Ranked #35 of 46 · checked 2026-08-31
Blockonomics review
Blockonomics scores 5.6 of 10 on this index and ranks #35 of 46. Processing starts at a published 1%. It publishes no asset count. Verification is not disclosed. It publishes 32% of the fields tracked here.
Non custodial by design, at a flat 1%, with the first ten payments free.
- Score
- 5.6/10
- Processing from
- 1%
- Assets listed
- —
- Merchant verification
- Not disclosed
- Custody
- Non custodial
- Discloses
- 32%
Blockonomics at a glance
Provider site| Processing from | 1% |
|---|---|
| Conversion | |
| Payouts | |
| Assets listed | |
| Networks | |
| Merchant verification | Not disclosed |
| Custody | Non custodial, settlement reaches a merchant wallet |
| Jurisdiction | Not stated on the provider's public pages |
| Operating since | |
| Integrations |
A dash means the provider does not publish the figure, not that we did not look. Fee figures come from the provider's own pricing page.
What can Blockonomics do?
Verticals the provider names publicly: ecommerce, nonprofit.
How does Blockonomics score?
Weights| Criterion | Weight | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Assets, networks and geography How many assets and chains are live for merchants, and in which markets settlement actually works. | 25 | 3 |
| All-in cost Processing percentage, conversion spread and payout cost taken together, not the headline number alone. | 25 | 8 |
| Onboarding and verification What a merchant must submit before going live, how long it takes, and which verticals are refused outright. | 20 | 6 |
| Integrations and API Maintained plugins, API surface, webhook reliability and whether a developer can reach a test transaction from public docs alone. | 18 | 6 |
| Support and operations Reachable channels, published response commitments, and documented handling of underpayment and wrong-network sends. | 12 | 5 |
| Weighted total | 5.6 |
Blockonomics across the five criteria
Scored 0–10 · weighted total 5.6
Where it is strong
- Non custodial by design: payments go direct to a merchant wallet, so provider solvency never becomes your risk.
- A flat 1% with the first ten payments free, which makes trial genuinely free rather than nominally free.
- Claims more than twenty integrations, which is wide for a provider of this size.
Where it is weak
- Being non custodial rules out fiat settlement, so volatility management stays your problem.
- Neither the asset list nor the integration list is named on the pricing page, so coverage cannot be checked from it.
On this page
Non custodial as the product, not a footnote#
Payments go direct to a merchant wallet and the provider only watches the chain. That removes the one risk in this category that cannot be recovered from, and it does so structurally rather than by promise: there is no balance to be frozen and no solvency to depend on.
The trade is the familiar one. Fiat settlement is off the table because a provider that never receives your funds cannot convert them, and volatility management stays with you. The custody guide sets out both sides.
The first ten payments free#
A flat 1% with the first ten payments free makes trialling this genuinely free rather than nominally free, which is a small thing that removes a real objection. A business can run a live test with actual customers before committing anything.
That suits the shape of merchant this provider fits: smaller stores and donation flows where the decision is whether to bother at all rather than which of five providers to pick.
What the card does not cover#
The asset list and the integration list are not named on the pricing page, and more than twenty integrations is a claim rather than an enumeration. Conversion and payout costs are recorded as not published after checking.
At 32% disclosure this is the quietest card in the index alongside one other, which is why it sits below the publication threshold for comparisons and switching pages. The profile publishes because a reader looking for a non-custodial option deserves to know it exists; the thinner pages do not, because two dashes compared against each other help nobody.
How this card scores where it does#
Cost scores well on the flat published rate and the free trial allowance. Coverage scores at the index floor because no asset list is published on the page checked, which is a disclosure gap rather than a known limitation.
That distinction matters for how you read the total. A low coverage score here means we could not confirm breadth, not that breadth is absent, and the card records which fields were checked and found unpublished.
Who should shortlist this anyway#
A smaller store or a donation flow that wants payments arriving in its own wallet, at a predictable rate, with a genuinely free trial. Within that shape this is a sensible candidate and the thin card understates it.
Ask for the asset list and the integration list directly. Both almost certainly exist somewhere the pricing page does not mention, and confirming them would move this card above the publication threshold.
What non-custodial asks of you in return#
Key custody, and the failure mode changes from theft to loss. A wallet whose recovery phrase exists in one place, known to one person, is a business continuity risk rather than a security posture, and it is the failure that actually happens to small companies.
Treat it the way you would any other single point of failure: more than one person able to recover it, stored somewhere that outlives an office and an employee. The key security guide covers the specifics.
Volatility management also stays with you, since a provider that never receives funds cannot convert them. For a business that intended to hold anyway, that costs nothing.
None of this argues against the model. It argues for deciding who owns the wallet before the first payment rather than after, which takes an afternoon and is never done later.
Where Blockonomics sits in the index#
The short version of this card: non-custodial settlement at a flat rate, with ten payments free. Every figure above was read off the provider's own pages on 2026-08-31, and the fields it declines to publish are recorded as such rather than left blank.
The low coverage score means the asset list was not published where we checked, not that it is narrow. That is the distinction the card records field by field, and confirming the list directly would change the position materially.
How should you read this card?
The score of 5.6 comes from the five weighted criteria above, applied identically to every provider in the catalogue. If you weight the criteria differently, the methodology page re-ranks the whole index against your weights, and the order you get is as valid as this one.
The disclosure figure of 32% is a separate measurement and often the more useful one. It counts only the fields Blockonomics publishes itself, so it predicts how much of your evaluation will happen over email rather than from documentation. Blockonomics has no switching page yet, because one publishes only once three suitable replacements clear the data threshold. The head to head comparisons are the closest thing until then.
What Blockonomics does not disclose
Checked against the provider's own pages on 2026-08-31. Blockonomics does not publish what conversion costs, what payouts cost.
Ask for each of these in writing before signing. A provider that answers a factual question with positioning has told you something useful about the next two years.
Where else Blockonomics appears
Questions about Blockonomics
Is Blockonomics legit?
Blockonomics does not publish a founding date and does not state a jurisdiction on its public pages. It publishes 32% of the fields this index tracks. Nothing here is a security assessment: run your own checks on custody and settlement before sending volume through any processor.
What does Blockonomics charge?
The published processing rate starts at 1%, checked 2026-08-31. Conversion cost is not published, so this is a floor rather than an all-in figure.
Does Blockonomics require KYC?
Blockonomics does not publish its merchant verification requirements. That is a planning risk rather than an answer, and it is why this card scores as it does on onboarding.
What are the best Blockonomics alternatives?
This index has not yet published a switching page for Blockonomics. The catalogue is ordered on the same weights and is the place to start.