Ordinarily this shouldn't be a bad idea, IMO it should be one of the most trusted because for a wallet to allow a third party in their platform it means they knew or have knowledge of the team or the management of the so called N. Exchange. If he has been using the Exodus wallet without complaints all these years, he has developed some level of trust with the wallet. So he believed that what platform that's onboard within the Exodus wallet should be reputable as well. So I don't blame the Op for his decision to use the N. Exchange. Just like as @Potato chips has rightly pointed out, the attention of Exodus wallet management team has to be drawn into this case. Possibly with their help this can be resolved. Because this N. Exchange is trying to bring a bad name to their brand.
We know that platforms, especially decentralized ones, barely take responsibility of the third-party services even if they are their partners and have them integrated in their wallets, this is the reason why they want us before we make our decisions and I'm pretty sure they have it written somewhere in their terms and conditions as well but we never read them. Remember, it's our funds, so it's our responsibility to make sure we protect them at all costs. This is the reason why we should only use services that we know are trusted because things happen, and if matters aren't solved, it's only us who will be at a loss.
So, it's not about Exodus gaining the trust of its customers and then allowing them to get scammed by a third-party exchange; it's about us using a third-party service without doing any research about them or even trying to see if they have a good track record or not, especially if the sum we are going to use is big enough, I don't see any reason why a person wouldn't try finding a better platform only by looking at how convenient it could be to use an in-wallet exchange when it's not owned or operated by the wallet company itself.