1v1 Institutional Counterparty Comparison
Super PUMA vs whitebit: Regulation, 6D Ratings & Safety Audit
Deterministic head-to-head benchmarking of Super PUMA (Super PUMA) and whitebit (whitebit) across primary regulatory filings, statutory Tier-1 authorisations, 6-Dimension compliance scores, execution software, and warning exposure.
Coverage: Decentralised trading protocols, NFT marketplaces and Web3 execution venues
whitebit outranks Super PUMA by +2.0 pts in composite 6D scoring (5.0 vs 3.0)
On supervisory breadth, Super PUMA holds 0 active regulated licence(s) (0 Tier-1) out of 0 total filings and 0 warning count(s), whereas whitebit holds 5 active regulated licence(s) (0 Tier-1) out of 5 total filings and 0 warning count(s). Allocators should inspect the individual licence numbers and contracting legal entities below before onboarding.
6-Dimension Quantitative Scorecard Comparison
Head-to-head breakdown across all 6 proprietary evaluation dimensions (0.0–10.0 scale).
| Evaluation Dimension | Methodology Weight | Super PUMA | whitebit | Score Delta | Dimension Leader |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Composite 6D Score | 100% Composite | 3.0 | 5.0 | +2.0 | whitebit |
| Regulatory & Licensing Integrity (riskScore) | 30% Weight | 3.0 | 5.0 | +2.0 | whitebit |
| Execution & Software Infrastructure (industryScore) | 20% Weight | 2.0 | 3.0 | +1.0 | whitebit |
| User Reputation & Complaint Telemetry (userScore) | 20% Weight | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
| Institutional Brand Longevity (brandScore) | 15% Weight | 3.0 | 5.0 | +2.0 | whitebit |
| Global Market Influence & Footprint (influenceScore) | 15% Weight | 3.0 | 5.0 | +2.0 | whitebit |
Visual Architecture Benchmark: Super PUMA vs whitebit
Vector comparison exhibit generated from live supervisory snapshot metrics.
Regulatory Standing, Entity & Platform Comparison
Structural comparison of supervisory authorisations, domicile, execution terminals, and risk telemetry.
| Audit Attribute | Super PUMA | whitebit |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Legal Name | Super PUMA | whitebit |
| Source Risk Classification | Risk level not supplied | Risk level not supplied |
| Active Regulated / Total Filings | 0 regulated / 0 total (0 Tier-1) | 5 regulated / 5 total (0 Tier-1) |
| Recorded Certificate Numbers | None on file | Estonian Financial Intelligence Unit (RAB / MTR Register): #FVT000351Financial Crime Investigation Service of Lithuania (FNTT / FCIS): Not suppliedCNB: Not suppliedPolish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF): Not suppliedBulgarian National Bank (BNB): Not supplied |
| Registered Domicile / Address | International | J. Basanavičiaus g. 26, Vilnius, LT-03224, Lithuania |
| Offered Asset Classes & Services | NFT | Crypto spot trading, Derivatives contracts, Investment products |
| Execution Software & Terminals | Proprietary / Web Platform | Proprietary / Web Platform |
| Supported Client Languages | English | Other languages, English |
| Warning / Exposure Count | 0 recorded warning(s) | 0 recorded warning(s) |
| Specialized Sub-Page Audits |
Related 1v1 Institutional Comparisons
Compare Super PUMA and whitebit against other regulated peers in our decentralised trading protocols, nft marketplaces and web3 execution venues slice.
Frequently Asked Questions: Super PUMA vs whitebit
Deterministic counterparty comparison answers derived from supervisory records.
Which institution has stronger regulatory oversight: Super PUMA or whitebit?
whitebit holds more active regulated filings (5 vs 0). Specifically, Super PUMA maintains 0 total recorded filing(s) (none on file) with 0 warning flag(s), whereas whitebit maintains 5 recorded filing(s) (Estonian Financial Intelligence Unit (RAB / MTR Register), Financial Crime Investigation Service of Lithuania (FNTT / FCIS), CNB, Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF)) with 0 warning flag(s). Always confirm the specific subsidiary onboarding your account on the official regulator register.
How do the 6D quantitative compliance scores compare between Super PUMA and whitebit?
In NFTVenue Ledger's 6-Dimension scoring matrix (0.0–10.0 scale), Super PUMA records an Overall Score of 3.0 (Risk & Licensing: 3.0, Brand: 3.0, Market Influence: 3.0, User Reputation: 0.0, Execution & Software: 2.0), compared with whitebit at 5.0 Overall (Risk & Licensing: 5.0, Brand: 5.0, Market Influence: 5.0, User Reputation: 0.0, Execution & Software: 3.0).
How do Super PUMA and whitebit differ in trading platforms and asset classes?
Super PUMA lists NFT with execution software [proprietary/web execution], while whitebit lists Crypto spot trading, Derivatives contracts, Investment products with execution software [proprietary/web execution]. Counterparties should verify FIX/API connectivity, server routing topology, and negative balance protection per entity.
Which counterparty carries lower regulatory warning and complaint exposure: Super PUMA or whitebit?
Super PUMA carries a "Risk level not supplied" classification with 0 warning/exposure count(s) and 0 user comment(s), while whitebit carries a "Risk level not supplied" classification with 0 warning/exposure count(s) and 0 user comment(s).
Structured against supervisory register snapshots and public regulatory filings. Verify your contracting legal entity and current authorisation status directly on the issuing regulator’s official register before transacting.