Toxic with high turnover - Customer Experience Associate Crypto.com Employee Review

1.0
Sep 16, 2024
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Pay was considered good for the standards of the country and almost average for the city. MultiSport, and the building amenities were nice. You can meet some cool collugues.

Cons

They don’t care about you. They hire a a lot of people in a short amount of time and get rid of them without a care. High turnover is part of their culture. Say goodbye to sleep. There’s no consistency in shift times. They change policies and procedures on a daily basis, and when chatting with customers it’s your responsibility to work as if you are AI, you must follow the policy and say what they want 100%. They input policies that many would say hinder they’re abilities to do their jobs effectively, Then a team will give you random chat reviews every week, with very questionable and subjective input and decision making. You can get great reviews form customers but bad ones form the crypto.com team. Everyone complains about the QA team everyday. You can never get comfortable here. You will never have job security.

Explore other reviews about Crypto.com

5.0
Jan 29, 2026
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

they have a lot of jobs

Cons

they are one of the best

2.0
Mar 19, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Work From Home Decent Salary

Cons

In a compliance role, leadership should be willing to listen when analysts/associates raise concerns about regulatory risk, process weaknesses, or policy gaps. In my experience, that was not the culture here. Too often, valid concerns were dismissed instead of taken seriously, even when they involved issues that could affect the firm from a compliance and control perspective. What made the experience especially frustrating was the leadership style within parts of compliance. Rather than encouraging open dialogue, managers came across as defensive, dismissive, and more focused on protecting their own authority than addressing the substance of the issue and creating a toxic environment where raising concerns did not feel safe or productive. Instead of approaching issues in a professional and solution-oriented way, interactions could become personal, degrading, and hostile. This became even more concerning when the NAM compliance department later failed several items in an internal audit, including areas that had already been flagged by analysts as process or policy gaps. That, to me, reflected a broader problem: important concerns were being raised internally, but not handled with the seriousness or humility they required. There was also very little transparency or accountability when it came to employee development, feedback, or career progression. Communication with subordinates was poor, and employees were not given meaningful support or clarity around growth opportunities. HR was equally disappointing. From my perspective, there did not appear to be a reliable or well-structured path for employees to raise concerns and expect a fair resolution. Overall, my experience was that parts of the compliance culture operated more like an insular power structure than a healthy control function. For a company in a heavily regulated space, that is a serious leadership and culture problem.

2
See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All