Paymento: обзор

What non-custodial means on this card#

Two settlement modes are described and both keep the provider out of the money. Bring-your-own-wallet uses addresses you supply and payments land there directly. The embedded-wallet option creates a store wallet that only the merchant can authorise, at an additional $0.20 per successful transaction on top of the percentage.

That design is the reason the card scores as it does on onboarding: there is nothing for the provider to hold, so there is nothing to verify before it lets you start. It is also why the fee cannot be deducted at source. The fee is billed against the credit balance you top up, and the credit is what stops working when it runs out.

How the pricing actually works#

The rate is 0.5% per successful transaction, charged against a prepaid credit rather than deducted from the payment. New accounts receive $15 of credit, which the pricing page translates to roughly $3,000 of payments before any cost. An extra store costs $10 once, and the embedded wallet adds $0.20 per transaction.

Network fees are the customer's, because the payment is an ordinary on-chain transfer to your address. That makes the total cost unusually predictable: the percentage, the optional per-transaction cent charge, and nothing on the way out because there is no way out to pay for.

The no-KYC trade, stated plainly#

No merchant verification means a business can start taking payments in an afternoon and that nobody is standing between it and its customers. It also means the provider cannot offer fiat settlement, cannot underwrite disputes and cannot represent to anyone that it knows who its merchants are.

For a merchant in a vertical that acquirers decline, that is the product. For a merchant that needs to explain to a bank or an accountant where the money came from, it moves the compliance work from the provider to the merchant rather than removing it. The verification guide sets out what that shift actually costs.

What is not published#

The asset list is linked rather than counted, and the page names stablecoins, Bitcoin, Litecoin and Dogecoin as examples. The networks recorded on this card are the ones named across the provider's pages, and a merchant should confirm the specific chain for USDT before assuming Tron is covered.

The company's jurisdiction and founding date are not stated, and neither are mass payouts, white label, recurring billing or point of sale. Each of those is marked not disclosed rather than assumed absent. For a provider that asks merchants for no verification, the absence of a stated legal entity is the field most worth asking about.

Who should not choose this#

Any business that settles in fiat. There is no conversion product here, and a finance function that will not hold stablecoins is looking at the wrong provider regardless of the rate.

A merchant whose customers expect refunds handled by the provider. With funds in your own wallet, a refund is an outbound transfer you sign yourself, and the provider has no balance to draw on. That is the non-custodial trade in its purest form, and the refunds guide covers how to run it.

How this card scores where it does#

Onboarding carries the highest available score because there is no process to plan around. Cost scores well on a published percentage and a stated per-transaction charge with no conversion or payout component to hide. Integrations are reasonable for the plugin set.

Coverage is the weak line: no asset count, five named networks and no fiat. Support is scored on the documented channels, which are ordinary. A reader who weights custody highly can move this card up considerably on the methodology page; one who weights fiat settlement will move it down.

Where Paymento sits in the index#

The lightest possible way to accept crypto into a wallet you own, at a rate that is fully published, from a company that publishes almost nothing about itself. Every figure above was read from the pricing and product pages on 2026-09-06.

The natural comparison is Paymento against NOWPayments: both are non-custodial, one publishes a rate and a credit model, the other publishes a rate and three hundred assets. Which gap matters depends on whether your customers pay in three assets or thirty.