At the moment we don't vet the exchanges at all. This is generally fine, but I would favor an amendment to the policy, specifying that we will not link to exchanges which are unambiguously insecure. The most obvious example of an unambiguously insecure exchange is one which does not operate via HTTPS. This criterion would be a good start by itself, although we could add more criteria later if we desire. Obviously, we cannot vouch for the overall security practices of exchanges, but some very basic due diligence would be both feasible and more ethical IMO.
At the moment we don't vet the exchanges at all. This is generally fine, but I would favor an amendment to the policy, specifying that we will not link to exchanges which are unambiguously insecure. The most obvious example of an unambiguously insecure exchange is one which does not operate via HTTPS. This criterion would be a good start by itself, although we could add more criteria later if we desire. Obviously, we cannot vouch for the overall security practices of exchanges, but some very basic due diligence would be both feasible and more ethical IMO.
Thoughts?