No-KYC Crypto Cards Explained: The Hidden Risks for Fintech Builders

No-KYC and low-KYC crypto cards are trending again. I’m seeing them framed as “privacy-first” payments - often with the implication that the industry has found a new, durable way to issue cards globally without meaningful onboarding. 

The short version: nothing fundamental has changed. What’s changed is the packaging. 

I’ve been building crypto card infrastructure since 2014, when Wirex issued the first crypto-linked cards. Over the last decade, I’ve watched dozens of no-KYC/low-KYC programmes launch, scale quickly, and then disappear, usually after the same pressure points surface: scheme scrutiny, supervisory attention, and weak compliance plumbing. 

Most of what you’re seeing today falls into two repeatable structures. 

Trick #1: Single-Load Gift Cards 

Think: single-load prepaid gift cards. Load once, spend, done. Visa and Mastercard both offer products like this, most commonly US-issued. 

They often look like regular cards and may support: 

• Online payments 

• Apple Pay / mobile wallets 

But operationally, they’re a poor substitute for a real consumer card programme: 

• Single-load only (no ongoing account relationship) 

• High decline rates at many merchants and payment flows 

• Balance breakage: you rarely spend the full amount, and the remainder is often stranded 

So why the hype? 

Because distributors began accepting crypto and stablecoins as the funding method, then marketed the same underlying product as: 

“Privacy-focused, global, no-KYC crypto cards.” 

The card didn’t become more sophisticated. The on-ramp did. 

How the money is made 

• Distributor margin: typically 3–7% layered on top of top-ups 

• Issuer economics: monetisation of unspent balances (often via inactivity/maintenance mechanics), commonly another 3–5% 

That “leftover balance” isn’t accidental. It’s engineered economics - breakage is the business model. 

Trick #2: Corporate Cards Disguised as Consumer Cards 

This is the more sophisticated, and higher-risk, model. It’s typically marketed as: 

“Global stablecoin cards with ultra-high limits and low-KYC onboarding.” 

In practice, these are corporate card programmes (or corporate-like BIN programmes) repackaged and resold to retail users. 

Corporate card programmes are structurally different from consumer programmes: 

• Built for business expenses, not personal spending 

• Designed for cross-border distribution (travelling employees and contractors) 

• Typically carry higher interchange potential than standard consumer debit 

• Limits are designed for organisations, not individuals 

Here’s the scheme 

• An issuer sets up a corporate card programme, often in offshore or loosely framed jurisdictions (e.g., Puerto Rico, Hong Kong, etc.) 

• Intermediaries repackage the product as a consumer “no/low-KYC stablecoin card” 

• Retail users receive cards with minimal friction and minimal controls: 

  • No travel rule-style friction 

  • No FinProm-style disclaimers 

  • No proof of address 

  • No enhanced due diligence 

  • No behavioural questionnaires 

  • Corporate-grade limits 

I tested this myself 

I’m based in London. I saw a crypto card ad targeting UK consumers and went through the flow: 

• Onboarding: proof of identity only 

• Deposits: stablecoin top-up with no travel rule checks, no FinProm disclosures, no cooldown 

• The card: HK-issued with a $1M monthly limit 

That’s a corporate limit. Visa does not approve $1M limits for retail cardholders. Full stop. The limit itself is a signal that the programme is not structured like a typical consumer issuance setup. 

How the money is made 

• Card fees: users pay for low-friction onboarding and high limits 

• Interchange: materially stronger economics on corporate programmes, especially cross-border 

• FX margin: single-currency USD programmes can generate 2–4% on every non-USD transaction 

When you combine corporate interchange + FX margin + subscription/issuance fees, you get a powerful revenue stack, but one that tends to attract scrutiny quickly when distributed to consumers. 

Why This Matters 

These programmes all have one thing in common: they don’t last. 

Card schemes and regulators eventually catch up. When they do, shutdowns are rarely graceful. They tend to be: 

• Abrupt 

• Operationally disruptive 

• High-impact for end users 

If you’re a builder shipping cards through one of these structures, you’re building on infrastructure with an expiration date. 

The question isn’t: “Can I get cards issued quickly?” 

It’s: “Will this programme still be running in 18 months?” 

Compliance infrastructure isn’t a feature. It’s the foundation. 

Related Reading + Wirex Infrastructure 

I wrote more about evaluating crypto card BaaS partners here: Pavel Matveev on X: “The Crypto Card Issuer Crisis: Why Your BaaS Partner Choice Could Kill Your Business” / X 

If you’re exploring card issuance, my team at Wirex built stablecoin-linked BaaS infrastructure designed to survive regulatory scrutiny: https://wirexapp.com/developers 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 

Are “no-KYC crypto cards” actually new? 

No. Most are established prepaid or corporate issuance structures repackaged with crypto funding rails and “privacy-first” messaging. 

Why do single-load cards often fail in real spending scenarios? 

They’re gift-card style products with limited functionality, higher decline rates, and balance breakage that makes full-value spending difficult. 

Why are “ultra-high limit” low-KYC cards a red flag? 

Because those limits are characteristic of corporate programmes. When distributed to retail users, they increase scrutiny and shutdown risk. 

Why do these programmes shut down so suddenly? 

Because scheme and regulatory intervention can require immediate termination, leaving little time for migration or user communication. 

What should builders prioritise if they want a durable card programme? 

Issuer stability, regulatory alignment, compliance depth, and survivability across market cycles, not just speed to launch.