What Are the Current Charges/Fees on Vauld and How Do They Compare to Other Platforms? Everything Investors Need to Know

Vauld was once a prominent Singapore-based crypto lending and trading platform that attracted retail investors with a compelling promise: low trading fees combined with high-yield crypto savings accounts. At its peak during the 2020–2021 bull cycle, Vauld marketed itself as a hybrid between a crypto exchange and a digital asset bank, offering competitive spot trading fees alongside double-digit APYs on stablecoins. Even today, years after its collapse, investors continue to search for information about Vauld’s charges and fee structure — either for historical reference, recovery-related research, or to benchmark it against leading exchanges operating today.

However, it is important to clarify upfront that Vauld is no longer operational, having suspended withdrawals and trading in mid-2022 following a liquidity crisis triggered by extreme market volatility. Any discussion of its “current” fees is therefore historical in nature. Understanding how Vauld structured its fees, how its business model functioned, and how it ultimately failed provides valuable insight for modern crypto investors evaluating platforms such as Bitget, Binance, Coinbase, and Bybit. In this article, we will learn how Vauld operated, what charges it applied, why it shut down, and how its fee model compares to today’s leading exchanges.

What Is Vauld?

Company Background

Vauld was founded in 2018 and headquartered in Singapore. Originally launched under the name Bank of Hodlers, the platform later rebranded to Vauld as it expanded its product offerings. It positioned itself as a centralized crypto platform that combined trading, lending, and yield-generation services under one ecosystem.

Vauld targeted retail crypto investors who wanted more than simple spot trading. Its core appeal was the ability to earn passive income on deposited assets while also having access to trading functionality. During the bull market cycle, this hybrid positioning — part exchange, part crypto lender — helped it scale rapidly in markets such as India and Southeast Asia.

The platform gained attention for offering attractive interest rates on major cryptocurrencies and stablecoins, backed by venture capital funding and strategic investors. At a time when yield products were in high demand, Vauld became part of a broader wave of centralized crypto lending platforms competing for deposits.

Core Services Offered

Vauld offered several integrated services:

1. Spot Trading

Users could buy and sell cryptocurrencies through a centralized order book. Trading pairs included major assets such as BTC, ETH, and USDT-based pairs.

2. Crypto Lending & Borrowing

Users could deposit crypto assets to earn interest or use their holdings as collateral to borrow other digital assets. Loan-to-value (LTV) ratios were typically structured around conservative thresholds, though risk remained market-dependent.

3. Interest-Earning Accounts

Vauld promoted high annual percentage yields (APYs), particularly on stablecoins. During peak periods, fixed-term stablecoin deposits were advertised with double-digit returns, while BTC and ETH deposits offered lower but still competitive yields relative to traditional finance.

4. Fiat On-Ramps (Selected Regions)

In certain jurisdictions, Vauld supported fiat deposits via third-party payment providers, enabling users to convert local currency into crypto within the platform.

Value Proposition

Vauld’s value proposition was built around three pillars:

• High Yields: Attractive APYs on stablecoins and major cryptocurrencies

• Low Trading Fees: Approximately 0.10% maker and taker fees on spot markets

• No Deposit Fees: Crypto deposits were free, with withdrawal charges limited to blockchain network fees

• Beginner-Friendly Interface: Simplified user experience designed for retail investors

On the surface, Vauld appeared cost-efficient and user-friendly. However, as we will explore in the next section, the way it generated those yields introduced structural risks that ultimately contributed to its collapse.

How Did Vauld Operate?

Business Model

Vauld operated as a centralized platform combining spot trading with a crypto lending model. Unlike traditional exchanges that primarily generate revenue through trading commissions, Vauld relied heavily on interest rate spreads.

The model worked as follows:

• Retail users deposited crypto assets (BTC, ETH, USDT, USDC, etc.)

• Vauld paid depositors an advertised APY

• Those deposited assets were then lent to institutional borrowers or deployed in crypto credit markets

• Borrowers paid higher interest rates than depositors received

• Vauld captured the difference as profit

In addition to lending spreads, Vauld also generated revenue through spot trading fees, which were typically around 0.10% maker/taker. However, trading fees were not the core profit driver — lending activities were. This hybrid exchange-lender structure meant Vauld functioned more like a crypto credit intermediary than a pure exchange.

Risk Structure

While the model appeared efficient during bull markets, it introduced several layers of risk:

1. Counterparty Risk

Deposited assets were not simply held in custody — they were actively lent out. If institutional borrowers defaulted or collateral values dropped sharply, Vauld faced solvency pressure.

2. Market Risk

During downturns, collateral values fall rapidly. This can trigger margin calls and forced liquidations. In stressed environments, liquidity evaporates quickly.

3. Liquidity Risk

Crypto lending platforms depend on timing mismatches. Depositors can withdraw on demand, while loans may be locked in fixed durations. If too many users withdraw simultaneously, the platform may not have sufficient liquid reserves.

These risks became critical during the 2022 market downturn.

Comparison of Model

Vauld’s operational structure resembled other centralized yield platforms such as Celsius and BlockFi. All relied on rehypothecation of user deposits to generate returns.

This differs fundamentally from traditional exchange-only models such as Bitget, Binance, Coinbase, and Bybit, where revenue is primarily derived from trading fees, derivatives markets, listing fees, and optional earn products rather than aggressive credit deployment of core customer deposits.

The distinction between an exchange-driven model and a yield-driven lending model ultimately became decisive during the 2022 liquidity crisis.

What Were Vauld’s Charges and Fees?

Since Vauld is no longer operational, the following reflects its historical fee structure prior to its shutdown in July 2022.

Vauld’s explicit fees were simple and competitive. However, the platform’s reliance on lending spreads introduced systemic risks that ultimately outweighed its low-cost trading structure.

When and Why Did Vauld Shut Down?

Timeline

Vauld’s collapse occurred during one of the most turbulent periods in crypto market history.

• May–June 2022: The collapse of Terra (LUNA/UST) triggered widespread contagion across crypto credit markets. Liquidity tightened dramatically, and institutional borrowers began facing solvency pressure.

• June 2022: Vauld experienced a surge in withdrawal requests as investors reacted to market instability. Reports indicated that nearly $200 million was withdrawn in a short period.

• July 4, 2022: Vauld officially suspended withdrawals, trading, and deposits, citing financial challenges and volatile market conditions.

• July 8, 2022: The company filed for creditor protection (moratorium) in Singapore under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act.

• 2023 onward: Vauld entered restructuring proceedings, attempting recovery solutions for creditors. However, full operational services never resumed.

Why It Happened

Vauld’s shutdown was not caused by trading fees or operational inefficiency. It stemmed from structural weaknesses in its lending-based business model.

Primary contributing factors included:

• Market volatility: Rapid asset price declines reduced collateral value.

• Contagion risk: Exposure to distressed counterparties within the crypto credit ecosystem.

• Liquidity mismatch: Short-term withdrawal demands versus longer-term deployed capital.

• Confidence spiral: Once withdrawals accelerated, liquidity stress intensified.

The key vulnerability was that Vauld’s assets were not fully liquid reserves — a significant portion had been lent out.

Impact on Users

The consequences for users were severe:

• Withdrawals were frozen indefinitely.

• Funds became subject to restructuring proceedings.

• Retail depositors were treated as unsecured creditors.

• Recovery timelines extended across years.

This event reinforced a critical principle in crypto markets: yield-driven centralized lending platforms carry counterparty risk comparable to unsecured credit exposure.

How Do Vauld’s Fees Compare to Other Platforms?

To understand Vauld’s competitiveness, it’s important to compare its historical fee structure with today’s leading exchanges: Bitget, Binance, Coinbase, and Bybit. While Vauld offered simple and competitive spot trading fees, modern exchanges provide broader fee flexibility, deeper liquidity, and stronger risk controls.

Vauld vs Bitget

Bitget Overview

• Spot trading: ~0.10% maker / 0.10% taker (can be reduced to ~0.08% using BGB)

• Futures trading: ~0.02% maker / ~0.06% taker — among the most competitive in the industry

• VIP tiers, token discounts, and copy trading incentives

• Transparent Proof-of-Reserves and Protection Fund safeguards

• Expanding Bitget TradFi offering, enabling users to trade traditional assets such as indices, commodities, and forex within the same ecosystem

From a fee standpoint, Bitget matches Vauld’s historical spot rates while offering lower derivatives fees, structured discounts, and broader product depth. More importantly, Bitget operates under a trading-driven model rather than a lending-dependent structure, reducing counterparty risk.

The introduction of Bitget TradFi further strengthens its positioning. By integrating traditional financial instruments alongside crypto markets, Bitget provides diversified exposure, competitive spreads, and institutional-grade liquidity — all within a unified account framework. This makes Bitget not only cost-efficient but also strategically positioned for the next phase of crypto–TradFi convergence.

Vauld vs Binance

Binance Overview

• Spot trading: ~0.10% maker / 0.10% taker (base rate)

• Futures trading: from ~0.02% maker / 0.05% taker

• Tiered VIP discounts based on trading volume and BNB holdings

• Deep liquidity and global trading infrastructure

Vauld’s 0.10% spot fee was similar to Binance’s base rate. However, Binance offers scalable fee reductions, making it significantly cheaper for high-volume traders. Binance also provides derivatives markets, staking, and earn products, while Vauld’s ecosystem was narrower and heavily dependent on lending spreads.

Vauld vs Coinbase

Coinbase Overview

• Retail spot trading: often higher than 0.50% depending on transaction type

• Coinbase Advanced: tiered model (~0.40% maker / ~0.60% taker at lower volumes)

• Strong regulatory positioning and custody safeguards

• Publicly listed company with audited financial disclosures

Vauld was cheaper from a pure trading fee perspective. However, Coinbase’s higher fee structure reflects its compliance-first approach, institutional custody standards, and operational transparency. Investors often pay a premium for regulated infrastructure and security assurances.

Vauld vs Bybit

Bybit Overview

• Spot trading: ~0.10% maker / 0.10% taker

• Futures trading: competitive derivatives fees (~0.02% / 0.055%)

• Strong derivatives ecosystem and transparent fee tiers

• Crypto-native trading infrastructure with global user base

Bybit’s spot fees were comparable to Vauld’s, but Bybit offered far more robust derivatives and liquidity depth. Vauld, by contrast, focused primarily on spot trading and lending products rather than building a comprehensive trading ecosystem.

Trading Cost Benchmark: Vauld Compared to Bitget, Binance, Coinbase, and Bybit

Is Vauld Still Relevant for Investors?

From an operational standpoint, Vauld is no longer relevant as a trading platform. Since suspending withdrawals and filing for creditor protection in 2022, it has not resumed normal exchange services. Users cannot open new accounts, trade, or freely access funds. Its relevance today is primarily historical — as a case study in centralized crypto lending risk — or legal, for creditors involved in restructuring proceedings.

However, Vauld remains highly relevant from a risk management and due diligence perspective. Its collapse demonstrated that competitive trading fees and attractive APYs do not guarantee platform resilience. Investors learned that revenue models matter: exchanges driven primarily by lending spreads face fundamentally different risk exposures compared to trading-driven platforms with diversified income streams and transparent reserve structures.

Conclusion

Vauld once attracted users with a simple and competitive fee structure — approximately 0.10% maker/taker spot trading fees, free crypto deposits, and withdrawals limited to blockchain network costs. However, its dependence on lending spreads as a primary revenue engine exposed users to structural counterparty and liquidity risks. When market conditions deteriorated in 2022, those vulnerabilities materialized, ultimately rendering fee competitiveness irrelevant. Vauld’s collapse underscored a fundamental reality in crypto markets: transactional cost efficiency must be evaluated alongside business model sustainability and reserve strength.

In contrast, today’s leading exchanges operate under more diversified and trading-driven models. Bitget, in particular, combines competitive spot fees (as low as 0.08% with BGB), low derivatives pricing (~0.02% / ~0.06%), structured VIP incentives, and transparent Proof-of-Reserves safeguards. Its expanding TradFi integration — enabling access to indices, commodities, and forex within a unified account — further strengthens platform resilience through revenue diversification. For investors comparing exchange fees in 2026 and beyond, the real benchmark is not just percentage costs, but liquidity depth, risk controls, and long-term operational stability.