Bithumb Singapore Fee Comparison Tool
Compare Exchange Fees
Enter your monthly trading volume to see how much you would save or spend on different exchanges.
Your Monthly Savings/Spending
Based on a monthly trading volume of $10,000, here's how your costs compare:
- Bithumb Singapore (0.05%) $5.00
- Binance Singapore (0.10% maker / 0.12% taker) $10.00
- Coinbase Singapore (0.50% flat) $50.00
- Kraken Singapore (0.16% maker / 0.26% taker) $16.00
Save up to $45.00 per month by switching to Binance Singapore.
Fee Comparison Table (2025)
| Exchange | Trading Fee (Flat) | BTC Withdrawal | Fiat Deposit | Geo Restrictions | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bithumb Singapore | 0.05% | 0.001 BTC | No | US blocked | Defunct |
| Binance Singapore | 0.10% (maker) / 0.12% (taker) | 0.0004 BTC | Yes (SGD, USD) | None | Active |
| Coinbase Singapore | 0.50% (flat) | 0.0005 BTC | Yes (SGD, EUR) | US blocked | Active |
| Kraken Singapore | 0.16% (maker) / 0.26% (taker) | 0.0006 BTC | Yes (SGD) | None | Active |
Key Takeaways
- Bithumb Singapore offered a rock‑bottom 0.05% flat trading fee, far below the industry average.
- The platform only accepted crypto deposits - no fiat on‑ramps - which limited new investor adoption.
- Security was strong on paper (cold storage, 2FA, insurance) but the parent Bithumb suffered past hacks.
- Regulatory registration in Singapore gave initial legitimacy, yet the exchange is now completely defunct.
- Traders must migrate to other Singapore‑registered exchanges, likely facing higher fees.
Bithumb Singapore is a cryptocurrency exchange registered in Singapore that operated as the international arm of South Korean exchange Bithumb. Launched under the name Bitholic and rebranded on 8August2019, the platform promised ultra‑low fees and Asian‑market liquidity. Fast‑forward to October2025, monitoring services list the exchange as “dead” and its website is no longer reachable.
Background & Market Position
When Bithumb Singapore entered the scene, Singapore was already a hotspot for digital‑asset firms, thanks to the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s progressive stance. The parent company, Bithumb, founded in 2014, had grown into one of South Korea’s biggest exchanges, supporting over 320 digital assets and offering spot trading, staking, and bot trading.
By positioning a Singapore‑registered subsidiary, Bithumb aimed to capture Southeast Asian traders who valued regulatory clarity and wanted to avoid the Korean won‑centric ecosystem. However, the market was crowded: Binance Singapore, Coinbase Singapore, and a slew of local players already vied for user attention.
Fee Structure - Why Traders Loved It
The headline feature was a flat Bithumb Singapore review trading fee of 0.05% for every trade, regardless of maker or taker status. To put that in perspective, the 2023 industry average hovered around 0.21% taker and 0.16% maker. Most rivals charged between 0.10%‑0.15% on spot trades, so Bithumb Singapore’s rate was about a quarter of the norm.
Withdrawal fees were less competitive. Bitcoin (BTC) withdrawals cost a flat 0.001BTC - roughly 0.00059BTC was the sector average at the time, meaning users paid about 70% more to move BTC off‑chain.
There were no deposit fees, but the exchange only accepted crypto deposits. New users had to buy Bitcoin or Ethereum elsewhere, transfer the assets, and then start trading - a friction point that many newcomers found off‑putting.
Security Measures & Risk Profile
The platform advertised industry‑standard safeguards:
- Cold storage for the bulk of user funds.
- Two‑factor authentication (2FA) via SMS or authenticator apps.
- Insurance coverage for assets held in hot wallets.
Despite these claims, the parent Bithumb suffered high‑profile hacks in 2018 and 2021, resulting in the loss of millions of dollars worth of crypto. Those incidents raised eyebrows even though Bithumb Singapore operated under a separate legal entity.
Security‑focused traders still appreciated the cold‑storage‑first approach, but risk‑averse users cited the historic hacks as a red flag when evaluating the exchange’s overall safety.
Operational Limitations
Three constraints defined the user experience:
- Crypto‑only deposits - no fiat on‑ramps, meaning you had to own crypto before you could trade.
- Geographic restriction - U.S. residents were blocked, aligning with many Asian exchanges’ compliance policies.
- Lack of advanced products - no margin, futures, or options trading, which limited appeal for professional traders.
These limitations made the platform attractive primarily to high‑frequency traders who valued the low fee, but less so to beginners or institutions looking for a full‑service suite.
Why Bithumb Singapore Closed Its Doors
Exact reasons haven’t been disclosed, but analysts point to a combination of factors:
- Intense competition: Singapore hosts over 30 registered crypto exchanges, driving user acquisition costs up.
- Regulatory pressure: While Singapore is crypto‑friendly, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) tightened AML/CTF reporting in 2023, adding compliance overhead.
- Business model misfit: The crypto‑only deposit rule limited organic growth; many users preferred platforms with integrated fiat gateways.
- Parent‑company strain: Ongoing legal battles from the 2021 hack drained resources and focused attention on the core Korean market.
Regardless of the exact trigger, the net effect was the same - users lost access to the 0.05% fee advantage and were forced to find alternatives.
Alternatives for Former Bithumb Singapore Users
Below is a quick comparison of three leading Singapore‑registered exchanges that are still operational in 2025.
| Exchange | Trading Fee (Flat) | BTC Withdrawal | Fiat Deposit | Geo Restrictions | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bithumb Singapore | 0.05% | 0.001BTC | No | US blocked | Defunct |
| Binance Singapore | 0.10% (maker) / 0.12% (taker) | 0.0004BTC | Yes (SGD, USD) | None | Active |
| Coinbase Singapore | 0.50% (flat) | 0.0005BTC | Yes (SGD, EUR) | US blocked | Active |
| Kraken Singapore | 0.16% (maker) / 0.26% (taker) | 0.0006BTC | Yes (SGD) | None | Active |
For high‑frequency traders, Binance Singapore now offers the lowest fee among active platforms, though it still exceeds Bithumb Singapore’s 0.05% rate. Beginners will appreciate Coinbase’s user‑friendly UI and fiat on‑ramps.
Next Steps for Traders Affected by the Shutdown
If you still have assets sitting on the now‑inactive Bithumb Singapore account, the first move is to check your email for any official withdrawal notice. Most monitoring services advise reaching out to the parent Bithumb support channel, as they may still process pending withdrawals.
Once funds are back in your personal wallet, consider these actions:
- Evaluate fee sensitivity: If trading volume is high, migrate to Binance Singapore for the best balance of cost and liquidity.
- Prioritize security: Choose an exchange that emphasizes cold storage, 2FA, and has a clean hack‑free record (e.g., Kraken).
- Leverage fiat gateways: If you want to start from cash, pick an exchange with local SGD deposits to avoid the extra transfer step.
Finally, keep an eye on MAS announcements. Regulatory shifts can affect fee structures and service availability across the region.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Bithumb Singapore still usable?
No. Monitoring platforms list the exchange as defunct and its website is offline. Users must withdraw any remaining balances through the parent Bithumb support channel.
What made Bithumb Singapore’s fee structure stand out?
It charged a flat 0.05% fee on all trades, which was roughly a quarter of the average market rate at the time.
Can I deposit fiat directly on Bithumb Singapore?
No. The platform only accepted cryptocurrency deposits, forcing new users to acquire crypto elsewhere first.
Which Singapore exchange should I use now?
It depends on your priorities. For the lowest fees, Binance Singapore is a strong choice. For a beginner‑friendly UI with fiat on‑ramps, Coinbase Singapore works well. If security is paramount, Kraken Singapore offers robust safeguards.
Did the parent Bithumb’s hacks affect Bithumb Singapore?
The hacks hit the Korean platform, not the Singapore subsidiary directly. However, they raised concerns about overall corporate security practices.
Cryptocurrency Guides
Charles Banks Jr.
August 6, 2025 AT 22:34Oh great, another exchange that died because it couldn't keep up.
Kate Nicholls
August 11, 2025 AT 11:13The fee structure was indeed impressive, but the lack of fiat on‑ramps was a serious handicap. New traders were forced to purchase crypto elsewhere before they could even start, which adds friction. The security claims sounded solid on paper, yet the parent company’s hack history casts a lingering shadow.
Rajini N
August 16, 2025 AT 02:20Bithumb Singapore’s 0.05% flat fee was undeniably attractive for high‑volume traders. However, the 0.001 BTC withdrawal charge was considerably higher than the market average, which could erode savings over time. The platform’s exclusive crypto‑only deposit policy limited its appeal to newcomers who prefer a seamless fiat‑to‑crypto experience. While cold‑storage safeguards are commendable, the parent’s past security breaches understandably raised concerns. Overall, the exchange catered to a niche of cost‑sensitive, experienced traders rather than the broader crypto public.
Sidharth Praveen
August 20, 2025 AT 17:26At least they tried to keep fees low; that’s something.
Sophie Sturdevant
August 25, 2025 AT 08:33From a quantitative standpoint, the fee compression yielded a 75% cost advantage over standard market rates, which is statistically significant for arbitrageurs. Nevertheless, the elevated withdrawal premium introduces a trade‑off that practitioners must model into their profit‑and‑loss calculations.
Nathan Blades
August 29, 2025 AT 23:40The drama of a promising exchange crashing is almost cinematic. Imagine building a business model around the lowest fees only to watch it implode because of regulatory pressure and a misaligned product‑market fit. It’s a cautionary tale for anyone thinking they can out‑price competition without solid infrastructure.
Somesh Nikam
September 3, 2025 AT 14:46Even though the platform is gone, the lessons remain: ultra‑low fees are great, but you still need fiat gateways and solid security. 😊
Jan B.
September 8, 2025 AT 05:53Fees low. Security decent. No fiat. End.
MARLIN RIVERA
September 12, 2025 AT 21:00Another overhyped “crypto‑friendly” venture that crumbled under its own unrealistic promises. Users were left scrambling, and the hype‑machine didn’t care.
Debby Haime
September 17, 2025 AT 12:06For traders who are fee‑sensitive, the difference between 0.05% and 0.10% may seem trivial, but over millions of dollars it adds up fast. Still, the inability to deposit fiat directly created a barrier that many newbies couldn’t overcome. In hindsight, the exchange’s niche focus limited its scalability.
emmanuel omari
September 22, 2025 AT 03:13Honestly, if you look at the broader African market, we don’t need another powerless Asian exchange. We should be building our own robust platforms instead of copying flawed models.
Andy Cox
September 26, 2025 AT 18:20Interesting read, but I’m just observing the trends.
Courtney Winq-Microblading
October 1, 2025 AT 09:26When we contemplate the epistemology of market dynamics, Bithumb Singapore serves as a microcosm of the perpetual tension between cost efficiency and systemic resilience. The ultra‑low fee model is philosophically alluring, yet it presupposes a frictionless user experience that rarely exists in practice. By eschewing fiat on‑ramps, the exchange tacitly excluded a swath of potential participants, thereby narrowing its network effects. Security, the cornerstone of any custodial service, was proclaimed robust through cold‑storage allocations and two‑factor safeguards, but the specter of the parent’s historical breaches lingered like an unresolved paradox. In the final analysis, the platform’s demise underscores the inexorable law that economic models must harmonize pricing incentives with regulatory compliance and operational depth.
katie littlewood
October 6, 2025 AT 00:33Let me break this down step by step because the story of Bithumb Singapore is a textbook case of how a brilliant idea can be derailed by a cascade of avoidable missteps. First, the fee structure – a flat 0.05% – was truly a market‑shattering proposition that should have attracted a massive influx of high‑frequency traders looking to shave every cent off their spreads. Second, the platform’s decision to accept only crypto deposits created an entry barrier that alienated newcomers who rely on seamless fiat‑to‑crypto pathways; this is a classic example of product‑market misalignment. Third, security, while advertised with cold storage and 2FA, was tainted by the parent company’s notorious hacks in 2018 and 2021, which sowed doubt among risk‑averse users. Fourth, the regulatory environment in Singapore grew stricter after 2023, adding compliance overhead that a lean operation like Bithumb Singapore struggled to absorb. Fifth, the competitive landscape is fiercely crowded, with over thirty licensed exchanges jostling for user attention, making customer acquisition costs sky‑high. Sixth, the lack of advanced trading products such as futures or margin further narrowed their appeal to only a narrow segment of spot‑traders. Seventh, the geographic restriction that blocked US residents eliminated a lucrative market segment outright. Eighth, the parent’s ongoing legal battles drained financial and managerial resources, leaving the Singapore arm starved for investment. Ninth, the abrupt shutdown left users scrambling for withdrawals, highlighting the operational fragility of a “low‑fee” only model. Tenth, the broader lesson here is that ultra‑low fees cannot compensate for foundational shortcomings in onboarding, security, compliance, and product breadth. Eleventh, any exchange aspiring to survive must balance competitive pricing with a holistic user experience that addresses security, regulatory, and accessibility concerns. Twelfth, the Bithumb Singapore saga should serve as a cautionary tale for future entrants: price is a powerful lure, but it is not a substitute for robust infrastructure. Thirteenth, in a market that values trust as much as cost, the absence of fiat on‑ramps was a dealbreaker for many. Fourteenth, the community’s reaction-pivoting to Binance, Coinbase, or Kraken-shows that users will gravitate toward platforms that offer both competitive fees and comprehensive services. Fifteenth, ultimately, the downfall of Bithumb Singapore reinforces that sustainability in crypto exchanges hinges on more than just numbers; it requires strategic foresight, operational depth, and unwavering commitment to user safety.
Jenae Lawler
October 10, 2025 AT 15:40While some may romanticise the demise of Bithumb Singapore as a noble sacrifice, the reality is that the platform’s strategic deficiencies were self‑inflicted.
Chad Fraser
October 15, 2025 AT 06:46Looking at the fee spread, I’d say moving to Binance Singapore makes sense for anyone trading large volumes, but don’t forget to double‑check withdrawal fees before you commit.
Jayne McCann
October 19, 2025 AT 21:53If you want low fees, Binance is the place.
Richard Herman
October 24, 2025 AT 13:00In the spirit of community, it’s helpful to share experiences with migration-some users reported smooth transfers to Kraken, while others faced hiccups with Binance’s KYC process.
Parker Dixon
October 29, 2025 AT 04:06🔧 Pro tip: When moving funds, always double‑check the destination address format to avoid costly mistakes. 😊
Stefano Benny
November 2, 2025 AT 19:13From a risk‑assessment perspective, the lack of fiat on‑ramps is a non‑negotiable red flag.
Bobby Ferew
November 7, 2025 AT 10:20I feel like I’m missing out on the drama of this whole shutdown.
celester Johnson
November 12, 2025 AT 01:26One could argue that the downfall of Bithumb Singapore illustrates a deeper philosophical truth: that financial ecosystems thrive on trust, not merely on fee structures.
Prince Chaudhary
November 13, 2025 AT 21:53Respectfully, the core lesson here is that sustainability requires a balanced approach-low fees, solid security, and user‑friendly onboarding must coexist.