Blog

When you choose a platform to send, receive, and trade crypto, you’re not just picking a random website. You’re choosing how much control you want and how much exposure you’re willing to accept.

Some people go for polished, official-looking centralized platforms—the “safe” option with logins, customer support, and compliance procedures. 

Others choose privacy, self-custody, and the flexibility of decentralization with no gatekeepers, questions, or risk of data exposure.

Each side has its benefits and trade-offs.

In this article, we’ll break down how both systems actually work, where the biggest vulnerabilities are, and how to avoid the potential risks.

What are centralized and decentralized exchanges, and how do they differ?

Before diving into safety and security matters, let’s briefly go through the basics and understand the unique features of the two options on the table.

Centralized exchanges (CEX)

A centralized crypto exchange is a platform run by a company that holds your funds, accounts, and transactions. You typically register with personal data and interact through a web or app interface.

Examples: Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, etc.

On centralized exchanges, you move funds by routing them through a company’s system. Transfers can happen between internal accounts (off-chain) or as blockchain withdrawals and deposits—in both ways, the exchange holds the assets, decides the rules, and acts as the gatekeeper.

People choose CEX for the following reasons: 

• Easy onboarding
• Convenient interface
• Access to customer support
• Compliance and guarantee of your funds’ safety

To summarize, centralized platforms offer a packaged, familiar experience: logins, interfaces, support, and the sense that someone is keeping things under control.

Decentralized exchanges (DEX)

A decentralized crypto exchange is a place that lets users send, receive, or exchange crypto directly between wallets using smart contracts—without registration, KYC procedures, or anyone else holding your funds. 

Examples: Uniswap, PancakeSwap, Curve, etc.

With decentralized exchanges, everything happens on-chain. You connect your wallet, interact with a contract, and execute transactions without intermediaries.

People choose DEX for the following reasons: 

• Full control over assets at all times
• No registration, no gatekeeping
• No data collection and no exposure risk 
• Transparent rules written in code, not in policies

To summarize, decentralized platforms offer the freedom of handling everything yourself—just you and your wallet, blockchain, and direct counterparties.

On paper, the difference looks straightforward:

• Centralized exchanges offer structure, convenience, and safety.
• Decentralized exchanges offer autonomy, transparency, and freedom.

But that’s only the surface. The trade-offs show up the moment you actually start using them—on both sides.

Connected risks 

If you look deeper than just features and structural differences, you start to understand that neither system can protect you from every possible threat. 

They both have blind spots, just very different ones.

Risk 1: Dirty crypto and AML exposure

Some risks in crypto don’t come from what you do. You can follow every rule, never touch a scam, never hide a thing, and still lose access, get blacklisted, or suffer a loss.

Why? 

Crypto AML systems don’t assess your intent; they respond to signals. 

Automated logic tracks wallet activity, past associations, contract behavior, and code execution, not your moral standing. 

So when a suspicious token touches your wallet—even without you knowing, just by receiving a transfer—that signal gets recorded.

That’s how ‘dirty crypto’ spreads: not necessarily because you chose it, but simply because it has entered your wallet. And now your address may be flagged as high-risk. Even if the rest of your tokens are clean, they can all be treated as suspicious because they’re held in a wallet linked to so-called “illicit activity.”

What happens next depends on the kind of platform you use:

Centralized exchanges (CEX)	Decentralized exchanges (DEX)
Most centralized exchanges automatically screen incoming funds against risks. If they are linked to flagged activity, your funds may be frozen. Compliance procedures are intricate and hard to appeal. Users receive no clear response, and funds can remain frozen indefinitely.	Decentralized exchanges don’t typically screen incoming funds. Any wallet can send you funds—clean or not. If you receive dirty crypto, it stays visible in your wallet’s on-chain history. Risk follows your wallet address—future apps, bridges, or services may silently block or reject it.

Summary: 

CEXs try to block risk at the entry point but may block your funds instead. 

DEXs don’t assess transaction risk, but that doesn’t make the risk disappear; it follows your wallet.

Risk 2: Losing access to your funds

Owning crypto isn’t just about having it; it’s about being able to access it whenever it matters. And that depends entirely on how and where you store it.

In centralized systems, someone else holds your funds and decides what happens to them. In decentralized systems, you hold everything yourself and take on all the risk that comes with it.

Either way, access can be lost. The difference is just in how it can happen.

Centralized exchanges (CEX)	Decentralized exchanges (DEX)
Funds are stored in the platform’s system, not directly in your wallet. If the platform is hacked, shut down, or freezes your account, you may lose access completely. You rely on the company’s systems, backups, and decisions.	If funds are stored in your personal wallet, only you hold the keys. If you lose your seed phrase or access device, no one can recover your funds. You depend on your own setup, backups, and ability to avoid phishing or scams.

Summary: 

Centralized platforms can feel safe—until they’re not. Decentralized systems can feel free—until something slips. So, there’s no perfect option. The real question is, who do you trust more in terms of blockchain security, a third party or yourself?

Risk 3: Data and identity exposure

Crypto isn’t anonymous by default. 

On a centralized exchange, your personal data is stored in company databases, which is obviously a risk or disclosure. 

On a decentralized one, your transactions are recorded on-chain. There’s no personal info attached by default, but the moment your wallet gets linked to your identity, whether through a KYC deposit, a public ENS name, or a wallet address you’ve publicly shared, your full transaction history becomes traceable.

In both cases, your privacy has limits. The difference is where those limits come from—centralized storage or public visibility.

Centralized exchanges (CEX)	Decentralized exchanges (DEX)
You register with full personal data: name, ID, email, and sometimes even device info and face ID. That data is stored and can be leaked, hacked, sold, or handed to partners or authorities without your knowledge. You have no control over how your data is handled, stored, or shared, and you can’t take it back.	You don’t share personal data, but all your activity is public on the blockchain. Anyone can view your wallet’s full on-chain history with specialized tools. You can control your privacy to a certain extent, depending on how well you manage your visibility.

Summary: 

On a CEX, your data is in a file. On a DEX, it’s on the blockchain. Either way, if your identity gets linked to your wallet, your activity becomes visible.

Risk 4: Transaction finality and fraud protection

There’s one thing traditional finance has that crypto doesn’t: reversibility.

In most banking systems, you can cancel a transfer, dispute a charge, or report fraud and expect someone to step in. In crypto, finality is part of the design — once a transaction is confirmed, it’s permanent. That sounds simple until something goes wrong. You send funds to the wrong address. You fall for a fake UI. You approve a malicious contract. The system treats all of it as valid.

Whether anyone can help you—or whether you’re completely on your own—depends on the kind of platform you’re using.

Centralized exchanges (CEX)	Decentralized exchanges (DEX)
Some platforms can detect fraud patterns and freeze suspicious transactions. There’s a chance of recovering funds if reported quickly, and the platform cooperates. Resolution depends on internal policies and response time.	Transactions are executed by code; once confirmed, they can’t be reversed. If you send funds to the wrong address or a scam, they’re gone forever. No human involvement, no support, and no dispute process.

Summary: 

CEXs sometimes act as a safety net—but only on their terms. DEXs don’t catch mistakes or scams and provide you with zero protection. Final means final.

The compromise 

Whichever path you choose, CEX or DEX, you’re not just choosing a method, but you’re also choosing what to compromise.

Until recently, there was no way to have the control, freedom, and anonymity of decentralized platforms together with the security, convenience, and simplicity of centralized ones.

That compromise has long existed for one reason: risk detection couldn’t happen on-chain.

So, platforms had to choose:

• Ignore the risks and let anything through, like most decentralized solutions.
• Or rely on centralized services with a “block-now-ask-later” approach.

But that’s beginning to change.

Alpha AML moves the compliance logic on-chain

The concept is straightforward: if risk is connected with the funds, it should be evaluated before the transaction happens, not afterward. That means moving the decision point into the transaction itself.

Alpha AML does exactly that, working for both sides of the ecosystem: users who want privacy without exposure and builders who need risk defense at the protocol level.

Alpha AML’s core is an audited, public smart contract.

It checks transaction risk in real time based on multiple parameters such as on-chain wallet behavior, links to flagged entities, exposure to mixers, interaction history with high-risk assets, and others. 

Based on the risk score, it allows or rejects crypto transfers from flagged wallets automatically.

Businesses can integrate this smart contract directly into their protocols or applications to add a built-in security layer. 

Users can interact with it through a simple dApp—sending and receiving funds with full privacy while staying protected from risky transfers. 

Solana became famous during the memecoin hype, but its applications and benefits go far beyond what’s on the surface.

Its development directly responds to major blockchain challenges like scalability bottlenecks, slow speeds, and high transaction fees that plague networks like Bitcoin and Ethereum. Solana was built to solve these limitations, just as Intel solved processing power constraints two decades ago.

Before 2002, high-performance computing often required stacking many physical processors to handle demanding tasks. 

In 2002, Intel changed the game by introducing hyper-threading technology, which allowed a single core to simulate multiple processing threads, dramatically improving efficiency in complex calculations without needing proportionally more hardware. This process shifted from raw power (stacking more CPUs) to smart, efficient architecture. Eventually, this evolved into the multi-core processors we use today.

That’s exactly what Solana does for blockchain.

Instead of stacking more nodes and burning fees like Ethereum, it rethinks the architecture—using innovations like Proof of History and parallel execution to process thousands of transactions per second efficiently and affordably.

So, let’s dive deeper into how this new blockchain architecture works and what that means for the future of decentralization, data storage, and blockchain.

What is Solana?

Solana is a high-performance blockchain that has become one of the most active ecosystems in crypto today and is especially popular among developers building NFTs, DeFi platforms, and Web3 apps. What makes it special is its parallel execution model, which processes transactions concurrently by identifying non-overlapping account interactions.

The result is a system that prioritizes speed and efficiency without compromising on completeness—one that generates an uninterrupted, ever-growing stream of data by design.

Unlike Bitcoin and Ethereum, which process transactions sequentially to preserve the global state, Solana executes programs (this is its term for smart contracts) in parallel. It removes the mempool as a bottleneck and advances the state through local scheduling and verifiable time, producing a ledger shaped by traditional blocks and a seamless flow of transactions.

How Solana revolutionizes blockchain performance

Solana’s architectural choices aren’t just theoretical improvements—they manifest directly in how the network behaves under load:

• High execution capacity becomes possible by parallel processing smart contract instructions across independent accounts.
• It maintains consistent performance under high traffic, with tens of millions of transactions processed daily and finality achieved in seconds.

Latency is reduced by eliminating mempool competition—transactions are sent directly to the leader without coordination overhead.

• Fees remain low, stable in most conditions, and fairly distributed—congestion in one program doesn’t raise transaction costs across the network.

Solana doesn’t just scale performance—it restructures how performance is defined. However, the same architectural advantages allowing it to move fast and scale wide presents new challenges.

The price of high performance

A network built for maximal throughput will record almost everything, almost constantly. The same design that enables frictionless execution also accelerates data growth—shifting the scalability bottleneck from throughput to the challenge of storing and maintaining activity over time.

In September 2024, the size of the Solana ledger was around 300 terabytes. By March 2025, it had grown to almost 500 terabytes and is expanding by roughly seven terabytes per month, steadily increasing.

This pace is unmatched by any other major blockchain. As of early 2025, Bitcoin’s entire ledger is under 600 GB. Despite its long history and active usage, Ethereum holds around 2.5 TB for a full archival node. Solana, meanwhile, is expanding faster than both combined.

Some in the Solana community suggested that, at the current trajectory, the ledger could reach four petabytes by the end of 2025. Even though this number doesn’t seem realistic anymore, it may reach one petabyte in 2025—which is already enough to raise serious questions.

Ledger growth

But what does this growth mean for those using the Solana blockchain in practice?

Inevitably, the growing number of transactions—and the growing amount of data they generate—leads to an increase in the cost of processing that data. That includes:

• higher bandwidth requirements;
• more internet traffic to handle;
• faster SSDs if you’re downloading data locally;
• and more CPU power to process that data once it’s downloaded.

For most users, this growth in demand hasn’t been dramatic so far—they can manage with no extra investment or with minor ones if they need deeper access to the ledger. But if you’re digging into deep on-chain history or running large-scale analytics, you’ll notice the growing pressure.

At Alpha AML, we use a fleet of processors to run fast on-chain analytics across the Solana network. Not because it’s impressive but because the ledger growth requires it. Which, in turn, leads to the other group of challenges.

Data accuracy

As the Solana blockchain grows, the infrastructure requirements will scale too—especially for anyone running their own nodes or working directly with raw on-chain data. That includes monitoring the network, storing blocks, and keeping systems up to date—all of which will take more time, storage, and investment.

Based on rough estimates by our team, the baseline setup for independent access and processing could reach at least $10,000 per month in 2025—or significantly more, depending on the complexity of the tasks involved.

This outcome, in turn, means: 

• More and more people and companies will rely on third-party data providers rather than extract and store raw data, and this trend is already underway; 
• Layers will pile up. One provider will depend on another, and the chance of distortion grows every extra step.

That wouldn’t be a major problem if the data itself were simple, but the structure of the data itself isn’t straightforward.

Solana doesn’t process transactions as isolated units. Each one can include multiple instructions, interact with different programs, and trigger additional calls through what’s known as cross-program invocations (CPI).

That means a single transaction can perform multiple operations under the hood—some of which won’t be obvious unless you dig into the raw structure. And how much of that is visible depends entirely on the data provider or explorer you’re using.

We’ve seen multiple cases where Solscan presents a transaction as something simple—like a $1,000 token swap—while a deeper instruction in that same transaction quietly moves a million dollars in a memecoin. It’s not hidden, but it’s not surfaced either.

What does this mean?

That gap between what’s on-chain and what’s shown to the user is where clarity gets lost. And as data keeps growing and layers pile up, those blind spots will only get wider.

In the long run, this could also impact validator participation. As hardware demands grow, fewer independent validators can meet the technical requirements. That raises questions about decentralization and whether parts of the network might become dependent on institutional-scale infrastructure.

Solana developers have started exploring multiple strategies to reduce this pressure: ledger compression, pruning mechanisms, and even experimental zero-knowledge proof systems for offloading some data verification. These aren’t full solutions yet, but they point to the seriousness of the issue.

Where is Solana going?

When data keeps expanding, splitting, and folding back on itself faster than anyone can trace, the system starts behaving like a black box.

In technology, there’s a term—singularity—which describes the moment AI becomes so advanced that it starts creating systems and technologies too complex for any individual, or even a team, to fully understand or follow.

We can already see how Solana is moving in that direction—a kind of data singularity where everything is recorded, connected, and computable, yet increasingly unreadable without specialized tooling.

Given how fast Solana is growing and how quickly people are switching from raw data to third-party services, we believe that point could be reached well before the end of the decade.

And that means the deeper Solana grows, the harder it becomes to work with it directly.

Running your own infra, parsing raw data, and building reliable tools gets more expensive, slower, and less accessible. At some point, it’s not just about writing to the ledger—it’s about whether anyone can still read it, understand it, and build on it without relying on someone else’s filters.

Once that stops being possible, the problem is no longer scale. It’s control.

Solana isn’t the only chain facing this challenge, but the speed and volume of its growth make it the first to collide with these limits at scale. It also makes Solana a testing ground for how blockchain infrastructure might evolve globally—from data access models to storage incentives to the role of AI in managing chain visibility.

How to stay in control

So what can be done about it?

Solana won’t stop growing, and the data won’t get any simpler. But that doesn’t mean the outcome is fixed. There are ways to work with this architecture without losing clarity, ownership, or access. 

The hard part is knowing where to draw the line and what not to outsource.

1. Keep a foot in raw data.

Stick with raw data for as long as possible, which isn’t complicated so far. That’s the only way to know what’s happening without someone else deciding what you see. This decision might give you advantages over others—from spotting manipulation patterns early to building things that don’t break every time someone’s API changes.

2. Don’t outsource visibility.

It’s one thing to outsource infrastructure. It’s another to outsource understanding. When you lose the ability to audit, verify, or explain what’s going on under the hood, you’re not working with Solana anymore—you’re working inside someone else’s interpretation of it.

So, if you’re already using third-party services, or will need to switch to them later, it’s worth maintaining at least some access to raw on-chain data. It won’t give you the full picture, but it will give you a baseline and a way to cross-check, spot gaps, and notice when the version you’re seeing doesn’t match what’s actually on-chain.

3. Archive wisely.

Use decentralized storage networks like Arweave or IPFS to preserve your historical data if you need to, without depending on the full ledger or third-party archives. As the ledger keeps growing, keeping snapshots off-chain might become helpful and necessary.

4. Be careful what you pass on.

Stay alert if you’re building in crypto, whether it’s DeFi, Web3, on-chain agents, or anything else, and your product includes data, analytics, or signals passed to others. The closer we get to data singularity, the more sensitive each step of the pipeline becomes. 

One incorrect assumption, one lazy transformation, and the output becomes unreliable—even if the input was solid. If you pass that along, you’re not just misrepresenting the chain. You’re creating a new version of it for everyone downstream.

To wrap it up

Solana didn’t just improve blockchain speed—it redefined what blockchain is. It moved past the old model of sequential blocks and global bottlenecks and built a system where execution happens in parallel, the state moves continuously, and the ledger grows without pause.

That made performance the baseline and turned volume into a constant.

But scale came with a shift in trade-offs. The more Solana processed, the more it recorded and the harder it became to store, access, and interpret what was happening on-chain without relying on someone else’s tools.

By 2025, that shift is no longer theoretical. The ledger has passed half a petabyte, and the line between raw data and interpreted output keeps getting thinner.

Solana is still fast, cheap, and open, but staying close to it now takes more than just being connected. It means knowing how your access is shaped, where your data comes from, and which parts of the system you have access to versus the ones you assume you do.

This challenge doesn’t end with Solana. As blockchain networks expand, the ability to manage, interpret, and trust data at scale will shape how crypto evolves—from tooling to governance to user experience.