Platform-specific clauses and how courts read them
Read the PDF edition (2 pages)
| Clause | Typical wording | Risk for customer | Singapore treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership of deposits | "All digital assets deposited are the property of the platform" | Unsecured creditor on insolvency | Enforceable; defeats trust (Chapter II) |
| Irreversibility | "Executed orders are final and cannot be reversed" | Protects customer against platform reversal | Enforced against platform in Quoine |
| Erroneous trades | "Trades more than 20 % from reference may be cancelled within 30 minutes" | Profits from malfunction reversed | Enforceable if incorporated |
| Suspension and freezing | "We may suspend your account at our sole discretion" | Loss of access during volatility | Subject to UCTA s 3(2)(b) reasonableness |
| Socialised losses or clawback | "Losses from liquidations may be allocated across profitable positions" | Profits reduced by others' defaults | Enforceable between sophisticated traders; doubtful for retail |
| Staking and lending authority | "We may stake or lend customer assets and retain rewards" | Loss on slashing or counterparty default | Negates trust unless rewards held for customer |
| Limitation of liability | "Liability capped at fees paid in the preceding twelve months" | No recovery for lost assets | Reasonableness test; weak against retail |
| Variation | "Continued use after notice constitutes acceptance" | Terms change after deposit | Enforceable if change fairly notified |
| Governing law and forum | Offshore law, offshore arbitration | Cost of enforcing rights | Stay of Singapore proceedings under IAA s 6 if arbitration agreement valid |
The last row deserves comment. Where the platform's terms contain an arbitration clause, a Singapore court must stay proceedings brought in breach of it under s 6 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 unless the agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.1 Singapore courts apply this strictly. A retail customer with a S$ 50,000 claim who faces an arbitration seated in the Cayman Islands under rules with a US$ 20,000 filing fee has in practice no remedy. The customer's answer is to argue that the clause is unreasonable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act or that the dispute concerns a proprietary claim to trust assets which falls outside the clause's scope. Neither argument has yet been tested in a reported Singapore crypto case.
Notes
- International Arbitration Act 1994, s 6. ↩
For general information only. This article does not constitute legal or tax advice, does not replace advice on an individual case and creates no lawyer-client relationship. It reflects the legal position as of October 2026.