Atomic swaps vs exchanges vs P2P with an arbitrator
Note: MoneroP2P charges a fee on every completed swap (see FAQ ). It runs with real money on Arbitrum One, with a maximum of 100 USDT per swap.
Short answer: with a centralized exchange you trust a company with your funds and data; with P2P with an arbitrator you trust an escrow and whoever settles disputes; with an atomic swap you trust nobody, but you (or your app) must act within the deadlines. Each option trades convenience for control.
Comparison
| Atomic swap | Centralized exchange | P2P with arbitrator | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody of funds | Nobody (contract + split keys) | The exchange | Platform escrow |
| Account and verification | No | Usually yes | Usually yes |
| Personal data | Not requested | Requested | Varies |
| If the counterparty fails | Refund through the contract | The exchange handles it | The arbitrator decides |
| Main risk | Deadlines and software | Bankruptcy, hacks or account freezes | Disputes and payment fraud |
| Speed | Tens of minutes (Monero confirmations) | Minutes (after depositing) | Variable |
| XMR availability | Depends on makers | Some exchanges delisted it | Depends on sellers |
When each one fits
- Atomic swap: you want to avoid depending on third parties and can follow the process (or keep your recovery file).
- Exchange: you prioritize convenience and accept custody and identity checks.
- P2P with arbitrator: you want to pay with local methods and accept that a third party decides disputes.
What the atomic swap does not solve
- It gives no guaranteed prices: each maker sets them.
- It does not replace your legal or tax obligations.
- If you do not act in time when something fails, you can lose funds.