CoinsPaid: обзор

Built around one vertical, and it shows#

A SoftSwiss connector is not something a general processor adds casually, and its presence tells you where this provider's engineering attention has gone. For an operator on that platform it removes weeks of integration work and an ongoing maintenance relationship that would otherwise be yours.

For anyone outside iGaming the specialisation is a cost rather than a feature. You are paying for underwriting tolerance and platform work you will not use, and the comparison collapses to terms that are not published. The catalogue has generalists that publish more.

No public pricing page, and what follows from that#

Every figure on this card comes from secondary reporting rather than from the provider, and the card says so. That is an unusual admission for a listing to make and it is the accurate one: the fee range recorded here has not been confirmed against anything the company published.

The consequence for a merchant is concrete. You cannot compare this provider against one that publishes a full table without first obtaining a written quote, and any comparison made before that is guesswork wearing a number. Send the same questions to both on the same day and compare the replies.

Where the fiat side earns the premium#

Fiat settlement and mass payouts are both documented as first-class flows rather than as extensions of a refund mechanism. An operator carrying fiat-denominated player balances needs exactly that combination, and providers that treat payouts as an afterthought fail at precisely the volume where it starts to matter.

Reported fiat withdrawal costs in the 1% to 3% range can exceed the processing fee itself, which is worth naming because it inverts where merchants normally look. Mass payouts covers what to test before committing volume.

What to get in writing#

The processing rate at your volume, the fiat withdrawal cost as a number, and the vertical position including whether it can change with notice. None of the three is public and all three decide the relationship.

Then the review question: what triggers an account review and what happens to balances during one. In a vertical where revenue concentrates through one provider, that answer matters more than any rate. The high risk page covers how to read what comes back.

How this card scores where it does#

Coverage and cost both score moderately, and both rest on secondary sources rather than on anything the provider published. That is recorded in the cons and it should temper how much weight the total carries here.

Onboarding scores lowest of the lines, on documented full verification for a vertical that attracts it. Support scores relatively well, which is consistent with a provider selling to operators who expect account management.

Who should not choose this#

Anyone outside iGaming and adjacent verticals. You would be paying for underwriting tolerance and platform integration you will not use, and giving up published pricing to get them.

Any business that needs to price the relationship before making contact. There is no public tariff page, and that is a structural feature of how this provider sells rather than an oversight.

The question that decides this card#

Whether you run on a platform this provider connects to. If yes, the integration saving is concrete and the specialisation is worth its opacity. If no, you are buying underwriting tolerance and giving up published pricing to get it.

That single answer settles more of the evaluation than any comparison of rates could, which is why it belongs first rather than last.

Ask it first, and let the answer decide whether the rest of the evaluation is worth running.

Where CoinsPaid sits in the index#

The short version of this card: iGaming specialisation and fiat settlement, with no public pricing. 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.

Weighting will not fix the underlying problem with this card, which is that its figures come from reporting rather than from the provider. Get a written quote first, then compare. The method covers why unverifiable figures are excluded from scoring elsewhere.