Quick Take
- Gate reports 104.58% cold-storage coverage under a new framework testing protection after a total hot-wallet loss.
- The comparison uses asset shares from different snapshots, leaving common-date customer backing unproven by the ratio alone.
- Gate includes independently custodied traditional assets in cold storage and says verification of the current data remains in progress.
Crypto exchange Gate has introduced Proof of Security, a disclosure framework that proves its cold assets cover customer balances if it lost all its hot-wallet assets.
Its Nov. 5 announcement reports 104.58% cold-storage coverage, using a storage snapshot taken at 00:00 UTC on Nov. 4.
The published percentage compares asset shares from different snapshots, rather than establishing cold assets and customer balances on a single common date. Gate discloses that limitation, so customers need more than the headline ratio to verify the full-backing claim.
Different measurement bases
Gate's PoSEC methodology compares an 88.26% cold-storage share with an 84.39% user-asset share. The remaining shares are 11.74% in hot wallets and 15.61% owned by the platform.
Cold storage is measured against cold assets plus hot-wallet assets in the storage snapshot, while user assets are measured against platform reserves in the separate Proof of Reserves snapshot. The FAQ defines the coverage calculation as the first share divided by the second.
The page explicitly says the snapshots have different totals and that intervening price changes and fund movements are not reflected.
Gate’s ratio uses separate dates and totals
Same-date backing needs aligned balances. Gate’s reported percentage combines shares from different snapshot totals.
The reported 104.58% share comparison alone cannot establish backing at one common date.
Different snapshot dates and totals; intervening price changes and fund movements are excluded. The earlier PoR reference is not separately dated in the chart. This does not establish insolvency or losses.
Gate's Oct. 21 disclosure reports roughly $8.7 billion in reserves and $7.3 billion in user net assets as of Oct. 18, with a 118.49% overall reserve ratio.
The PoSEC chart does not separately date its earlier user-asset reference, and the October dollar totals cannot be combined with November storage percentages to present a measured dollar buffer.
A direct test of backing after a hot-wallet loss would compare surviving cold assets with customer balances at the same time, using compatible valuations and the same reporting perimeter.
The disclosure leaves a gap in demonstrating common-date coverage, as it doesn't establish either insolvency or customer losses.
Gate's definition includes digital assets in cold wallets and traditional assets, such as stocks and US Treasuries, held by independent custodians.
The exchange says qualifying assets must sit outside routine deposit and withdrawal operations, be offline or independently custodied, require multiparty transfer authorization, and be verifiable. It also explains that off-chain traditional assets can make reported cold storage exceed balances visible in blockchain cold wallets.
Current verification is still pending
As of Nov. 5, the PoSEC page lists independent third-party verification as in progress. Gate says the review covers asset authenticity and control, valuation and reporting scope, and the coverage calculation.
Gate's PoSEC FAQ says individual wallet addresses are currently withheld for security reasons, making the promised independent report particularly relevant to public scrutiny.
That review should be distinguished from the older audit shown on Gate's Proof of Reserves page. The page dates a Hacken implementation assessment to Jan. 3, 2024. Hacken describes that work as examining code, architecture, build processes, and vulnerabilities.
The new framework gives customers a concrete scenario to evaluate. The decisive next evidence is a common-date reconciliation of cold assets and customer balances, with valuation methods, entity scope, custody restrictions, and asset composition clear enough to assess the claim.
A completed review can show how those pieces fit together, while a comparison of percentages from different snapshots cannot do that by itself.


