How we evaluate
How we evaluate crypto POS compatibility
This page explains exactly how we evaluate crypto payments on point-of-sale systems: the levels, the ratings, how sure we are, where our facts come from, and why we sometimes tell you not to bother. If a conclusion elsewhere on the site links here, this is the reasoning behind it.
What the Compatibility Center is for
Most small-business owners asking "does crypto work with my POS?" get one of two useless answers: a vendor saying yes because they want the sale, or a comparison site saying yes because it earns a commission. We built this to give the answer an independent operations adviser would give you across a desk, including when that answer is "not on your system" or "not yet."
We are a small publisher. We sell guides and build free tools. We do not take money from POS vendors or crypto processors, and no affiliate arrangement changes a rating. When we are not sure, we say so.
Compatibility levels
Every platform gets one categorical level. The level describes how deeply crypto works on that system, not how good it is. A level is never a star rating and is never averaged with anything.
Native POS involved
Crypto acceptance is built into the POS itself, and the sale is treated as a first-class POS transaction. The payment begins within the POS, the order amount transfers automatically, confirmation returns to the POS, the sale appears in native reporting, and refunds or adjustments are an integrated workflow.
The register itself takes the crypto payment and records it like any other sale.
Official integration POS involved
A crypto processor connects through an official platform marketplace, first-party extension system, or officially documented integration path. The platform officially recognizes the integration, payment state flows back into the POS, the sale is substantially represented in POS reporting, and setup is supported by current documentation.
An official add-on connects a crypto processor to the register, and the sale shows up in your POS.
Third-party integration POS involved
A supported third-party connection exists, but it is not a fully native or first-party experience. Expect partial data flow, some manual reconciliation, an external processor account, greater dependency on third-party support, and possible plan, country, API, or hardware restrictions.
A third-party tool links crypto to the register, but you will still do some matching by hand.
Parallel acceptance POS not involved
Crypto is accepted beside the POS. A separate wallet or payment app takes the payment, often via a static QR or dynamic invoice, and the cashier manually records the sale as another tender type. Manual amount entry may be required. The crypto transaction does not automatically appear in POS reporting, and refunds and reconciliation are separate processes.
Crypto is taken next to the register using a separate app or QR code. The register is not involved.
Parallel acceptance means the crypto payment runs beside the POS. The POS does not process or confirm the crypto payment. The sale must be recorded or reconciled separately.
Not practical
No native support and no useful integration exists, and parallel acceptance is operationally unsuitable for the platform's typical merchant workflow. This is an honest dead end for now, not a knock on the merchant.
There is no sensible way to take crypto on this setup right now.
We assign the deepest level the evidence actually supports, not the most ambitious method a vendor advertises.
The seven things we rate
Below the level, we rate seven separate areas. Each gets its own band, its own one-line reason, and its own confidence. We deliberately do not combine them into a single number, because averaging a system's checkout speed with its refund handling would hide exactly the tradeoff you need to see.
- Checkout experience. How smooth the paying moment is for the customer and the cashier.
- Fits your existing setup. Whether it runs on hardware you already own.
- Books and reporting. Whether the sale lands in POS reports and exports cleanly to accounting.
- Setup effort. Time and technical difficulty to go live.
- Cost level and clarity. Both how high the all-in cost is and how transparent it is.
- Reliability and support. What happens during an outage, and how good help is when it breaks.
- Refund and adjustment handling. Whether staff can refund a crypto sale cleanly, and how.
Rating bands
Each area is rated on a plain four-step scale, plus two honest "we can't rate this" states:
- Excellent. Works well with no material friction for the typical merchant.
- Good. Works, with minor, clearly stated friction.
- Fair. Works, but with real friction a merchant should weigh.
- Poor. Significant friction or a substantive gap on this dimension.
- Not confirmed. Evidence inadequate to rate; shown with the date last checked.
- Not applicable. This dimension genuinely does not apply to this platform or method.
Confidence
Every conclusion carries a confidence level, because "we tested this ourselves" and "the vendor's documentation says so" are not the same kind of certainty.
- High. Directly tested, or explicitly documented by current primary sources with material details corroborated.
- Medium. Strong primary documentation but not directly tested, or some details inferred, or known plan/regional variation.
- Low. Limited documentation, secondary-source dependence, conflicting sources, old verification, or untested behavior.
A low-confidence answer is still an honest answer. We would rather publish "this looks like an official integration, but we have not tested it, last checked this month" than pretend to a certainty we do not have.
Where our facts come from
We rank evidence from strongest to weakest, and we hold the important claims to the higher bars:
- Direct testing by CryptoLic. We set it up and watched it work. We label these pages plainly.
- Current primary vendor documentation. The POS's or processor's own current help pages and pricing.
- Official marketplace or integration listings.
- Official processor documentation.
- Vendor support articles and changelogs.
- Two independent reputable secondary sources that agree.
- A single secondary source, for low-stakes facts only, always marked lower confidence.
- Vendor marketing, treated as a claim to verify, never as proof on its own.
Claims about native support and pricing need primary evidence. We never infer that a sale shows up in your POS reports just because an integration exists; that gets checked on its own.
Directly tested vs. documentation verified
At launch, most pages are documentation verified: confirmed against current official sources, but not yet run hands-on. Direct testing is a later enhancement, starting with a single platform once the Center proves useful. We will never claim CryptoLic tested a workflow unless we actually did and documented it.
How we handle what we don't know
Unknown information is shown as "Not confirmed," with the date we last looked. It never gets a middle-of-the-road rating to fill a gap. A blank we are honest about is more useful than a guess dressed up as a fact.
Dates, verification, and staleness
Prices, integrations, and features change. So we date facts by type, not all at once, and we review them on a schedule that matches how fast each one moves: pricing and integrations often, hardware and refund behavior less often, the written explanation least often.
When a critical fact is older than its review window, the page shows a clear "this may be out of date" note automatically, and stale prices are hidden rather than shown as if current. We flag; we do not quietly leave the wrong number up.
Corrections and change logs
If we get something wrong, tell us. Merchants and vendors can both submit corrections at [email protected]. We verify every submission against primary sources before changing anything; nothing is published just because someone asked. A vendor can correct a fact. A vendor cannot change our judgment, and contacting us never buys a better rating.
Each platform page keeps a visible change log of what changed and when.
When a platform changes or disappears
If a platform is discontinued, leaves the US market, or stops being relevant, we mark it clearly and dated rather than silently deleting it, so the page still helps people searching for it. We only remove a page entirely when keeping it would mislead.
Independence and no pay-to-play
No vendor pays for placement or for a rating. We put no affiliate links inside a verdict or a rating. Our recommendations are labeled as our judgment, and you can see the sources behind them so you can check our work.
Where we mention a paid CryptoLic guide, it is because it solves the exact problem the section just raised, never as a toll on the way to the answer. On a page where our honest verdict is "this is not worth it for you," we do not pitch you anything paid.
Geographic and plan limits
For now, everything here describes the United States. Features, availability, and pricing differ by country and often by plan tier, so where a fact depends on a plan or region, we say so on the page.
What we don't cover
This is operational guidance, not tax, legal, or investment advice. When a decision has tax or accounting consequences, we point you to the right resource and to your accountant. We describe security considerations but do not make security guarantees.
Frequently asked
Do you get paid by the POS companies or crypto processors you cover?
No. We take no money from POS vendors or crypto processors, and no affiliate arrangement changes a rating. We earn from the guides we sell and stay independent of the products we evaluate.
Have you actually tested these systems yourself?
At launch, most conclusions are documentation verified: confirmed against current official sources but not run hands-on. Where we have directly tested something, we label it clearly. We never claim to have tested a workflow unless we did.
Why don't you give an overall score out of five?
Because averaging very different things, like checkout speed and refund handling, hides the tradeoff you actually need to see. We give a compatibility level, seven separate ratings, and a confidence level instead of one misleading number.
What does it mean when you say a system uses parallel acceptance?
It means the crypto payment runs beside the register through a separate wallet or QR code. The POS does not process or confirm it, and the sale has to be recorded or reconciled separately. It is a real method, but it is not a POS integration.
Why would you ever recommend against accepting crypto?
Because sometimes it is not worth the trouble yet. If only a few customers will ever use it and the manual bookkeeping would cost more than the sales are worth, the honest answer is to wait. Telling you that is the whole point of this resource.
How do I report something that's wrong or out of date?
Email us. We verify every correction against primary sources before changing anything, and we keep a visible change log on each platform page. A vendor can correct a fact, but cannot change our judgment or buy a better rating.