Provider at a glance
- Category
- Crypto Subscriptions
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- docs.coinflow.cash
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 65 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Coinflow Subscriptions
Card and ACH billing with crypto settlement
Crypto Subscriptions
#6 Overall
Ranked #6 of 9 crypto subscriptions in the published ranking
65
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Coinflow Subscriptions right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- My customer kills the allowance at midnight. Am I told, or do I find out at the next billing run?5/10 here; Sablier Flow scores 7
- The second charge fails. What does the provider actually do next, and when do I hear about it?6/10 here; Radom Subscriptions scores 9
- If this provider is gone next quarter, do I still get paid — and whose licence is the money moving under today?3/10 here; Unlock Protocol Recurring Memberships scores 9
- What exactly did my customer sign away, and what stops it from quietly becoming more than that?5/10 here; Sablier Flow scores 7
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best crypto subscription platform shows where it lands for you.
What will Coinflow Subscriptions cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Payments per month
- 500
- Average payment
- $100
How safe is Coinflow Subscriptions?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Coinflow Subscriptions
Compare all 4- 5Sablier Flow6 points above · stronger on mandate survives the provider (6 against 3)71$5,940
- 7Radom SubscriptionsLevel on score · stronger on renewal failure path (9 against 6)65$6,000
- 8Unlock Protocol Recurring Memberships1 point below · stronger on mandate survives the provider (9 against 3)64$6,000
For your setup
Find out if Coinflow Subscriptions fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Coinflow Subscriptions lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best crypto subscription platformNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Coinflow Subscriptions ranks #6
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (15.3 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
285+4.485.09#5/9Loading evidence…
266+4.993.09#3/9Loading evidence…
243+2.306.010#8/9Loading evidence…
225+3.526.09#6/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−6behind Sablier Flow, #5
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 63–66 and ranks #6–#8
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of Coinflow Subscriptions’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
My customer kills the allowance at midnight. Am I told, or do I find out at the next billing run? 5 → 9 on its ladder · passes Sablier Flow+472#6 → #5
The second charge fails. What does the provider actually do next, and when do I hear about it? 6 → 10 on its ladder · passes Sablier Flow+471#6 → #5
If this provider is gone next quarter, do I still get paid — and whose licence is the money moving under today? 3 → 7 on its ladder · passes Sablier Flow+471#6 → #5
What exactly did my customer sign away, and what stops it from quietly becoming more than that? 5 → 10 on its ladder · passes Sablier Flow+572#6 → #5
My customer kills the allowance at midnight. Am I told, or do I find out at the next billing run? 5 → 4 on its ladder · Radom Subscriptions passes it−163#6 → #8
The second charge fails. What does the provider actually do next, and when do I hear about it? 6 → 5 on its ladder · Radom Subscriptions passes it−163#6 → #8
If this provider is gone next quarter, do I still get paid — and whose licence is the money moving under today? 3 → 2 on its ladder · Radom Subscriptions passes it−163#6 → #8
Smallest climb: “My customer kills the allowance at midnight. Am I told, or do I find out at the next billing run?” 5 → 9 passes Sablier Flow, #5.
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- My customer kills the allowance at midnight. Am I told, or do I find out at the next billing run? — 5/10 against a category best of 9/10
- The second charge fails. What does the provider actually do next, and when do I hear about it? — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
- If this provider is gone next quarter, do I still get paid — and whose licence is the money moving under today? — 3/10 against a category best of 10/10
- What exactly did my customer sign away, and what stops it from quietly becoming more than that? — 5/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- You are buying a card biller with a stablecoin payout leg, not an onchain recurring mandate — and the subscriptions documentation never says so out loud. There is no allowance, no delegation and no spend permission to inspect, cap or watch; there is a card token Coinflow holds, a plan row in Coinflow's database, and a scheduler only Coinflow can run. Two things count in Coinflow's favour, both on its subscription page: it DOES promise to retry a failed renewal automatically, and it DOES publish a real bound on the mandate — 'You cannot change the price or billing interval of an existing plan.' Neither is worth as much as it sounds. The retry promise carries no number at all ('according to retry schedule', with the schedule published nowhere) and is contradicted by the overview telling you to build retry logic yourself; the price bound is prose in a dashboard guide that Coinflow's own Update Plan API reference still contradicts by accepting a new `amount` under nothing but a merchant API key. The practical bite is unchanged: when a renewal fails you get an event and a suspension, and what happens next is undocumented in every respect that would let you price the risk. Note also that the subscriber has no Coinflow-provided way to cancel — the prebuilt UI cannot do it, so revocation exists only if your merchant built a screen for it.
Competitive position
Where Coinflow Subscriptions leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 914.0 of 20 · pool best
Published criteria#7 / 911.5 of 30 · best 17.3
Friction#1 / 92.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 93.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 98.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Coinflow Subscriptions leads
- The second charge fails. What does the provider actually do next, and when do I hear about it?#3 / 9
Where it trails
- If this provider is gone next quarter, do I still get paid — and whose licence is the money moving under today?#8 / 9
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
Radom Subscriptions#7 of 9 · score 65 · same score
Coinflow Subscriptions leads on
- What exactly did my customer sign away, and what stops it from quietly becoming more than that?5 vs 4
Radom Subscriptions leads on
- The second charge fails. What does the provider actually do next, and when do I hear about it?9 vs 6
- If this provider is gone next quarter, do I still get paid — and whose licence is the money moving under today?4 vs 3
Largest single reason Coinflow Subscriptions is ahead: availability (+5.2 display points).Scenario cost: Coinflow Subscriptions has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Unlock Protocol Recurring Memberships#8 of 9 · score 64 · 1.0 point behind
Coinflow Subscriptions leads on
- My customer kills the allowance at midnight. Am I told, or do I find out at the next billing run?5 vs 2
- The second charge fails. What does the provider actually do next, and when do I hear about it?6 vs 3
Unlock Protocol Recurring Memberships leads on
- If this provider is gone next quarter, do I still get paid — and whose licence is the money moving under today?9 vs 3
Largest single reason Coinflow Subscriptions is ahead: published criteria (+1.3 display points).Scenario cost: Coinflow Subscriptions has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Sablier Flow#5 of 9 · score 71 · 6.0 points ahead
Coinflow Subscriptions leads on
- The second charge fails. What does the provider actually do next, and when do I hear about it?6 vs 3
Sablier Flow leads on
- My customer kills the allowance at midnight. Am I told, or do I find out at the next billing run?7 vs 5
- If this provider is gone next quarter, do I still get paid — and whose licence is the money moving under today?6 vs 3
- What exactly did my customer sign away, and what stops it from quietly becoming more than that?7 vs 5
Largest single reason Sablier Flow is ahead: published criteria (+5.7 display points).Scenario cost: Coinflow Subscriptions has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 65 · gap 15.0Why Solana Subscriptions Delegation Program ranks above Coinflow Subscriptions
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 15.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisSolana Subscriptions Delegation ProgramGap share
Availability · 23% weight14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight11.517.3−15.1, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisSolana Subscriptions Delegation ProgramPoints
My customer kills the allowance at midnight. Am I told, or do I find out at the next billing run? · w2859−3.58, worse
The second charge fails. What does the provider actually do next, and when do I hear about it? · w2662+3.33, better
If this provider is gone next quarter, do I still get paid — and whose licence is the money moving under today? · w24310−5.38, worse
What exactly did my customer sign away, and what stops it from quietly becoming more than that? · w2258−2.11, worse
Net6580−15.0
Your scenario
Coinflow Subscriptions is not priced for this scenario
Percentage and fixed legs on each payment, for a year. Excludes chargebacks, FX markup and settlement fees priced separately. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
Payments per month · your input500
Average payment · your input$100
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 28 September 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$5,9706 of 9 rows priced
Cheapest priced$0.00 · Base Pay Subscriptions (Spend Permissions)Difference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with Base Pay Subscriptions (Spend Permissions)
3 of 9 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 28 September 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #6 to #8 across one-point re-runs
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 28 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
My customer kills the allowance at midnight. Am I told, or do I find out at the next billing run?strength 5 · weight 28Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.The second charge fails. What does the provider actually do next, and when do I hear about it?strength 6 · weight 26Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.If this provider is gone next quarter, do I still get paid — and whose licence is the money moving under today?strength 3 · weight 24Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.What exactly did my customer sign away, and what stops it from quietly becoming more than that?strength 5 · weight 22Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Custody failure (Coinflow Subscriptions 5/10): whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by What exactly did my customer sign away, and what stops it from quietly becoming more than that? · 22%
- Execution failure (Coinflow Subscriptions 6/10): you get a worse price, later, or nothing.Scored by The second charge fails. What does the provider actually do next, and when do I hear about it? · 26%
- Exit failure (Coinflow Subscriptions 3/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by If this provider is gone next quarter, do I still get paid — and whose licence is the money moving under today? · 24%
- Information failure (Coinflow Subscriptions 5/10): the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by My customer kills the allowance at midnight. Am I told, or do I find out at the next billing run? · 28%
Not assessed by this ranking: Liveness failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- No price is published for Coinflow Subscriptions, and there is no pricing page at all: https://
coinflow .cash /pricing still returns the 1,508-byte SPA shell (fetched 28 September 2026) and the homepage navigation reads "Home Who We Serve Resources About Us Blog ISV Launchpad Docs Sign In Talk with the team", with no Pricing item. The page that should carry a price is the subscriptions overview, and instead it says: "Contact sales@coinflowlabs.app to configure your subscription plans." (https:// docs .coinflow .cash /guides /subscriptions /subscriptions-overview, fetched 28 September 2026). The Terms were replaced on 1 September 2026 ("Effective September 1, 2026 · Version 3.0", now served at https:// coinflow .cash /legal /terms-of-service): the fee clause no longer reserves a unilateral right to set fees and now reads "Customer will pay Coinflow the Fees as set forth in each Order Form." — price is bilateral and per-contract. The only fee figure anywhere in the subscription docs is still inside a sample webhook payload ("subtotal" 500 cents, "fees" 46 cents, "total" 546 cents on https:// docs .coinflow .cash /guides /subscriptions /implementation-methods /subscription-webhooks), which is illustrative JSON, not a rate card, and must not be read as a take rate. — no list price is published, so cost cannot be compared before a sales conversation.Coinflow Subscriptions — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDCoinflow Subscriptions — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Coinflow does publish a cancellation event that is DISTINCT from a failed charge, and it fires for both sides of the relationship.
- Supported chains
- solana, stellar, evm
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, AND ONLY ONE IS A FOOTPRINT. (1) A genuine acceptance footprint, but for the CARD RAIL rather than the subscription product: https://
docs .coinflow .cash /guides /checkout /payment-methods /supported-countries (read 17 August 2026) says 'Coinflow supports a wide range of payment methods across the globe.' and then enumerates card/Apple Pay/Google Pay acceptance under headings Americas, Europe ('+ All EU member countries'), Middle East, Asia & Pacific and Africa — including United States, Brazil, United Kingdom, Switzerland, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Singapore, Australia, India, Nigeria, Egypt and South Africa. That page also has a 'Countries NOT Supported' subsection under SEPA, i.e. rail-level carve-outs rather than a market restriction. Because the subscription is funded by card or ACH, this footprint is what actually gates a subscriber. (2) A standard sanctions representation, NOT a regional footprint: 'You represent and warrant that you are not located in, organized under the laws of, or a resident in any country or territory subject to territorial sanctions, nor under the control of any person or entity located or a resident in any country or territory subject to territorial sanctions.' (https:// coinflow .cash /terms-of-service, section 3.4 Restrictions, read 17 August 2026) — the usual OFAC/UN eligibility rule that applies everywhere. (3) A THIRD thing that is neither, and matters more to this buyer: an EU/EEA regulatory carve-out of the PROVIDER rather than the market — 'No Coinflow group entity holds any authorisation as a crypto-asset service provider or payment institution in the EU/EEA', with such activities 'performed exclusively by duly licensed third-party partners'. Europe is served, but not by Coinflow's own permissions.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Coinflow Subscriptions: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
10 methodology entries
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 65, #6 of 9. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
- 16 September 2026
2026.09.15Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources · platform-wide- changed Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
- fixed 66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
- changed Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.
- added availabilitySource (O-04g): for a reader who states a country, a row whose availability in that country rests on a region tag its record gives no source for sorts below every sourced row. It is inert in every order published here, which states no country.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt subscriptions:coinflow_subscriptions:2026.10.18:e0e05bf0a22f
Are you Coinflow Subscriptions? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.