Provider at a glance
- Category
- Crypto Subscriptions
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- docs.request.network
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 73 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Request Network Recurring Payments
Recurring payments on Request Network
Crypto Subscriptions
#3 Overall
Ranked #3 of 9 crypto subscriptions in the published ranking
73
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $5,400 your cost/yr
Is Request Network Recurring Payments right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- What exactly did my customer sign away, and what stops it from quietly becoming more than that?9/10, the category best
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?4/10 here; Superfluid Money Streaming scores 8
- The second charge fails. What does the provider actually do next, and when do I hear about it?7/10 here; the category best is 9
- If this provider is gone next quarter, do I still get paid — and whose licence is the money moving under today?5/10 here; Superfluid Money Streaming scores 8
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 Request Network Recurring Payments cost you?
$5,400 your cost/yr
- Payments per month
- 500
- Average payment
- $100
- Percentage leg
- 0.9%
$570 below the median of 6 priced crypto subscriptions.
How this is calculatedHow safe is Request Network Recurring Payments?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Request Network Recurring Payments
Compare all 4- 2Superfluid Money Streaming1 point above · stronger on revocation visibility (8 against 4)74
- 4Base Pay Subscriptions (Spend Permissions)1 point below · stronger on revocation visibility (7 against 4)72$0.00
- 5Sablier Flow2 points below · stronger on revocation visibility (7 against 4)71$5,940
For your setup
Find out if Request Network Recurring Payments fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Request Network Recurring Payments 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 Request Network Recurring Payments ranks #3
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (19.6 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 1 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
284+3.585.09#7/9Loading evidence…
267+5.823.09#2/9Loading evidence…
245+3.846.010#6/9Loading evidence…
229+6.346.09#1/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind Superfluid Money Streaming, #2
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 71–75 and ranks #2–#4
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 Request Network Recurring Payments’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? 4 → 5 on its ladder · passes Superfluid Money Streaming+175#3 → #2
The second charge fails. What does the provider actually do next, and when do I hear about it? 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes Superfluid Money Streaming+175#3 → #2
If this provider is gone next quarter, do I still get paid — and whose licence is the money moving under today? 5 → 6 on its ladder · passes Superfluid Money Streaming+175#3 → #2
What exactly did my customer sign away, and what stops it from quietly becoming more than that? 9 → 10 on its ladder · passes Superfluid Money Streaming+175#3 → #2
My customer kills the allowance at midnight. Am I told, or do I find out at the next billing run? 4 → 3 on its ladder · Base Pay Subscriptions (Spend Permissions) passes it−171#3 → #4
The second charge fails. What does the provider actually do next, and when do I hear about it? 7 → 6 on its ladder · Base Pay Subscriptions (Spend Permissions) passes it−172#3 → #4
If this provider is gone next quarter, do I still get paid — and whose licence is the money moving under today? 5 → 4 on its ladder · Base Pay Subscriptions (Spend Permissions) passes it−172#3 → #4
Smallest climb: “My customer kills the allowance at midnight. Am I told, or do I find out at the next billing run?” 4 → 5 passes Superfluid Money Streaming, #2.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- What exactly did my customer sign away, and what stops it from quietly becoming more than that? — 9/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
3 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? — 4/10 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? — 7/10 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? — 5/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- The mandate's rigidity is the product, and it is also the thing that will hurt. Every schedule is a hard-coded finite series — one fixed amount, a fixed `totalPayments`, strict ordering, and a hard signature `deadline` — and the only two lifecycle actions Request exposes are cancel and unpause. There is no documented way to raise a price, change a plan, switch to usage-based amounts, add a period, or renew indefinitely: any of those requires cancelling and getting a fresh EIP-712 signature from every affected customer, i.e. a re-consent campaign across your entire book. Ordinary SaaS billing motions that Stripe treats as a one-line update are, here, a migration. A close second: when the customer zeroes the ERC-20 approval at the token contract, Request emits nothing — you find out at the next scheduled trigger, when the payment fails and the schedule pauses, after the money should already have landed. Since 2026-09-18 the webhook reference shows `payment.failed` as a generic failure with an empty `subStatus`; the cause appears in the status endpoint's paused example (`failureReason` "Insufficient token allowance"), which you must poll.
Competitive position
Where Request Network Recurring Payments 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#3 / 914.7 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 Request Network Recurring Payments leads
- The second charge fails. What does the provider actually do next, and when do I hear about it?#2 / 9
- What exactly did my customer sign away, and what stops it from quietly becoming more than that?#1 / 9
Where it trails
- My customer kills the allowance at midnight. Am I told, or do I find out at the next billing run?#7 / 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.
Superfluid Money Streaming#2 of 9 · score 74 · 1.0 point ahead
Request Network Recurring Payments leads on
- The second charge fails. What does the provider actually do next, and when do I hear about it?7 vs 3
- What exactly did my customer sign away, and what stops it from quietly becoming more than that?9 vs 6
Superfluid Money Streaming leads on
- My customer kills the allowance at midnight. Am I told, or do I find out at the next billing run?8 vs 4
- If this provider is gone next quarter, do I still get paid — and whose licence is the money moving under today?8 vs 5
Largest single reason Superfluid Money Streaming is ahead: published criteria (+0.8 display points).Scenario cost: Superfluid Money Streaming has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Base Pay Subscriptions (Spend Permissions)#4 of 9 · score 72 · 1.0 point behind
Request Network Recurring Payments leads on
- The second charge fails. What does the provider actually do next, and when do I hear about it?7 vs 2
- What exactly did my customer sign away, and what stops it from quietly becoming more than that?9 vs 7
Base Pay Subscriptions (Spend Permissions) leads on
- My customer kills the allowance at midnight. Am I told, or do I find out at the next billing run?7 vs 4
- If this provider is gone next quarter, do I still get paid — and whose licence is the money moving under today?8 vs 5
Largest single reason Request Network Recurring Payments is ahead: published criteria (+1.0 display points).Scenario cost: Base Pay Subscriptions (Spend Permissions) is −$5,400 against Request Network Recurring Payments.
Sablier Flow#5 of 9 · score 71 · 2.0 points behind
Request Network Recurring Payments leads on
- The second charge fails. What does the provider actually do next, and when do I hear about it?7 vs 3
- What exactly did my customer sign away, and what stops it from quietly becoming more than that?9 vs 7
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 4
- If this provider is gone next quarter, do I still get paid — and whose licence is the money moving under today?6 vs 5
Largest single reason Request Network Recurring Payments is ahead: published criteria (+2.6 display points).Scenario cost: Sablier Flow is +$540 against Request Network Recurring Payments.
Against the leader
80 vs 73 · gap 7.0Why Solana Subscriptions Delegation Program ranks above Request Network Recurring Payments
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 7.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisSolana Subscriptions Delegation ProgramGap share
Availability · 23% weight14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight14.717.3−6.8, 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? · w2849−4.48, worse
The second charge fails. What does the provider actually do next, and when do I hear about it? · w2672+4.16, better
If this provider is gone next quarter, do I still get paid — and whose licence is the money moving under today? · w24510−3.84, worse
What exactly did my customer sign away, and what stops it from quietly becoming more than that? · w2298+0.70, better
Net7380−7.0
Your scenario
What Request Network Recurring Payments costs on your 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
Percentage leg · published rate0.9%
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.
$5,400
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$5,9706 of 9 rows priced · Request Network Recurring Payments −$570 vs median
Cheapest priced$0.00 · Base Pay Subscriptions (Spend Permissions)Request Network Recurring Payments costs +$5,400 more · 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 #2 to #4 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 4 · 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 7 · 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 5 · 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 9 · 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 (Request Network Recurring Payments 9/10): 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 (Request Network Recurring Payments 7/10): 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 (Request Network Recurring Payments 5/10): 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 (Request Network Recurring Payments 4/10): 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
- Read on https://
request .network /pricing / (fetched 28 September 2026): "Send and accept crypto for a flat 0.9% per transaction" — headline; the pricing card reads "0.9%" / "Flat fee on transaction volume, capped at $500 per transaction", with "No monthly fees", "No setup fees", "No service surcharges", "No minimum volume", "No licensing required". Body: "The 0.9% fee is the same on every chain and you never need to hold gas. On EVM chains gas is included. On Tron, the payer pays a flat $3.99 per transaction to cover the Tron network cost." FAQ: "No. You only pay per successful transaction, a flat 0.9% capped at $500 per payment. Wallet screening is included in that 0.9% when the recipient enables it, at no extra charge." New since August on the same page: a white-label section ("Add your own markup on top of the 0.9%") and a vendor-authored competitor table ("Transaction fee 0.9%", "Fee cap $500"). CONTRADICTION THE BUYER MUST KNOW, unchanged: the docs decline to publish the same number and still list recurring as not yet in the fee schedule. On https:// docs .request .network /api-features /protocol-fees (fetched 28 September 2026, "Last modified on July 30, 2026"): "The protocol fee rate can change over time, so it isn't published here.", and the list of fee-bearing payment types ends with "Subscription (coming soon)". By default "the payer bears the protocol fee. It is added on top of the invoice amount, so the payee receives the full invoice amount." Merchants can stack their own take via feePercentage and feeAddress.Request Network Recurring Payments — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDRequest Network Recurring Payments — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- SILENT PAGE CITED — the vendor's own complete webhook event reference publishes no cancellation and no revocation event. Read on https://
docs .request .network /api-reference /webhooks (28 September 2026, 'Last modified on 18 September 2026'): the 'Current webhook events' table lists client_id.linked, payment.confirmed, payment.failed, kyt.screening.completed, secure_payment.user_event and secure_payment.access_rejected, request.recurring now sits under 'Legacy integrations', and the payment.failed row says 'Allowlist rejection, KYT rejection, and wallet cancellation do not automatically emit it.' Cancellation remains an API action only (PATCH /v2/payouts/recurring/{id}, 'Available options : cancel , unpause'). - Supported chains
- ethereum, arbitrum, optimism, base, polygon, bnb-chain, sepolia-testnet
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- NO MARKET RESTRICTION FOUND, AND — unusually — NOT EVEN A STANDARD OFAC/SANCTIONS ELIGIBILITY REPRESENTATION IN THE CONTRACTING TERMS. The only jurisdictional language in https://
request .network /api-terms-and-conditions / (read 17 August 2026) is governing law: '**Law & Jurisdiction:** Use of our Services is governed by the laws of Switzerland and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent courts of Zug, Switzerland.' A full-text search of that page for restricted countries, prohibited jurisdictions, OFAC, embargo or residency returns nothing. Sanctions appear only as an OPT-IN PRODUCT FEATURE aimed at the merchant's payers, not as a footprint limit on the merchant: 'Screen every payer wallet for sanctions and risk before accepting a payment. Built into payment destinations — opt-in per receiving route.' and 'payer wallets and recipient wallets are screened against Hypernative's risk intelligence database across supported blockchains before a transaction is authorized' (https:// docs .request .network /use-cases /compliance-gated-payments and /use-cases/hypernative-standard-screening-policy, read 17 August 2026). Onboarding is asserted to be frictionless everywhere: 'No account. No KYC. No contracts. No custody. Connect your wallet and start sending and accepting crypto on any supported chain in minutes.' and the comparison row 'KYB for onboarding | No' (https:// request .network /pricing /, read 17 August 2026) — though the terms hedge this: '**API Access:** API access may be subject to KYB checks and integration eligibility verification.' (https:// request .network /api-terms-and-conditions /, read 17 August 2026). The real constraint on recurring is technical, not geographic: 'Recurring payments rely on ERC-20 permit (`EIP-2612`) signatures and are therefore **EVM-only**.' with a note that 'Tron does not support ERC-20 permit semantics, so recurring payments are not available on Tron.' (https:// docs .request .network /api-features /recurring-payments, read 17 August 2026). Scored global.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Request Network Recurring Payments: 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 73, #3 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:request_recurring:2026.10.18:e0e05bf0a22f
Are you Request Network Recurring Payments? 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.