Operating entity
AURORA TECH LIMITED
British Columbia incorporation BC1561831, incorporated 2 November 2025.
BX
Exchange · Evidence assessment
Baerx
Recently incorporated exchange with one verifiable registration record
Baerx is a digital-asset exchange operated by AURORA TECH LIMITED, a British Columbia company incorporated on 2 November 2025. This edition assesses the operator and its registration status against primary records, and explains what a Canadian FINTRAC money services business registration does and does not give a user. It also reports the first seven withdrawals this publication executed itself, each with a transaction hash published so readers can check it. Fees beyond those withdrawal deductions, execution quality, order-book depth, fiat rails and custody remain untested.
Correction
An earlier version of this assessment, published until 31 August 2026, stated that Baerx held an EU MiCA authorisation and a US money services business registration, and described a four-layer custody architecture, a series of completed withdrawal tests, a reviewed user-comment sample and a VIP tier programme. None of those statements was supported by evidence this publication held, and all of them have been withdrawn. The assessment was rewritten against primary records and now carries no rating. The full retraction is recorded in the change log below.
Registration on record
FINTRAC MSB N300001098
Status Registered, effective 21 July 2026, valid to 30 November 2028. Scope includes virtual currency.
Withdrawals completed
7 of 7, hashes published
Six chains, 1 July 2026, from 80 USDC to 10,000 USDT. Every hash is in the source list.
Editorial assessment
The decision in plain language.
The public record establishes a named operator and one current registration: AURORA TECH LIMITED is registered with Canada's FINTRAC as a money services business under number N300001098, with a service scope that expressly includes virtual currency. That is more than many venues disclose, and it is independently checkable. It is also the limit of what can currently be confirmed. FINTRAC states in terms that registration is neither a licence nor an endorsement, no securities-side registration was located, the operating company is under a year old, and the FINTRAC record itself carries no website and no registered operating name, so nothing in the public file links that registration to this brand. We record what is verifiable, explain what it obligates and what it leaves uncovered, and mark the rest as unestablished rather than absent.
Best suited to
Readers who want to know exactly which legal entity stands behind this brand, what its single registration obligates it to do, which risks that registration does not address, and where to check every one of those facts for themselves.
Primary trade-off
A named, checkable operator and a current FINTRAC registration whose scope covers virtual currency, set against a short operating history, an unverified link between the registration and the brand, an open securities-side question, and product claims this edition does not test.
Evidence-backed strengths
- The operating entity is named and independently checkable: AURORA TECH LIMITED, British Columbia incorporation number BC1561831, searchable in the provincial company register. A reader can confirm the company exists, when it was incorporated and where it is registered without relying on anything the platform says.
- A current FINTRAC money services business registration — number N300001098, status Registered, effective 21 July 2026, valid to 30 November 2028 — whose declared service scope expressly includes virtual currency. That is the correct registration category for exchange activity in Canada rather than an adjacent or ornamental one.
- The registration is not optional. Under Canada's anti-money-laundering statute a business dealing in virtual currency must register with FINTRAC before it operates, so the entry reflects compliance with a mandatory requirement rather than a badge the operator chose to acquire.
- Seven withdrawals executed by this publication on 1 July 2026 across TRON, Solana, Arbitrum, Base, Bitcoin and Ethereum all completed, including one of 10,000 USDT. Every transaction hash is published, so each one can be checked in a block explorer by anyone who doubts it. Platform-side processing ran 6 to 17 seconds.
- The registration record shows no cessation date and no revocation date. FINTRAC publishes revoked and expired registrations under distinct statuses, so the absence of those markers is itself a checkable fact rather than an inference.
"Limitations to resolve"
- FINTRAC states directly that registration does not mean it endorses or licenses a business, that it indicates only that the business satisfied the legal requirements to register, and that it does not issue licences or certificates of registration. Any description of this registration as a licence would misstate the record.
- FINTRAC is an anti-money-laundering regulator, not a prudential one. The registration says nothing about solvency, custody arrangements, segregation of client assets, execution quality or market conduct, and it carries no deposit protection and no investor compensation scheme.
- No registration with the Canadian Securities Administrators or the British Columbia Securities Commission was located. Canadian regulators have taken the position that crypto-asset trading platforms may fall under securities legislation depending on how their products and custody arrangements are characterised, so this is an open question rather than a settled one.
- AURORA TECH LIMITED was incorporated on 2 November 2025 and the FINTRAC registration took effect on 21 July 2026. The operating history is short, and a short history limits what any assessment — favourable or unfavourable — can conclude.
- Withdrawal pricing is set on the amount sent rather than on transfer cost. On Bitcoin the deduction was about 4.7 times the network fee actually paid; on Ethereum it was about 1.1 times. Both comparisons are in a single asset and need no conversion.
- Our withdrawal series is seven transactions on a single day, on one account, initiated by us. It establishes that these routes worked at these sizes on 1 July 2026. It does not establish a withdrawal policy, a review threshold, behaviour under stress, or that any later withdrawal will complete. Fiat rails were not tested at all.
- The 10,000 USDT withdrawal completed in 34 seconds with no manual review, hold or additional verification that we could observe. Readers who weigh withdrawal controls heavily may read that less favourably than readers who weigh speed.
- The FINTRAC record lists no website and registers no operating name other than the legal name. Nothing in the public file connects that registration to the Baerx brand, so a reader checking the registry cannot confirm the two are the same business.
Evidence review
What the public record currently supports.
Each conclusion is bounded by its product, jurisdiction and source type.
01Evidence reviewed
What the public record establishes
Two things are independently checkable. AURORA TECH LIMITED is a British Columbia company, incorporation number BC1561831, incorporated on 2 November 2025, with a registered address in Prince George, British Columbia. The same entity holds FINTRAC money services business registration N300001098, effective 21 July 2026 and valid to 30 November 2028, with status Registered and no cessation or revocation date. The declared service scope is foreign exchange, money transferring, virtual currency and payment service provider — virtual currency being the category that matters for exchange activity. Everything else in this assessment is either an explanation of what those two records mean, or an explicit statement that a question remains open.
02Evidence reviewed
What the registration obligates the operator to do
Registration is not a formality with no content behind it. Under Canada's Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, a registered money services business dealing in virtual currency carries a defined set of continuing obligations: it must maintain a written compliance programme with policies and procedures, appoint a compliance officer, carry out a documented risk assessment, train staff and subject the programme to a periodic effectiveness review. It must identify clients under prescribed methods, keep records for prescribed periods, and file reports with FINTRAC — including suspicious transaction reports with no monetary threshold, and large virtual currency transaction reports at the prescribed threshold. FINTRAC can examine registrants and impose administrative monetary penalties for non-compliance. A reader assessing this platform should understand that these duties are real and enforceable, and that they are aimed at money-laundering and terrorist-financing risk rather than at the risks that most concern a retail trader.
03Evidence reviewed
What the registration does not cover
This is where most misreadings of a FINTRAC entry occur. The registration does not make FINTRAC a supervisor of the platform's solvency, its custody arrangements, whether client assets are segregated from the operator's own funds, how orders are matched, what happens to a customer in an insolvency, or whether advertised fees and execution quality are accurate. FINTRAC's own registry page states that registration does not indicate endorsement or licensing and that it does not issue licences or certificates of registration. There is also no deposit protection: Canada's deposit insurance scheme covers eligible deposits held at member institutions and does not extend to crypto-asset balances held at an exchange, and no investor compensation fund applies. A user's exposure to this platform is therefore an unsecured claim on a private company, and the registration does not change that.
04Evidence reviewed
Canada's two-track structure and the open securities question
Canada regulates crypto trading platforms along two separate tracks, and conflating them is the most common error in reviews of Canadian-registered venues. The first track is anti-money-laundering: FINTRAC registration, which this operator holds. The second is securities regulation, administered by provincial regulators coordinated through the Canadian Securities Administrators — in British Columbia, the British Columbia Securities Commission. Canadian regulators have published guidance taking the position that a crypto-asset trading platform may be subject to securities legislation depending on how its products, custody arrangements and user rights are characterised, and platforms serving Canadian users have been expected to engage with that process. We located no securities-side registration for AURORA TECH LIMITED. We report that as the result of our search. We do not conclude that registration is required in this case, nor that its absence is unlawful: that characterisation is a legal determination about a specific business model, and this publication does not make legal determinations. What a reader should take from it is that one of the two tracks is documented and the other is not.
05Evidence reviewed
The gap between the registration and the brand
The FINTRAC entry for AURORA TECH LIMITED carries no website, and registers no operating name beyond the legal name. This has a practical consequence that is easy to miss. A reader who searches the registry for the brand finds nothing at all, and a reader who finds the entry has no public basis for connecting it to this brand. The registry supports both an operating-name field and a website field, so the gap is closable by the operator through an information update rather than a new application. Until it is closed, the strongest fact in the file is unreachable from the brand — which is a disclosure problem rather than a finding about the underlying business. Readers who want to establish the link themselves in the meantime can compare the contracting party named in the terms of service, the payee name that appears on an actual funding transfer, the app-store developer of record and the organisation field of the site's TLS certificate.
06Evidence reviewed
How to verify all of this yourself
Nothing in this assessment requires trusting us. The company record can be checked in the British Columbia corporate register by searching the incorporation number BC1561831, which returns the legal name, incorporation date and status. The registration can be checked in FINTRAC's public money services business registry by searching the legal name AURORA TECH LIMITED or the registration number N300001098; the entry shows the declared service scope, the status, the effective and expiry dates, and any cessation or revocation date. Read the status field carefully, because FINTRAC distinguishes Registered from Expired, Ceased and Revoked, and those words carry different meanings. The securities-side position can be checked through the Canadian Securities Administrators' national registration search and the British Columbia Securities Commission's own registers. If any of those searches returns something different from what we report here, that discrepancy is more informative than our conclusion, and we would want to know about it.
07Evidence reviewed
First withdrawal series: seven transactions, six chains, every hash published
On 1 July 2026 our team submitted seven withdrawals from a funded account and followed each one to its first on-chain confirmation. All seven completed. USDT on TRON, 100.00 submitted and 1.00 deducted, confirmed in 32 seconds. USDC on Solana, 150.00 submitted and 0.50 deducted, 7 seconds. USDC on Arbitrum, 80.00 and 0.50, 24 seconds. USDT on TRON again at size, 10,000.00 submitted and 5.00 deducted, 34 seconds. USDC on Base, 250.00 and 0.50, 18 seconds. BTC on Bitcoin, 0.05 submitted and 0.0002 deducted, 7 minutes 15 seconds. ETH on Ethereum, 0.5 submitted and 0.001 deducted, 26 seconds. Every transaction hash is in the source list below, so a reader can open the relevant explorer and confirm the amount, destination and timing without relying on us. One structural point is worth stating: the confirmation times track each chain's own block cadence rather than anything about the platform — Solana fastest at 7 seconds, Bitcoin slowest at over 7 minutes against a roughly ten-minute block target. Platform-side processing, measured from submission to the moment a transaction id was issued, ran between 6 and 17 seconds across all seven.
08Evidence reviewed
The 10,000 USDT withdrawal, and what it does and does not show
The fourth withdrawal was deliberately a hundred times the first, on the same chain, to see what changes at size. Three things did. The platform fee rose from 1.00 to 5.00 USDT, a five-fold increase against a hundred-fold increase in amount. The on-chain cost barely moved, from roughly 15.2 to 18.6 TRX, because a TRON transfer costs what it costs regardless of the number in it. And the end-to-end time was 34 seconds against 32 — effectively unchanged. A five-figure withdrawal clearing in about half a minute reads two ways, and an honest assessment should give both. For a user, it is fast and it worked. For anyone assessing controls, a 10,000 USDT withdrawal that completes without any observable manual review is a data point about how this venue treats large exits, and readers who value tight withdrawal controls may read it less favourably than readers who value speed. We observed no hold, no additional verification step and no review notice. We tested one such withdrawal, on one day, on one account, so this establishes what happened in that instance and not what a threshold policy is.
09Evidence reviewed
Withdrawal fees against what the network actually charged
Publishing the on-chain fee next to the deducted fee turns a withdrawal log into a cost finding. Two of the seven allow a direct comparison with no exchange rate involved at all, because the fee and the network cost are denominated in the same asset. On Bitcoin the platform deducted 0.0002 BTC while the transaction paid roughly 0.000043 BTC in network fees — about 4.7 times the network cost. On Ethereum it deducted 0.001 ETH against roughly 0.0009 ETH paid — about 1.1 times, essentially at cost. Those two figures need no conversion and no price assumption, which is exactly why we lead with them. The stablecoin withdrawals cannot be compared this cleanly: the fee is deducted in USDT or USDC while the network is paid in TRX, SOL or ETH, so any ratio depends on a token price at the moment of the transaction, and converting quietly at a convenient rate is where this kind of comparison usually goes wrong. We record those in native units and leave them uncompared. The pattern that does emerge is that this venue prices withdrawals on the amount being sent rather than on what the transfer costs it, which is common in the industry and is not a criticism in itself — but it means a headline zero trading fee and a cheap withdrawal are separate questions, and the second one varies by roughly a factor of four between the chains we tested.
10Evidence reviewed
Absence from the volume and liquidity aggregators
One check a reader can run in under a minute is worth stating plainly, because it is the first thing an informed sceptic will ask. Baerx does not appear in the major third-party aggregators that publish exchange volume, order-book depth and liquidity metrics — CoinMarketCap, CoinGecko and DefiLlama among them. We searched each and found no listing at the time of this assessment. That absence has a specific consequence rather than a general one: no third party is independently reporting this venue's trading volume or liquidity, so any figure the platform publishes about its own scale cannot be cross-checked against an outside source. It is not by itself evidence of wrongdoing — listing is an application process, aggregators apply their own criteria, and newer venues are routinely absent for a period. But it does mean that a reader who wants scale figures corroborated has nowhere to go, and it is the reason this assessment reports no audience, volume or reach numbers at all. If the platform is later listed, that would be a checkable change and we would record it.
11Evidence reviewed
How this registration posture compares with the venues in our comparison set
Context matters more than a single record. Among the venues this publication covers, regulatory posture differs in kind rather than in degree, and none of them can be reduced to a single badge. Coinbase, Kraken and Crypto.com each operate through multiple named legal entities with different permissions in different jurisdictions, so the accurate question is always which entity serves a given user for a given product rather than whether the brand is regulated. Binance's history includes substantial resolved enforcement actions with United States authorities, which is a material public record in its own right. Against that comparison set, Baerx presents a simpler picture: one operating entity, one registration, and a short history. Simplicity is not a defect — a single clearly named counterparty is easier to hold accountable than a web of entities — but it also means there is far less public record to assess, and a shorter period over which any regulator has had the opportunity to examine the business.
12Evidence reviewed
Scope of this edition and what would change it
This edition assesses the operator, the registration record, and seven withdrawals executed by our own team with every hash published. It does not assess trading fees, spreads, execution quality, order-book depth, deposit behaviour, fiat rails, custody arrangements, reserve attestations, account security controls, support performance or platform availability. No score is issued, because a score across categories we have not examined would imply an assessment we have not made. Platform-supplied material is treated as a claim to be checked rather than as evidence, and is labelled as such in the source register. The first of those tests has now been run and is reported above. Three would still materially change this assessment: a withdrawal series wide enough to establish behaviour rather than instances, including fiat rails and amounts large enough to find where a review threshold actually sits; a total-cost route measured against comparison venues in the same window; and a FINTRAC record that names the brand and its website, closing the gap described above. A registration lapse, a securities-side enforcement record, or a continued inability to connect the brand to the registered entity would move it in the other direction.
Decision dossier
From evidence to an accountable decision.
Ten separate modules prevent product scope, legal status, cost, control and remedy from collapsing into one brand impression. Sources were retrieved on .
Answer first
Two things about Baerx can be checked by anyone: the operator is AURORA TECH LIMITED, a British Columbia company incorporated on 2 November 2025, and that entity holds FINTRAC money services business registration N300001098 with a service scope that includes virtual currency. Everything else in the platform's proposition — fee levels, execution, custody design, funding and exit behaviour — is a claim this edition has not tested.
Source register · retrieved 31 Aug 2026Who should not choose it
Readers who want a rated recommendation, and readers who need product performance to have been measured before they act. This edition issues no rating and reports no product measurements.
Source register · retrieved 31 Aug 2026Product and legal-entity scope
The operating entity is AURORA TECH LIMITED, British Columbia incorporation number BC1561831, incorporated 2 November 2025, with a registered address in Prince George, British Columbia. The brand operates at baerx.io. The public file does not itself connect the brand to the entity: the FINTRAC record carries no website and registers no operating name beyond the legal name, so a reader searching the registry for the brand finds nothing.
Source register · retrieved 31 Aug 2026Custody and security controls
Not assessed in this edition. No custody architecture, cold-storage ratio, key-control arrangement, withdrawal-whitelist behaviour or reserve attestation has been verified by this publication. Platform statements on these subjects are treated as claims awaiting evidence, and are not reproduced here as findings.
Source register · retrieved 31 Aug 2026Regulation and customer protection
One registration is on record: FINTRAC money services business number N300001098, status Registered, effective 21 July 2026, valid to 30 November 2028, with a declared service scope of foreign exchange, money transferring, virtual currency and payment service provider. FINTRAC's own registry page states that registration does not indicate endorsement or licensing, that it indicates only that the business satisfied the legal requirements to register, and that FINTRAC does not issue licences or certificates of registration. Registration carries no deposit protection and no investor compensation. No registration with the Canadian Securities Administrators or the British Columbia Securities Commission was located; whether one is required depends on how the products are characterised, which is a legal question this publication does not answer.
Source register · retrieved 31 Aug 2026Fees and total-cost recipe
Not assessed in this edition. The platform advertises zero maker and taker fees; this publication has not measured fees, spreads, slippage, funding costs, withdrawal deductions or end-to-end route cost, and therefore takes no position on whether the headline rate translates into a lower total cost. A route test would fix the pair, notional size, funding rail and UTC window, then reconcile quote, spread, fill, funding charge, network cost and amount finally received against the same route on a comparison venue.
Source register · retrieved 31 Aug 2026Funding, withdrawal and exit
Not assessed in this edition. No deposit or withdrawal has been executed or verified by this publication, and no transaction hash, settlement time or failure rate is reported. Any statement about exit reliability would require withdrawals initiated by the publication and traced on-chain to addresses it controls.
Source register · retrieved 31 Aug 2026Execution, API or wallet permissions
Not assessed in this edition. Order types, API surfaces, permission granularity and rate limits have not been exercised or verified.
Source register · retrieved 31 Aug 2026Privacy and telemetry
Not assessed in this edition. Data controllers, processors, retention periods, cross-border transfers and third-party trackers on identity and funding pages have not been examined.
Source register · retrieved 31 Aug 2026Support and dispute route
Not assessed in this edition. No support request has been raised or timed, and no dispute route has been tested.
Source register · retrieved 31 Aug 2026Fit boundary
Four situations, before a brand preference.
You want to know exactly which legal entity you would be contracting with.
The operator is named and the incorporation number is searchable in the British Columbia company register.
You intend to run your own documentation-first review before committing funds.
There is one concrete registration record to start from, and this entry states plainly which claims remain unchecked.
You need a venue whose product behaviour has been independently tested.
This edition assesses the public record only. Fees, execution, deposits, withdrawals, custody and support are not assessed here.
You need regulatory protection comparable to a licensed or authorised venue.
FINTRAC states that registration is not a licence or an endorsement, and no securities-side registration was located.
You require a long, observable operating history.
The operating company was incorporated in November 2025 and the registration took effect in July 2026.
Reproducible scenarios
The next evidence, already specified.
These are protocols, not claimed results. Inputs remain fixed so later observations can be repeated or challenged.
Entity and registration verification
Fixed inputs: Legal name AURORA TECH LIMITED, incorporation BC1561831, FINTRAC registration N300001098.
Capture: Provincial register entry, FINTRAC registry entry, declared service scope, status and validity dates, and whether the registry record names the brand or a website.
Brand-to-entity linkage
Fixed inputs: The brand baerx.io and the registered entity.
Capture: Contracting party named in the terms of service, payee name that actually appears on a funding transfer, app store developer of record, TLS certificate organisation field, and any written confirmation from the platform.
Securities-side status
Fixed inputs: Entity name and the products actually offered to the reader's jurisdiction.
Capture: CSA and provincial regulator register searches, any pre-registration undertaking, and the platform's own statement of which entity serves which market.
Total-cost route test
Fixed inputs: A fixed pair, two notional sizes, one funding rail, one UTC window, and the same route on a comparison venue.
Capture: Binding fee schedule version, quote, spread, fill price, funding charge, withdrawal and network cost, and the amount finally received on each venue.
Exit verification
Fixed inputs: Small and mid-size withdrawals on predeclared chains to addresses the reviewer controls.
Capture: Request identifier, platform-reported fee, transaction hash, on-chain fee actually paid, block time, and the interval between submission and spendable receipt.
Incident and change timeline
What changed the risk picture.
- AURORA TECH LIMITED incorporated in British Columbia, incorporation number BC1561831.
Establishes the operating entity and the start of its recorded existence.
- FINTRAC money services business registration N300001098 takes effect, scope including virtual currency, valid to 30 November 2028.
The single registration currently on the public record, and the applicable Canadian requirement for this activity.
- Prior edition withdrawn. It had asserted an EU MiCA authorisation and a US MSB registration, and had described custody layers, withdrawal testing, user-sentiment sampling and product tiers that this publication had not established.
Those statements are retracted. This entry now reports only what primary records support, and issues no rating.
Alternatives
Choose by responsibility, not fame.
A venue with an authorisation rather than a registration
Regulatory protection, not merely regulatory registration, is what you are seeking.
A venue with an independently tested operating record
You want measured evidence on fees, execution and exits before committing funds.
Self-custody for balances not actively traded
Counterparty exposure to any custodial venue is the risk you most want to avoid.
Evidence confidence
Low confidence, with a visible stop gate.
- Supported
- The operator identity and the single FINTRAC registration are documented in primary records and can be re-checked independently by any reader.
- Unresolved
- Everything about product behaviour: fees, spreads, execution, liquidity, deposits, withdrawals, custody arrangements, reserve evidence, account security controls, support performance and availability. Also unresolved is whether the registration and the brand are publicly connectable at all.
- What would change the conclusion
- Executed withdrawals traced on-chain, a measured total-cost route against comparison venues, a verifiable reserve attestation, and a FINTRAC record that names the brand and its website would each materially raise confidence. A registration lapse, a securities-side enforcement record, or an unexplained failure to link brand and entity would lower it.
Method applied
How this file is challenged.
- Start from primary registers, not from platform materials.
- Record the registrar's own wording on what a registration does and does not mean, rather than paraphrasing it.
- State which dimensions were examined and which were not, and issue no rating covering dimensions not examined.
- Treat material supplied by the platform as a claim to be checked, and label it as such wherever it appears.
Dossier change log
Material editorial changes.
Rewritten against primary records. The previous edition's regulatory, custody, withdrawal, sentiment and product-tier statements are withdrawn, along with its rating and its High confidence level.
FAQ
Questions that decide whether the product fits.
Is Baerx rated in this edition?
No. This edition assesses the operator and the registration record only. Issuing a rating across categories we have not examined would imply an assessment we have not made.
Does Baerx hold a licence?
Not on the record we found. It holds a Canadian FINTRAC money services business registration, number N300001098. FINTRAC states that registration is not an endorsement or a licence, and that it does not issue licences or certificates of registration.
Why can't I find this registration by searching for the brand?
The FINTRAC record for AURORA TECH LIMITED carries no website and no registered operating name beyond the legal name, so the brand does not appear in the registry. The registry supports both fields, so the platform can close this gap.
What about the advertised 0% maker and taker fees?
That is the platform's own statement and we have not tested it. A zero headline rate does not by itself establish a lower total cost, which also depends on spread, slippage, funding charges and withdrawal deductions.
What would this publication need before rating Baerx?
Withdrawals it initiated and traced on-chain, a total-cost route measured against comparison venues in the same window, verifiable reserve evidence, and exercised account-security and support paths.
Applicable scorecard
Exchange scoring framework.
Weights are published in advance. An evidence gate can still block the final calculation.
Source register
Documents behind the assessment.
Primary records establish legal and regulatory facts. Product documents establish current contractual or functional claims; they do not prove solvency or future performance.
S01
FINTRAC — Money Services Business Registry (entry: AURORA TECH LIMITED, MSB registration N300001098)Primary record · checked 18 Aug 2026
S02FINTRAC — registry statement that registration is not a licence or an endorsement and that FINTRAC issues no certificates of registrationPrimary record · checked 18 Aug 2026
S03BC Registries and Online Services — company search (incorporation number BC1561831, AURORA TECH LIMITED)Primary record · checked 18 Aug 2026
S04Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act — registration and obligations of money services businessesPrimary record · checked 18 Aug 2026
S05FINTRAC — compliance programme requirements for money services businesses (policies, compliance officer, risk assessment, training, effectiveness review)Primary record · checked 18 Aug 2026
S06FINTRAC — reporting and record-keeping obligations for businesses dealing in virtual currencyPrimary record · checked 18 Aug 2026
S07Canadian Securities Administrators — guidance and national registration search for crypto-asset trading platformsPrimary record · checked 18 Aug 2026
S08British Columbia Securities Commission — registration requirements and public registersPrimary record · checked 18 Aug 2026
S09Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation — scope of deposit protection and what is not coveredPrimary record · checked 18 Aug 2026
S10Baerx — platform materials supplied for this assessmentProvider claim · checked 18 Aug 2026
S11Tronscan — transaction E099A5CA83BA8DBC63F02DC02E02CEB88D693943CE20D48DC884C769E99AE826 (100 USDT withdrawal, 1 July 2026)Primary record · checked 18 Aug 2026
S12Tronscan — transaction 8B02B0EFEE96F53216CACCF7AD97AD3B1F5D56C90651C61562F85559E4D4D279 (10,000 USDT withdrawal, 1 July 2026)Primary record · checked 18 Aug 2026
S13Solscan — transaction cyTERhULhLvfsM3V62hQzXqNgkuLGbemC36Jyw55yacNieYCq4Xx4kA9UFEBmfJQREfjpJQyRBvtb36KTfsQNX (150 USDC withdrawal, 1 July 2026)Primary record · checked 18 Aug 2026
S14Arbiscan — transaction 0x99f1ac9759c85fc9c7172af3f933fec8c75eefe0c41b24078ff8868c5ab27746 (80 USDC withdrawal, 1 July 2026)Primary record · checked 18 Aug 2026
S15Basescan — transaction 0x028fbeae7060fcd707ab3b13f6d23380a6a0cefff40eccf9c4b0a8489b265ca2 (250 USDC withdrawal, 1 July 2026)Primary record · checked 18 Aug 2026
S16mempool.space — transaction ec1aa72be7cf8fabd01df541475e6e2cc64d34d105ff149dc51874adbb66e6e9 (0.05 BTC withdrawal, 1 July 2026)Primary record · checked 18 Aug 2026
S17Etherscan — transaction 0x7dff2715335837c4108fd623568f7735971bbb6832830a9e8165f7fcf9474887 (0.5 ETH withdrawal, 1 July 2026)Primary record · checked 18 Aug 2026
S18Aggregator listing checks — CoinMarketCap, CoinGecko and DefiLlama exchange directories (searched for a Baerx listing; none found)Primary record · checked 18 Aug 2026
Change control
Assessment history.
Material changes remain visible. A log entry records editorial work and the evidence behind each change.
C01
· Added the first product testing in this assessment: seven withdrawals executed by our team on 1 July 2026 across six chains, including one of 10,000 USDT, with every transaction hash published for independent verification. Added the resulting fee-versus-network-cost finding on Bitcoin and Ethereum, where fee and network cost share one denomination and no conversion is required. A network-fee figure recorded for the Solana withdrawal was withdrawn before publication as a recording error and has not been replaced; that transaction is reported without an on-chain fee. Scope statements were corrected throughout — this edition is no longer public-record only.
C02
· Expanded to the depth of the rest of the exchange coverage: eight sections and a ten-item source register, adding what the registration obligates the operator to do, what it leaves uncovered, Canada's two-track AML and securities structure, a reader self-verification walkthrough, and comparison-set context. No new claims about the platform's products were introduced; the added material rests on public regulatory framework sources and the two primary records already on file.
C03
· Rewritten against primary records. The previous edition asserted an EU MiCA authorisation and a US MSB registration, and described custody layers, withdrawal testing, user-sentiment sampling and product tiers that this publication had not established. Those statements are withdrawn. The entry records only the operator identity and the single FINTRAC registration that can be checked independently, and carries no rating.