Kryptonim, a Poland-registered crypto on-ramp that markets itself as an “EU-regulated” service, has been added to the RatEx42 Listings platform. Based on the current evidence set and repeated adverse exposure in published investigative artifacts, RatEx42 assigns Kryptonim an editorial Risk Signal of RED (High Risk).
Read the full listing profile (Evidence Pack + Change Log): RatEx42 Listings
FinTelegram investigation hub (background + artifacts): FinTelegram
Why this listing matters (the “scoreboard” logic)
FinTelegram and FinCrime Observer produce evidence. RatEx42 converts that evidence into a decision layer: What’s the risk right now? And—crucially—how does it change over time?
This Kryptonim listing is the first step in building a rating history + change tracking record that users, affiliates, and compliance teams can monitor over time.
R42 Snapshot (at publish time)
- Provider: Kryptonim
- Segment: Crypto on-ramp / fiat-to-crypto conversion
- R42 Editorial Risk Signal: RED — High Risk
- Evidence Grade: Corroborated (multiple published investigative artifacts + primary registry confirmation)
- Last reviewed / Next review due: visible on the listing profile
- Important: Editorial Risk Signal ≠ user stars. User reviews are a separate “community signal” layer.
Verified registry facts (Poland VASP register)
Poland publishes a “Register of activities in the scope of virtual currencies” via the Chamber of Tax Administration in Katowice (KAS) (Source: Polish Financial Register).
In the official register PDF, the entry shows:
- RDWW-649 — KRYPTONIM sp. z o.o.
- Entry date: 22.02.2023
- KRS: 0001017630
- NIP: 5273040828 (Source: Polish Companies Registers)
Interpretation (important): a Polish VASP register entry is not the same as EU-wide authorisation under MiCA, and it does not, by itself, resolve questions around use-case exposure, rail integrity, or merchant-of-record clarity.
What Kryptonim says about itself (provider disclosures)
Kryptonim’s own messaging positions it as an “EU-regulated” on-ramp (Source Kryptonim).
Kryptonim also publicly discloses corporate identifiers, including:
- Kryptonim sp. z o.o. (Warsaw) with KRS 0001017630 and RDWW-649
- A Canada entity and an MSB registration reference (FINTRAC MSB registry number is stated in their disclosure)
Why RatEx42 rates Kryptonim RED (High Risk)
RatEx42’s RED rating is an evidence-led risk assessment, not a legal conclusion and not a criminal allegation.
1) Repeated exposure in offshore casino deposit flows (reported)
Multiple FinTelegram investigations describe Kryptonim appearing inside offshore casino cashier flows targeting restricted EU markets, including allegations of payment obfuscation where users believe they are making “bank transfers” but the end result is a crypto purchase
Read the FinTelegram reports here.
2) “Fake bank deposit” / rail obfuscation patterns (reported)
FinTelegram describes architectures in which “instant banking / bank transfer” UX paths reportedly end in stablecoin/crypto purchase outcomes, potentially reducing chargeback leverage and weakening consumer protections compared to transparent card/bank gambling deposits.
3) Compliance mismatch risk (reported)
FinTelegram reports a contradiction between (a) public prohibitions against gambling activity in provider terms and (b) alleged systematic embedding in iGaming cashier rails.
The RatEx42 product: “Change over time”
This Kryptonim listing is not meant to be static. The listing profile includes a Change Log so the market can see:
- when the risk signal changes,
- why it changes, and
- what evidence triggered the change.
What could change the rating (examples)
- Public enforcement action / regulator statements (upgrade severity or confirm patterns)
- Verified remediation (e.g., independently evidenced rail controls, merchant-of-record clarity, gambling blocking)
- Documented rail shifts (new gateways/aggregators, new deposit disguises, domain churn)
- Credible right-to-reply with primary documents
For users, affiliates, and compliance teams: practical takeaways
If you are considering Kryptonim as a payment rail (directly or via an aggregator), the current RatEx42 view is:
- Assume heightened AML/consumer-protection risk until merchant purpose and flows are proven transparent.
- Treat “bank transfer” UX labels as non-determinative: verify what actually appears on statements and who the merchant-of-record is.
- Map the full rail chain (casino/merchant → aggregator → on-ramp → asset conversion → settlement endpoint).
Community Signal: help RatEx42 verify reality on the ground
Have you encountered Kryptonim in a deposit flow (casino, broker, on-ramp aggregator) or used it directly?
- Submit a factual user review on the listing page (dates, method, outcome, support handling).
- If you have screenshots: redact personal data first.
- User stars do not automatically change the editorial risk signal—but they can trigger an editorial re-review.
