It's time for Kris "Liar" Marszalek to lose his job - Senior Software Engineer Crypto.com Employee Review

1.0
Aug 26, 2022
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

It would have a bright future if the CEO were replaced with a honest and mindful one.

Cons

It's not a matter of lay-off vs retention. Almost every company has been thru laying-off. Rather, it's a matter of integrity, respect, and investor risk control. It's a huge flag for the CEO to blatantly tell lies! Employees are investors , they trust the company and the C-level executives first, then they invest their precious times and human resources so heavily into the company. However, there was such a sudden unannounced "rug pull" over the last month. The CEO should be honest, transparent, and upfront about this. But hey look what he did instead: he hided critical financial info all the time, and he lied about the magnitude of the lay-off! Even worse, he thought "crypto.com is not a public company, he has the right to withhold info"... But please, i) CRO (Cronos) is a token that's traded publicly, and ii) private companies has the obligation to be frank and obligation to disclose material info to its own employees, coz employees are also investors. If the CEO disrespects employees today, will you believe he will respect investors tomorrow? Mr. Kris Marszalek's behavior and attitude during the lay-off and town-hall meeting is a clear negative indication (red flag) of the risk of further investing in this company. Investors and stakeholders, please be aware! ---------- Recession is when your coworker loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Kris Marszalek loses his

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