Nanu Exchange Review: Fees, Liquidity, and Why It Closed
Dec, 8 2024
Nanu Exchange Fee Comparison Calculator
Nanu Exchange
Maker Fee: 0.15% | Taker Fee: 0.25%
BTC Withdrawal: 0.0008 BTC
Unregulated (Brazil)
Binance
Maker Fee: 0.10% | Taker Fee: 0.10%
BTC Withdrawal: 0.0004 BTC
Registered in Cayman, global compliance
Trading Fee
$0.00
Withdrawal Fee
0.0000 BTC
Total Cost
$0.00
Savings vs Binance
$0.00
When looking at the history of Brazil's crypto scene, Nanu Exchange was a centralized cryptocurrency exchange launched in 2017 and registered in Brazil. It promised local fiat integration and a modest list of popular coins, but by November 2020 the platform vanished, leaving traders with unanswered questions. This review pulls together fee data, trading volume, user sentiment, and the likely reasons behind the abrupt shutdown, so you can decide whether the legacy of Nanu Exchange offers any lessons for today’s traders.
TL;DR
- Operated 2017‑2020, focused on Brazilian market.
- Maker‑taker fees: 0.15% / 0.25% - on par with industry averages.
- Daily volume peaked at about 0.98BTC, far below major exchanges.
- Liquidity was thin, causing price slippage on larger orders.
- Unregulated, low trust scores, and a mysterious shutdown in Nov2020.
1. Platform Overview and Timeline
From its debut, Nanu Exchange targeted Brazilian users by allowing direct Brazilian cryptocurrency market deposits and withdrawals in the local real. The exchange listed six major digital assets: Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), Litecoin (LTC), Ripple (XRP), Tron (TRX) and Dogecoin (DOGE). Despite the concise portfolio, the platform advertised 24‑hour trading volumes under 1BTC, which translates to roughly $30,000 USD at 2025 price levels - a drop‑in compared to the multi‑thousand‑BTC volumes of global rivals.
2. Trading Pairs, Volume, and Market Share
According to data collected by Cryptowisser, BTC accounted for 47% of the exchange’s activity, XRP 26%, ETH 19% and the remaining altcoins split the rest. The modest volume meant price discovery was often distorted; a single large buy could push the price several percent higher, a risk rarely seen on high‑liquidity platforms.
3. Fee Structure Compared to the Industry
Nanu Exchange adopted a maker‑taker model identical to many mid‑size venues. Makers paid 0.15% per trade, takers 0.25%. Bitcoin withdrawals attracted a flat fee of 0.0008BTC, matching the global average reported by Cryptowisser (0.000812BTC). Below is a quick fee snapshot against three leading exchanges:
| Exchange | Maker Fee | Taker Fee | BTC Withdrawal | Regulation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nanu Exchange | 0.15% | 0.25% | 0.0008BTC | Unregulated (Brazil) |
| Binance | 0.10% | 0.10% | 0.0004BTC | Registered in Cayman, global compliance |
| Coinbase | 0.00% | 0.50% | 0.0005BTC | US‑registered, licensed |
| Kraken | 0.16% | 0.26% | 0.0005BTC | US‑based, regulated |
While Nanu’s rates were competitive on paper, the higher withdrawal fee and lack of fee discounts for high‑volume traders made it less attractive for active users.
4. Liquidity, User Experience, and Support
Liquidity proved to be the Achilles’ heel. Community posts on Revain repeatedly mentioned “low liquidity” and “price slippage”. One July2021 review described the landing page showing the word “Taboo”, suggesting technical neglect or a server hijack. Users also complained about a clunky interface, limited educational resources, and unresponsive customer support. For beginners, basic buy‑sell functions were reachable, but navigating price charts or setting stop‑loss orders required a steep learning curve under a laggy UI.
5. Security, Regulation, and Trust Scores
Unlike regulated giants, Nanu operated without a clear licensing framework. The platform’s trust ranking from BeInCrypto fluctuated between 3 (out of 10) and a positional rank of 764, signaling growing doubts about safety. CoinMarketCap listed the exchange as an “Untracked Listing”, meaning its volume data was not independently verified. The lack of robust KYC/AML policies (beyond basic Brazilian ID checks) added another layer of risk.
6. How and Why the Exchange Shut Down
In November2020 the site went offline without official notice. No regulatory sanction, bankruptcy filing, or formal announcement ever surfaced. Users who still held assets reported being unable to withdraw, effectively locking their funds. Several theories circulate:
- Regulatory pressure: Brazil tightened crypto oversight in 2020; an unregistered exchange could have faced a cease‑and‑desist order.
- Liquidity crisis: Thin order books made it impossible to meet withdrawal spikes.
- Technical failure: The “Taboo” page hints at a possible server compromise.
Without a public statement, the exact trigger remains speculative, but the convergence of low trust scores, dwindling volume, and tightening regulations paints a plausible picture.
7. Where Former Nanu Users Turned
After the shutdown, most traders migrated to higher‑liquidity Brazilian platforms such as Mercado Bitcoin or international services that accept Brazilian reais, like Binance’s P2P marketplace. These alternatives offer clearer regulatory status, deeper order books, and stronger customer support. For users still scouting a niche exchange, the lesson is to prioritize transparency, regulatory compliance, and proven liquidity.
8. Quick Checklist Before Choosing an Exchange
- Is the exchange regulated in your jurisdiction?
- What is the daily trading volume for the assets you need?
- Do maker‑taker fees align with your expected trade frequency?
- How easy is it to withdraw your crypto or fiat?
- What is the reputation score from independent sites (BeInCrypto, Cryptowisser, etc.)?
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Nanu Exchange still operating?
No. The platform stopped accepting traffic in November2020 and the website is no longer reachable.
What were the main reasons for its shutdown?
While no official cause was released, analysts point to regulatory pressure, chronic low liquidity, and possible technical failures as the most likely contributors.
How did Nanu Exchange’s fees compare to Binance?
Nanu charged 0.15% maker and 0.25% taker fees, whereas Binance offers 0.10% for both maker and taker on most pairs, making Binance slightly cheaper.
Was Nanu Exchange regulated?
No. The exchange operated without a clear regulatory license, which contributed to its low trust rating.
Which exchange should former Nanu users consider?
Most users migrated to larger, regulated platforms like Binance, Coinbase, or local Brazilian exchanges such as Mercado Bitcoin and Foxbit, which provide better liquidity and compliance.
april harper
December 8, 2024 AT 04:53Trust is the silent ledger that outlasts any token, and when it evaporates, even the brightest coin flickers. Nanu’s brief blaze reminds us that transparency is the only real safeguard.
Kate Nicholls
December 17, 2024 AT 11:06The fee spread looked decent on paper, but without depth the cost of slippage dwarfs any discount. A marketplace that can’t fill a modest order isn’t worth the 0.15% maker fee.
VICKIE MALBRUE
December 26, 2024 AT 17:19Good lessons learned and moving forward with better choices.
Kate Roberge
January 4, 2025 AT 23:33Everyone’s quick to point fingers at regulators, yet the real issue was a fragile order book that could crumble under a single whale. Liquidity is the lifeblood, not just a line in a spreadsheet. Even the most balanced guru can’t fix a platform that never built that foundation. So, nah, it’s not a grand conspiracy, just bad basics.
Jason Brittin
January 14, 2025 AT 05:46Wow, vanished like my last‑minute pizza order 😅. Guess they thought “no regulation” was a cool party trick. Good thing Binance’s still around to pick up the slack 🚀.
Ben Dwyer
January 23, 2025 AT 11:59Take this as a reminder to spread your assets across a few reputable exchanges. Diversification reduces the shock if one platform disappears. Keep an eye on withdrawal limits and support response times.
Waynne Kilian
February 1, 2025 AT 18:13i think the whole situtation shows how important open communiktion is in crypto. when a platform goes dark, users feel betrayed and thats a big oops. a bit of transparency could have saved some reputaion. lol, guess lessons were learned the hard way.
Rajini N
February 11, 2025 AT 00:26Regulatory compliance isn’t just a bureaucratic hurdle; it’s a safety net that protects users from sudden shutdowns. When an exchange operates without a clear license, it often lacks the capital reserves required to honor large withdrawals. In Brazil’s tightening landscape of 2020, many smaller platforms faced increased scrutiny, and those without proper documentation were quickly forced offline. Moreover, regulated entities are subject to regular audits, which help ensure that the order books are sufficiently funded and that anti‑money‑laundering controls are in place. This transparency builds confidence among traders, which in turn attracts more volume and liquidity. Higher volume can then lower spread costs, creating a virtuous cycle. Conversely, an unregulated exchange like Nanu struggled to attract sustained liquidity because users were wary of the unknowns. The combination of thin order books and a lack of oversight made it vulnerable to a liquidity crunch. When users attempted to withdraw en masse, the platform simply didn’t have enough reserves to cover the outflow. That scenario is a textbook example of why regulatory frameworks matter: they enforce standards for capital adequacy and risk management. For anyone looking to protect their assets, checking the exchange’s registration status should be an early step in due diligence.
Oreoluwa Towoju
February 20, 2025 AT 06:39Moving to bigger, regulated platforms like Binance or Mercado Bitcoin is the sensible path.
Amie Wilensky
March 1, 2025 AT 12:53Ah, the tale of Nanu, a cautionary saga that reeks of hubris and negligence; let us unpack its layers, shall we?; First, the fee structure, while apparently competitive, masked a deeper deficiency-an insufficient withdrawal policy that rendered the platform untenable for serious traders.; Second, the glaring omission of any substantive regulatory oversight meant that the exchange operated in a legal vacuum, a void that invited both malpractice and panic. ; Third, liquidity-or rather, the utter lack thereof-proved to be the Achilles’ heel, turning every modest trade into a battlefield of slippage. ; Adding insult to injury, the user interface trembled under basic operations, a symptom of under‑investment in technology. ; As the months progressed, whispers grew into alarm bells, yet the management remained stubbornly silent. ; When the final curtain fell in November 2020, users were left clutching phantom balances and broken trust. ; One might argue that regulatory pressure was the decisive blow, but I contend that the root cause was an unsustainable business model compounded by poor governance. ; The lesson? A truly reliable exchange must marry competitive fees with deep liquidity, robust security, and transparent compliance. ; Anything less is a house of cards awaiting the inevitable gust of market scrutiny. ; Therefore, let future entrants heed this narrative: build on solid foundations before courting the crowds, lest they share Nanu’s ignominious fate.