CryptoCloud: обзор

What the floor rate is attached to#

The pricing page states fees from 0.4%, and third-party descriptions of the same schedule put the standard incoming-payment fee at a higher figure with the floor reached on volume. This card records the published floor, as it does for every provider, and flags in the cons that a new merchant should not plan on it.

Withdrawals are the clearer part of the schedule: 0% on moving received funds out, with the network fee only, and a stated time of within 30 minutes. For a crypto-settling merchant that makes the total cost the processing percentage and nothing else, which is a simpler picture than most of the index.

Who this is built for#

The plugin list tells the story: WooCommerce, OpenCart, PrestaShop and WHMCS, which is the toolkit of small shops and hosting resellers rather than of enterprises. Invoices can be created from the dashboard without an integration at all, and the product is positioned at merchants in markets where card acquiring is expensive or unavailable.

That segment is served well by a flat percentage and free withdrawals, because the alternative for those merchants is not a cheaper gateway but no gateway. A merchant in a market with easy card acquiring should compare on the same terms as any other custodial provider.

No fiat, by design#

Settlement is in crypto to the merchant's balance, then out to a wallet on withdrawal. There is no bank leg, which is why conversion is recorded as not disclosed rather than as a number: there is no conversion product whose cost could be published.

That keeps the fee schedule short and moves the conversion decision to the merchant. A business holding stablecoins loses nothing. One that needs local currency needs an exchange as well, and should price that leg before comparing this card with a fiat-settling provider.

What is not published#

Merchant verification is not described on the public pages. The contracting entity, its jurisdiction and the founding date are not stated. The asset list is presented as a list rather than a count, and the networks recorded here are the ones named across the site.

Mass payouts, white label, recurring billing and point of sale are not mentioned. For a provider whose appeal is low friction, the undocumented verification is the field to ask about first: an undocumented process is more often longer than lighter.

Who should not choose this#

A business that needs fiat settlement or a named regulated counterparty. Neither is on offer, and the rate does not compensate for a procurement process that cannot complete.

A merchant whose customers pay in assets outside the named networks. The list is adequate for stablecoins and the major chains and does not attempt breadth.

How this card scores where it does#

Cost scores well on the published floor and the free withdrawal, and loses a point for the unclear tier conditions. Integrations score on the plugin set that matches the target segment. Coverage is mid-field on named networks without an asset count.

Onboarding is marked down for the undocumented verification and the unstated entity, which together mean a merchant cannot plan a launch date from the public pages. Support is scored on ordinary documented channels.

Where CryptoCloud sits in the index#

A low published floor, free withdrawals and a plugin set for small shops, from a provider that says little about itself. Every figure above was read from the pricing and product pages on 2026-09-06.

The comparison worth reading is CryptoCloud against Cryptomus, which serves overlapping markets with a longer asset list and a named jurisdiction. Which of those two gaps matters is the whole decision.