volume, and $284 million in BTC contract depth. The 73.5% user asset share from CoinGlass indicates that Binance is not just a trading platform, but the "asset custody center" of the crypto market.

OKX—CoinGlass's report describes it as "the centralized platform closest to Binance." $28.7 billion in reserves against $6.8 billion OI (0.24x), with second-place rankings in derivative trading volume and contract depth. The reserve rate is even (106-109%), being a benchmark for industry transparency.

Second Tier: Each with Emphasis

Bybit—Ranked third in contract trading volume and second in OI ($11 billion), but user assets amount only to $5.6 billion (tracked by CoinGlass) or $13.9 billion (official PoR). CoinGlass evaluates it as "relatively balanced in trading volume, OI, and spot liquidity."

Bitget—OI at $6.4 billion (Q1 average), trading volume, and OI both in the top 5. 237% BTC over-reserve is a unique advantage. OI/PoR 1.14x is close to the Hyperliquid benchmark, indicating healthy actual holdings.

Third Tier: Mismatched OI and Reserves

Gate.io—The largest "outlier" in CoinGlass data. Ranked third in OI ($10.8 billion), but asset ranking only third to fourth ($4.8-6.8 billion). The OI/reserve ratio consistently hovers between 1.6-2.25x. CoinGlass's original words: "Gate exhibits strong performance in trading volume and OI, but relatively weak asset retention."

KuCoin and MEXC—Although both rank low in trading volume and OI dimensions and their OI/Reserve ratios exceed 2 times, producing somewhat anomalous data, the volume and retained assets are impressive, likely related to ongoing trading incentive activities, market maker incentives, and fee policies.

8. Methodology and Limitations

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

Two sets of standards for reserve data. There are significant discrepancies between CoinGlass tracked assets and official PoR (e.g., Bybit is 2.5 times off). We primarily use official PoR as the benchmark but noted the CoinGlass version for reference.

Applicability of the Hyperliquid benchmark. Hyperliquid's Q1 average OI/TVL was 1.23x (higher than our previously recorded 1.05x), indicating that Hyperliquid's leverage level during Q1 was higher than recent levels.

Conclusion: Three Numbers

0.22x—Binance's OI/PoR ratio (CoinGlass Q1 average OI / official PoR). $110 billion in reserves can only support $23.9 billion in OI—each $4.6 in reserves supports $1 of outstanding positions. CoinGlass independently confirms Binance's comprehensive lead across four dimensions, especially the 73.5% user asset share—this figure indicates that Binance's moat is not in trading volume, but in trust.

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

73.5%—Binance's user asset share in the CoinGlass report. This figure is more than double Binance’s trading volume share (34.9%) and OI share (29.9%). However, I believe that this number is also based on data from these five exchanges as the denominator, and not the entire industry's market share; hence, it may lack statistical rigor.

Disclaimer: This report is based on the CoinGlass 2026 Q1 Market Share Research Report and the official PoR data from each exchange. It does not constitute investment advice. Some exchanges use real-time OI snapshots instead of Q1 averages. Differences exist between CoinGlass tracked assets and official PoR, and these are provided for reference in the report.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。