Editorial policy
How we research, rate and disclose
The rules we hold ourselves to, written down so you can hold us to them as well. Including the commercial arrangements, and the specific things that are not for sale.
The standard we aim at
This category is full of content written by people who have never completed a purchase on the platform they are recommending. You can tell, because the pages omit the things that actually decide whether your money survives: the region lock, the flat network fee, the exchange-rate spread, the expiry window.
Our standard is the inverse. Publish the number that decides the outcome, even when it is the number that stops somebody buying, and even when the platform in question is one we have a commercial relationship with.
How we research
Applied to every substantive page
- Fees come from real checkouts. Where we quote a range, somebody put the product in a basket and reached the payment screen. We do not reprint marketing figures as measurements.
- Regulatory claims are checked against registers, never against a badge on a website. We link to NMLS Consumer Access, ESMA, the FCA register, FINTRAC and AUSTRAC so you can repeat the check.
- Every figure carries the month it was checked. A number without a date is a guess, and this market changes without notice.
- Uncertainty is stated. Where we could not verify something, the page says we could not verify it rather than filling the gap.
- Sources are listed at the foot of substantive pages, with what each was used for.
- Ranges stay ranges. If a platform's cost genuinely varies by brand and region, we do not compress it into a single flattering number.
What our scores mean
Platform scores out of five are composite judgements across seven criteria. We publish the criteria so the score is auditable rather than atmospheric.
| Criterion | What we look at |
|---|---|
| Total real cost | Stated markup plus exchange-rate spread plus any flat fee — the amount you actually part with |
| Coins accepted | Whether you can pay from what you hold, avoiding a swap spread and a taxable disposal |
| Security history | Incidents, how they were disclosed, and whether customers were made whole |
| KYC threshold in practice | Where verification actually bites, not the marketing line |
| Delivery reliability | Speed, rail support, and what happens when an order stalls |
| Rewards quality | Rate, and whether the reward asset requires holding a platform token |
| Catalogue and coverage | Depth and geographic distribution — weighted last, because headline brand counts mislead |
Scores are not comparable across categories. A voucher issuer and a gift-card platform do different jobs, so we rank them separately in best crypto vouchers and best crypto gift card platforms.
Commercial disclosure
Some outgoing links on this site may earn us a commission if you sign up or make a purchase. That is how the site is funded.
External links are marked rel="nofollow". We do not use sponsored markup, because these are not
paid placements — they are affiliate relationships on standard terms, and the editorial decision to link comes first.
The test of that claim is on the pages themselves rather than in this paragraph:
- Bitrefill — the platform we recommend most often, with a full account of the March 2026 breach that exposed roughly 18,500 purchase records, on its own review page.
- CryptoVoucher.io — a table showing that a €10 voucher can cost 34% all-in.
- The CEX.IO welcome bonus — the offer linked from every page on this site, with a page explaining that the headline 1,000 USDC is non-withdrawable fee credit and that most readers will realise a few dollars.
- NoOnes — scored lower than anything else on the site, with an explanation of why we think most readers should avoid the category entirely.
Not for sale
At any price
- Ratings. A score cannot be bought, raised, or protected from revision.
- Placement. Ordering in comparison tables reflects our scoring, not commercial terms.
- Removal of warnings. Security incidents, wide spreads and restrictive terms stay on the page.
- Undisclosed paid content. Anything commercial is labelled. We will not publish advertising formatted as editorial.
- Links from a page that recommends against the product. If we think a category is a bad idea, we say so and do not monetise it.
Corrections
We want them. This market changes faster than any publishing schedule, and readers who have just completed a purchase know more about the current state of a checkout than we do.
Email contact@cryptocurrency.gifts with the page URL, what we said, and what the correct position is — ideally with a link or a screenshot. We will check it, correct it, and update the review date on the page.
We do not silently revise substantive errors. If something material was wrong, the correction is visible rather than disappeared.
Use of AI
We think readers are entitled to know this, so: AI tools are used in our workflow for drafting assistance, structuring and editing. Every page is reviewed by a person before publication, every factual claim is checked against a primary source, and every fee figure comes from a real checkout rather than a model's recollection.
We do not publish unreviewed generated text. Where a number could not be verified against a source, the page says so.
What we do not cover
Independence
cryptocurrency.gifts is not owned by, funded by, or affiliated with any exchange, gift-card platform, voucher issuer or wallet provider. Brand names and trademarks referenced on this site belong to their owners and are used for identification and descriptive purposes only.
Related: about us, disclaimer, terms of use and privacy policy.