The "No-KYC" Crypto Card Is a Lie

In the cryptocurrency landscape, the promise of “crypto cards without KYC (identity verification)” holds a uniquely paradoxical position.

Marketed as a technological breakthrough, these cards are packaged as consumer products and promoted as an “escape route” from financial surveillance. Wherever Visa or Mastercard are accepted, users can spend crypto—no identity checks, no personal information, no questions asked.

You might reasonably ask: why hasn’t anyone succeeded? The truth is, several have tried—and failed—more than once.

To understand why, start not with crypto itself, but with the infrastructure behind crypto cards. Debit and credit cards are not neutral tools; they’re “passes” granted by a tightly regulated payment system dominated by Visa and Mastercard. Any globally usable card must be issued by a licensed bank, routed via a six-digit BIN code, and subject to explicit compliance contracts—including a strict ban on anonymous end users.

There are no technical “workarounds” for cards built atop Visa/Mastercard rails. The only option is misrepresentation.

Most so-called “no KYC crypto cards” on the market are fundamentally company cards. Aside from very low-limit prepaid cards not intended for large-scale use, these cards are legally issued to businesses (often shell companies), ostensibly for employee expense reimbursement. Sometimes these companies are legitimate; other times, they exist solely to secure card issuance rights.

Consumers are never the intended cardholders.

This structure may operate for a while. Cards are distributed, branded as consumer products, and tolerated until they attract scrutiny—but scrutiny always arrives. A Visa compliance officer can trace the issuing bank via the BIN code, identify misuse, and terminate the project. When this happens, accounts are frozen, issuers lose partnerships, and the product vanishes—usually within six to twelve months.

This model is not theoretical. It’s a repeatable, observable reality in the payments industry.

This illusion persists only because shutdowns always follow launches.

Why Users Are Drawn to “No KYC Cards”

No KYC cards have a very specific appeal.

They reflect real-world barriers to accessing funds, intertwining privacy and usability concerns. Some users value privacy on principle, while others live in regions where banking services are restricted, unreliable, or outright denied. For users in sanctioned countries, KYC is not just an invasion of privacy—it’s direct exclusion, severely limiting access to financial channels.

In these cases, non-KYC payment tools are not an ideological choice, but a temporary lifeline.

This distinction matters. Risk does not disappear because it’s “necessary”; it simply becomes concentrated. Users who rely on these tools are often fully aware of the trade-off: sacrificing long-term safety for short-term access.

In practice, payment channels stripped of identity verification and transaction reversibility inevitably accumulate transaction flows that cannot pass standard compliance checks. This is an operational reality observed by issuers, project operators, and card networks—not a theoretical guess. When access is unrestricted and tracking is weak, funds blocked elsewhere naturally flow here.

Once transaction volumes rise, this imbalance becomes quickly apparent. The resulting concentration of high-risk funds is the main reason these projects—regardless of marketing or target users—inevitably attract scrutiny and intervention.

Market hype around no KYC crypto cards is always exaggerated, far beyond legal limits faced by payment network operators. The gap between “promise” and “constraint” is rarely noticed at signup, but sets the stage for the outcome as these products scale.

The Harsh Reality of Payment Infrastructure

Visa and Mastercard are not neutral intermediaries. They’re regulated payment networks, operating through licensed issuing banks, acquiring banks, and contractual frameworks that require traceable end users.

Every globally usable card is tied to an issuing bank, and each issuing bank is bound by network rules. These rules require that the card’s ultimate user must be identifiable. There is no opt-out, no hidden configuration, and no technical abstraction that can bypass this requirement.

If a card is globally usable, it is embedded in this system by definition. The constraints are not at the application layer, but in contracts governing settlement, issuance, liability, and dispute resolution.

Therefore, achieving unrestricted, no KYC spending through Visa or Mastercard channels is not just difficult—it’s impossible. Anything seemingly contrary either operates within strict prepaid limits, misclassifies end users, or merely “delays” enforcement.

Detection is simple. A single test transaction reveals the BIN code, issuing bank, card type, and project manager. Shutting down a project is an administrative—not technical—decision.

The fundamental rule is straightforward:

If you haven’t done KYC for your card, someone else has.

And whoever completed KYC is the true owner of the account.

The “Company Card Loophole” Explained

Most so-called no KYC crypto cards rely on the same mechanism: company expense cards.

This structure is no mystery. It’s a well-known industry loophole—or rather, an “open secret” arising from how company cards are issued and managed. A company completes registration through the corporate identity verification (KYB) process, which is usually less strict than for individual consumers. To the issuer, the company is the customer. Once approved, the company can issue cards to employees or authorized spenders without individual identity checks.

In theory, this supports legitimate business operations. In practice, it’s often abused.

End users are labeled “employees” on paper, not bank customers. As such, they’re not individually KYC-verified. This is the secret behind these products’ “no KYC” claims.

Unlike prepaid cards, company expense cards can hold and transfer large sums. They were not designed for anonymous distribution to consumers or for holding third-party funds.

Crypto cannot typically be deposited directly, so backend “workarounds” are needed: wallet intermediaries, conversion layers, internal accounting, and more.

This structure is inherently fragile. It lasts only until it attracts enough attention; once it does, enforcement is inevitable. History shows that projects built this way rarely last more than six to twelve months.

The typical process:

• Create a company and complete KYB verification with the card issuer.
• To the issuer, the company is the customer.
• The company issues cards to “employees” or “authorized users.”
• End users are treated as employees, not bank customers.
• Therefore, end users do not need to complete KYC.

Is this a loophole or illegal?

Issuing company cards to real employees for legitimate business expenses is legal. Publicly distributing them as consumer products is not.

Once cards are distributed to “fake employees,” marketed publicly, or mainly used for personal spending, the issuer is at risk. Visa and Mastercard need no new regulations to act; they simply enforce existing rules.

A single compliance review is enough.

Visa compliance staff can register, receive a card, identify the issuing bank via the BIN code, trace the project, and shut it down.

When it happens, accounts are frozen first. Explanations may come later—or not at all.

A Predictable Lifecycle

Crypto card projects marketed as “no KYC” do not fail randomly—they follow a remarkably consistent pattern across dozens of projects.

First is the “honeypot phase”: the project launches quietly, early access is restricted, spending works as advertised, and initial users report success. Confidence builds, marketing accelerates. Limits rise, influencers aggressively promote promises. Success screenshots spread, and a once-niche project becomes conspicuous.

Visibility is the turning point.

Once transaction volumes rise and the project attracts attention, scrutiny is inevitable. Issuing banks, project managers, or card networks review activity. The BIN code is identified. The gap between market hype and contractual operation becomes obvious. At this point, enforcement is no longer a technical issue, but an administrative one.

Within six to twelve months, the outcome is nearly always the same: issuers are warned or partnerships terminated; the project is suspended; cards stop working without warning; balances are frozen; operators disappear behind customer service tickets and generic emails. Users have nowhere to appeal, no legal standing, and no clear timeline for recovering funds—if recovery is possible at all.

This is not speculation or theory. It’s a recurring, observable pattern across jurisdictions, issuers, and market cycles.

No KYC cards operating on Visa or Mastercard rails are always shut down—the only variable is time.

Inevitable Destruction Cycle (Summary)

• Honeypot phase: A “no KYC” card launches quietly. Early users succeed, influencers promote, transaction volumes grow.
• Regulatory squeeze: Issuing bank or card network reviews the project, flags the BIN code, identifies abuse of issuance structure.
• Crossroads:
• Forced to introduce KYC → privacy promise collapses.
• Project operators flee or disappear → cards stop working, balances frozen, support channels fail.

There is no fourth outcome.

How to Spot a “No KYC” Crypto Card in 30 Seconds

Take Offgrid.cash’s marketing image for its so-called non-KYC crypto card. Zoom in and you’ll see a key detail: “Visa Business Platinum.”

This isn’t a design flourish or branding choice—it’s a legal classification. Visa does not issue business platinum cards to anonymous consumers. This label means it’s part of a company card program; account and funds belong to the company, not the individual user.

The deeper implications of this structure are rarely disclosed. When users deposit crypto into such systems, a subtle but crucial legal shift occurs: funds are no longer the user’s property—they become assets controlled by the company holding the account. Users have no direct relationship with the issuing bank, no deposit insurance, and no right to complain to Visa or Mastercard.

Legally, users are not customers. If operators disappear or the project is terminated, funds are not “stolen”—you voluntarily transferred them to a third party that no longer exists or cannot access the card network.

When you deposit crypto, a key legal shift occurs:

• The funds no longer belong to you.
• They belong to the company that completed KYB verification with the issuing bank.
• You have no direct relationship with the bank.
• You have no deposit protection.
• You have no right to complain to Visa or Mastercard.
• You are not a customer. You are just a “cost center.”
• If Offgrid disappears tomorrow, your funds are not “stolen”—you legally transferred them to a third party.

This is the core risk most users never notice.

Three Immediate Danger Signals

You don’t need insider information to spot a company card. Just check three things:

• Card type printed on the card: If it says Visa Business, Business Platinum, Corporate, or Commercial, it’s not a consumer card. You’re being registered as an “employee.”
• Network logo: If it’s supported by Visa or Mastercard, it must comply with anti-money laundering, sanctions screening, and end-user traceability rules.
• No exceptions.
• No technical workarounds.
• Only a matter of time.
• Unreasonable spending limits: If a card offers high monthly limits, rechargeability, global usability, and no KYC, someone else did KYB for you.

Projects Currently Marketing This Card Model

Current “no KYC” card projects fall into two categories: prepaid cards and so-called “business” cards. Business cards rely on various versions of the company card loophole; names change, but the structure doesn’t.

A non-exhaustive list of current “no KYC” card projects (both prepaid and business card models) can be found at https://www.todey.xyz/cards/.

Examples include:

• Offgrid.cash
• Bitsika
• Goblin Cards
• Bing Card
• Similar “crypto cards” distributed via Telegram or invite-only channels

Case Study: SolCard

SolCard is a classic example. After launching with a no KYC model and gaining traction, it was forced to adopt full KYC. Accounts were frozen until users provided identity information, and the original privacy vision collapsed overnight.

The project ultimately shifted to a hybrid structure: a very low-limit no KYC prepaid card and a fully KYC-verified card. The original no KYC model couldn’t survive after attracting substantial usage—a predictable outcome when operating on incompatible rails.

Case Study: Aqua Wallet’s Dolphin Card

In mid-2025, JAN3’s Bitcoin and Lightning Network wallet Aqua Wallet launched the Dolphin card. Released as a limited test for 50 users, it required no identity documents. Users could deposit Bitcoin or USDT, with a spending cap of $4,000.

This limit is telling—it’s clearly designed to reduce regulatory risk.

Structurally, the Dolphin card combined the prepaid model with a company account setup. The card operated through a company-controlled account, not a personal bank account.

It worked for a time, but not forever.

In December 2025, the project was suddenly suspended due to an “unexpected issue” with the card supplier. All Dolphin Visa cards were immediately deactivated, and remaining balances had to be refunded manually via USDT, with no further explanation.

Risks Users Face

When these projects collapse, users bear the cost.

Funds may be frozen indefinitely, refunds may require tedious manual processes, and sometimes balances are lost entirely. No deposit insurance, no consumer protection, no legal claim against the issuing bank.

The most dangerous aspect: many operators know this outcome in advance, yet proceed anyway. Others use buzzwords like “proprietary technology,” “regulatory innovation,” or “new infrastructure” to obscure the risks.

Issuing company cards to fake employees involves no “proprietary technology.”

At best, it’s ignorance; at worst, it’s outright exploitation.

Prepaid Cards and Gift Cards: What Actually Works?

Legitimate non-KYC payment tools exist, but with strict limits.

Prepaid cards from compliant providers are legal because they have very low limits, designed for small amounts, and don’t pretend to offer unrestricted spending. For example, prepaid crypto cards from platforms like Laso Finance.

(LasoFinance website screenshot)

Gift cards are another option. Services like Bitrefill let users privately buy mainstream merchant gift cards with crypto, which is fully legal and compliant.

(bitrefill website screenshot)

These tools are effective because they respect regulatory boundaries—not because they pretend those boundaries don’t exist.

The Core Problem of Misrepresentation

The most dangerous claim is not about “no KYC” itself, but about permanence.

These projects imply they’ve “solved” the issue, discovered “structural loopholes,” or their technology makes compliance “irrelevant.”

That’s false.

Visa and Mastercard don’t negotiate with startups; they simply enforce rules.

Any product promising high limits, rechargeability, global usability, and no KYC, while displaying Visa or Mastercard branding, is either misrepresenting its structure or planning to disappear soon.

There is no “proprietary” technology that can bypass this fundamental requirement.

Some operators claim that KYC will eventually be introduced via “zero-knowledge proofs,” so the company never directly collects or stores user identities. But this doesn’t solve the core problem. Visa and Mastercard don’t care “who” sees the identity information; they require it to be recorded and accessible to the issuing bank or compliance partner for audits, disputes, or enforcement actions.

Even if identity verification uses privacy-protecting credentials, the issuer must still access a clear, readable record somewhere in the compliance system. That’s not “no KYC.”

What Happens If You Bypass the Duopoly?

(colossuspay website screenshot)

Some card-like payment systems fundamentally change the game: systems that don’t rely on Visa or Mastercard at all.

Colossus Pay is one example.

It doesn’t issue cards through licensed banks or route transactions via traditional card networks. Instead, it operates as a crypto-native payment network, directly connecting to merchant acquirers. Acquirers are entities that own merchant relationships and control point-of-sale terminal software—globally, only a few exist, such as Fiserv, Elavon, Worldpay, and others.

By integrating at the acquiring layer, Colossus bypasses the issuer and card network stack. Stablecoins are routed directly to acquirers, converted and settled to merchants as needed. This reduces fees, shortens settlement time, and removes the “toll” Visa and Mastercard charge on each transaction.

The key: with no issuing banks or card networks in the transaction flow, there’s no entity contractually required to perform end-user KYC for card issuance. Under current regulations, the only party with KYC obligations is the stablecoin issuer. The payment network doesn’t need to invent loopholes or misclassify users, because it doesn’t operate under card network rules.

In this model, the “card” is essentially a payment authorization private key. No KYC is not the goal—it’s a natural consequence of removing the duopoly and its compliance structure.

This is an honest, structurally sound path to non-KYC payment tools.

If this model is feasible, the obvious question is: why isn’t it widespread?

The answer is distribution.

Connecting to acquirers is extremely difficult. They’re conservative, control terminal operating systems, and move slowly. Integration at this layer requires time, trust, and operational maturity. But this is where real change happens, because this layer controls how payments are accepted in the real world.

Most crypto card startups choose the easier path: integrate with Visa or Mastercard, market aggressively, and expand rapidly before enforcement arrives. Building outside the duopoly is slower and harder, but it’s the only path that doesn’t end in shutdown.

Conceptually, this model collapses the credit card into a crypto primitive. The card is no longer a bank-issued account, but a payment authorization private key.

Conclusion

As long as Visa and Mastercard remain the foundational infrastructure, unrestricted spending without KYC is impossible. These constraints are structural, not technical; branding, storytelling, or buzzwords can’t change this reality.

When a card bearing Visa or Mastercard branding promises high limits and no KYC, the explanation is simple: it’s either exploiting company card structures to place users outside the legal relationship with the bank, or misrepresenting how the product actually works. History has proven this repeatedly.

The truly safer options are low-limit prepaid cards and gift cards, with clear caps and expectations. The only durable, long-term solution is to abandon the Visa-Mastercard duopoly altogether. Anything else is temporary, fragile, and exposes users to risks they usually don’t recognize until it’s too late.

Recently, I’ve seen a surge in discussions about “no KYC cards.” I wrote this article because there’s a significant knowledge gap about how these products actually operate, and the legal and custodial risks they pose to users. I have nothing to sell; I write about privacy because it matters, no matter the domain.

Statement:

1. This article is reprinted from [Foresight News]. Copyright belongs to the original author [milian]. If you have any objection to the reprint, please contact the Gate Learn team, who will handle it promptly according to relevant procedures.
2. Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not constitute investment advice.
3. Other language versions of the article are translated by the Gate Learn team and may not be copied, distributed, or plagiarized unless Gate (Gate) is specifically mentioned.