Associate - CX Associate Crypto.com Employee Review

1.0
Nov 25, 2023
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Wfh/flexi work options (that’s it)

Cons

1. Management doesn't care about ground employees, if your job is deemed unnecessary in their eyes, you will be laid off or forced to quit. When questioned during townhalls, execs gives hard responses insinuating 'we are a private company & we don't care about you but you should work hard for us' how ironic, so no, don’t go the extra mile in exchange for lip services. 2. Toxic team dynamics (depends on which team), some are bonded some are not, look out for toxic members that constantly find ways to sabotage you, questioning you & affecting your morale while being professionally pretentious infront of bosses. Yes good bosses are important, but so are colleagues. 3. Execs promotes amongst themselves, usually the kind of "yes man", if your idea opposes the CEO then even if you're president or chief you will be fired or even forced to quit (usually they do the latter on employees). 4. Lots of unnecessary meetings (depends on the team, sometimes micro-managing bosses), you will noticed unnecessary meetings weekly/bi-weekly, & 'bosses' who are heavy on the corporate jargons but have no clue what they are saying - 2nd hand embarrassment during townhalls... Also talk time is NOT a measurement of productivity stop with these antics where team members somehow feel ashamed for not speaking in meetings.

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