Blockonomics: обзор

Non custodial as the product, not a footnote#

Payments go direct to a merchant wallet and the provider only watches the chain. That removes the one risk in this category that cannot be recovered from, and it does so structurally rather than by promise: there is no balance to be frozen and no solvency to depend on.

The trade is the familiar one. Fiat settlement is off the table because a provider that never receives your funds cannot convert them, and volatility management stays with you. The custody guide sets out both sides.

The first ten payments free#

A flat 1% with the first ten payments free makes trialling this genuinely free rather than nominally free, which is a small thing that removes a real objection. A business can run a live test with actual customers before committing anything.

That suits the shape of merchant this provider fits: smaller stores and donation flows where the decision is whether to bother at all rather than which of five providers to pick.

What the card does not cover#

The asset list and the integration list are not named on the pricing page, and more than twenty integrations is a claim rather than an enumeration. Conversion and payout costs are recorded as not published after checking.

At 32% disclosure this is the quietest card in the index alongside one other, which is why it sits below the publication threshold for comparisons and switching pages. The profile publishes because a reader looking for a non-custodial option deserves to know it exists; the thinner pages do not, because two dashes compared against each other help nobody.

How this card scores where it does#

Cost scores well on the flat published rate and the free trial allowance. Coverage scores at the index floor because no asset list is published on the page checked, which is a disclosure gap rather than a known limitation.

That distinction matters for how you read the total. A low coverage score here means we could not confirm breadth, not that breadth is absent, and the card records which fields were checked and found unpublished.

Who should shortlist this anyway#

A smaller store or a donation flow that wants payments arriving in its own wallet, at a predictable rate, with a genuinely free trial. Within that shape this is a sensible candidate and the thin card understates it.

Ask for the asset list and the integration list directly. Both almost certainly exist somewhere the pricing page does not mention, and confirming them would move this card above the publication threshold.

What non-custodial asks of you in return#

Key custody, and the failure mode changes from theft to loss. A wallet whose recovery phrase exists in one place, known to one person, is a business continuity risk rather than a security posture, and it is the failure that actually happens to small companies.

Treat it the way you would any other single point of failure: more than one person able to recover it, stored somewhere that outlives an office and an employee. The key security guide covers the specifics.

Volatility management also stays with you, since a provider that never receives funds cannot convert them. For a business that intended to hold anyway, that costs nothing.

None of this argues against the model. It argues for deciding who owns the wallet before the first payment rather than after, which takes an afternoon and is never done later.

Where Blockonomics sits in the index#

The short version of this card: non-custodial settlement at a flat rate, with ten payments free. Every figure above was read off the provider's own pages on 2026-08-31, and the fields it declines to publish are recorded as such rather than left blank.

The low coverage score means the asset list was not published where we checked, not that it is narrow. That is the distinction the card records field by field, and confirming the list directly would change the position materially.