does not even come close to rising to the level that insolvency should be considered
It is a crypto exchange. Operating in an opaque manner. Their potential for insolvency should _always_ be considered.
Crypto exchanges inherently have a huge incentive to operate in a partial reserve manner. Such would be dishonest, but very, very, very^very, profitable. One must always be wary of malfeasance.
I employ exchanges, too. With a small fraction of my overall holdings. As a calculated risk. But always aware of the potential for the operators to cut & run.
So why read malevolence into what could more easily described as incompetence? especially if you have little to no evidence to back up your less likely scenarios?
Questioning their solvency is rational whether one assumed malfeasance _or_ incompetence. The
evidence that they had a major loss directly backs this suspicion for this particular exchange.
Whether they are thieves or bumbling idiots matters little - either is a disqualifier for entrusting them with _my_ funds.