A virtual crypto-to-fiat card that lives or dies by its issuer, and right now the issuer is the weak link

Updated October 2026

Licensed

Available in US

Fast payouts

18+ Only

I went through the Bit.Store public pages, the launch coverage, the third-party trackers and the user reports before writing this. The short version is that the product itself — a virtual card that spends a crypto-loaded balance — is straightforward, but the company behind it has had a hard year, the physical card is gone, and the reviews are the kind of red that I have to put front and centre. If you only have a minute, jump to the verdict; if you want the detail, the order below mirrors what I checked.

The conditions in this review are current as of October 28, 2026.

Verdict

Bit.Store scores 5.0 out of 10, and that headline number is doing a lot of work. The product is fine for what it tries to be: a small virtual Visa or Mastercard that you top up with crypto, add to a phone wallet and use for everyday online and in-store spending. The score is pulled down hard by two things: the company, Bitstore Europe UAB in Lithuania, is not a bank and is not on the Bank of Lithuania’s list of licensed e-money institutions, so there is no banking-grade backstop behind the balance you load; and the user reports from late 2024 through 2025 describe virtual cards that went into “maintenance”, balances that became unspendable and monthly deductions that kept running anyway, with slow support. Trustpilot reads 1.8 from 23 reviews, with 82% of those at one star. On top of that, the physical Mastercard that Bit.Store used to issue through Paytend was discontinued in March 2026 after a regulatory event at Paytend, and the virtual card’s current issuer is not named in the public material I could read.

Who it suits, in my reading: someone who wants a low-fuss virtual card for small crypto-funded spending, is comfortable with the prepaid model, lives in one of the listed countries outside the usual sanctions set, and accepts that the balance is held by a custodian that is not a bank. Who it does not suit: anyone who needs an ATM, anyone who needs a physical card, anyone whose monthly volume is in the thousands, and anyone who cannot afford to have a balance frozen during a maintenance window.

Here is the breakdown by criterion.

Who they will give the card to

The card’s own pages do not publish a clean applicant-country list or a residency rule, so I am working from the third-party tracker. The short version: the tracker lists 54 countries as available, and it calls out Belarus, China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria and the United States as restricted. If you live in one of those eight, this is not the card to spend time on. For everyone else, the headline is “probably yes” rather than a hard “yes”, because the public list I could find is not the same as a full eligibility page on the Bit.Store site. The information above is unofficial and not confirmed by the card itself; treat the 54-country figure as a working number, not a guarantee.

There is a second question hiding inside the country one, and it matters more than people think: the rules that govern your account are partly about where you live, partly about citizenship and country of birth, and partly about sanctions lists. A regulated card programme can say “yes” to your address and still say “no” to your passport, which is why some readers will get further with the sign-up form than others and not always for the reasons they expect. If that affects you, the safest move is to read the eligibility wording on the official page at the moment you apply, because what you read here is from August 2026 and the underlying list can shift.

What is not stated on the public pages, and which I cannot fill in from the tracker either, is a published minimum-age rule. The launch coverage and an older FAQ referred to 18+; a later user agreement language was reported as 16+. The card’s own current pages do not state it, so confirm at sign-up rather than assume.

How to get it

Bit.Store’s product is currently a virtual card, and the public material I could read describes a “Simple KYC verification” flow. The original 2023 launch was marketed as a KYC-free Mastercard prepaid virtual card; the current wording has moved to a basic KYC step. I could not find a published list of which documents the verification asks for on the Bit.Store site itself, so this part of the flow is “not stated” in the official material and is unofficial when reported by the third-party tracker. The same source flags that the minimum-age wording in the FAQ and the user agreement disagreed at the time of writing.

On the card form, the third-party tracker says the choice is between a virtual Visa and a virtual Mastercard depending on which card type you pick inside the app. The original 2023 launch was a Mastercard prepaid virtual card, which lines up with that. There is no physical card to be issued any more: the physical Mastercard that used to be issued through Paytend was discontinued in March 2026 after a regulatory event at Paytend, and no replacement physical programme has been announced. The virtual issuer that has taken over after Paytend is not publicly named.

If you do apply, the points I would check before pressing submit are these: which network the card is on (Visa or Mastercard) so that you know what merchant acceptance to expect; whether your address country is on the accepted list at sign-up rather than later; and what the KYC step actually asks for, because that decides how long the verification takes. None of those answers are in a clean table on the public pages; they are inside the sign-up flow.

What it really costs

Bit.Store’s own public pages do not publish a clean fee schedule, so the numbers below come from third-party trackers and from the 2023 launch coverage. They are unofficial, and the card’s own current page is the source that will overrule anything you read here.

On issuance, third-party trackers suggest the card is free to issue. On the recurring side, a previously published schedule put a monthly fee at around $1 and an annual fee at $0. The 2023 launch coverage was emphatic: no issuing, inactivity or annual fees, and no purchase fees on transactions up to $10,000. The current tracker describes the situation as “FX and purchase fees depend on card type, no complete public schedule”, which is honest but not very useful if you are trying to plan a budget. I would treat the older pricing as the best case and the current tracker description as the most honest description of what is public.

A few everyday payments, walked through with the fees that are likely to apply, are useful here because the fee that hurts is the one you forgot about. A $50 online subscription paid in US dollars from a USDT top-up: the 2.5% top-up fee on $50 is $1.25, and if the merchant’s currency matches the card’s settlement currency, there is no further FX hit. A $30 in-store coffee paid in euros with a card settled in euros: the same 2.5% top-up fee applies to the underlying crypto, and the point-of-sale FX is normally folded into the conversion. A $500 online purchase in a currency that is not the card’s settlement currency: the 2.5% top-up fee is layered on, and the FX margin is whatever the card’s current schedule says, which the tracker says depends on the card type. The honest summary is that the only number I can give you with any confidence is the top-up fee, and that everything else is “confirm at checkout”.

A second, less obvious cost is the on-chain network fee for the crypto transfer itself. Bit.Store does not charge it; the blockchain does, in the asset’s native token (ETH for ERC-20 USDT, for example). If you send $20 of USDT from a wallet that does not have a small ETH balance to pay gas, the transfer will not move, and if the support team has to help you recover a transfer to the wrong network, there is no promise of a refund because blockchain transfers are irreversible. The number to keep in your head is the on-chain fee, not the percentage, because that is the one that surprises people.

Top up

The card’s own pages do not publish a top-up section I can quote, so what I have is from the third-party tracker. The short version is that Bit.Store supports 10 or more cryptocurrencies, with BTC, ETH, USDT and USDC named specifically. The way it works in the model the tracker describes is that you transfer crypto in and the system converts it to the card’s balance at the point of loading. Networks are not stated in the public material, which is the single most important thing to fix before you send anything, because a stablecoin sent on the wrong network is the classic way to lose a deposit with no recourse. I am flagging this as not stated rather than filling in a guess.

The fee for topping up is 2.5% according to the tracker, up from 1.5% in an older schedule. A previously published flow also described an unofficial $15 minimum top-up, with a “confirm at checkout” line. Fiat top-up routes (bank transfer, card) are not stated in the public material. What this means for you, walking through it: pick the asset you want to send, then open the app’s top-up screen and read the network and the address it gives you. Do not assume that the network is the one you usually use for that token; if the screen says “USDT-TRC20”, send USDT on Tron, not on Ethereum, and not on a network the screen did not name. Send a small test first if you are sending a large amount. Keep enough of the native token in the sending wallet to cover the gas, because USDT and USDC are tokens and the network fee is paid in the chain’s own asset.

One more thing on this section, because the cost line above did not cover it: a balance that you load is a balance that Bit.Store holds for you. That is the custodial model. If the company has a bad month, the balance is part of the company’s books; it is not a deposit at a bank, and it is not protected by a deposit guarantee scheme. I come back to this in the risks section below, but the top-up step is where you take that decision, so I am flagging it here.

Paying with it every day

The everyday-use story is short and mostly positive, with one large asterisk. The card is a virtual Visa or Mastercard, which is what most online and in-store terminals accept. The 2023 launch and the third-party tracker both say Apple Pay and Google Pay were advertised at launch, and a tokenised card on a phone wallet is generally the smoothest way to pay contactless, because the merchant never sees the card number and the issuer never sees the device. Whether tokenisation actually works in your case depends on the BIN range, your device region and the wallet’s settings; if the card does not show up in Apple Pay or Google Pay, that is the usual reason.

The asterisk is the ATM story: there is no ATM access on the virtual card. The former physical Mastercard had an unofficial €2,000 daily ATM limit, but that card is gone. If you need cash from a balance that lives on Bit.Store, the practical alternative is to top up a different card or a bank account, which has its own fee. The merchant categories that get blocked are not stated in the public material, and the tracker does not list blocked categories either, so I cannot tell you whether gambling, crypto purchases or other typical crypto-card blocks apply here. If a specific category matters to you, the practical test is a small first payment.

There is no cashback or rewards line in the public material, and the app is not described in detail in the tracker. The dispute path is also not publicly itemised, which is a real gap: a card with no published dispute or replacement fee schedule is a card where you find out what the dispute costs you by trying it. The 2023 launch mentioned an extra two-factor authentication layer on top of the standard 3-D Secure flow, and standard card-payment protections like 3-D Secure (Visa Secure for Visa, Identity Check for Mastercard) and CVV still apply to the online path. AVS (address verification) is mostly a US/Canada/UK thing and is generally not available on foreign-issued cards, which is one of the reasons a foreign BIN can be declined at a US merchant.

What can go wrong

There are three risks worth taking seriously, and they are not the same kind of risk.

The first is operational. The user reports from late 2024 through 2025 describe virtual cards that were put into “maintenance”, balances that became unspendable or unwithdrawable, monthly fee deductions that continued while the card was unusable, and support that took weeks to reply. Some users recovered; others describe being blocked for months. I could not find an official incident notice on the Bit.Store side that explains the cause of these windows, which is part of the problem: when a platform goes quiet during a freeze, the user has no way to tell whether the freeze is a routine maintenance window or a structural one, and that ambiguity is itself a risk. Trustpilot reads 1.8 from 23 reviews, with 82% at one star, and the themes line up with what the tracker describes.

The second is the regulatory kind. The physical card was discontinued in March 2026 after a regulatory event at the issuer, Paytend. Paytend Europe UAB was the named issuer of the physical card. The current virtual issuer is not publicly named. The company that runs the platform, Bitstore Europe UAB in Lithuania (company number 306465386), is registered as a virtual-currency exchange and depository-wallet operator; it is not a bank and, as of August 2026, the third-party tracker reports that it is not on the Bank of Lithuania’s list of licensed e-money institutions. That is the gap. E-money institutions in the EU have to safeguard customer funds, by segregation or insurance, and those funds are not the same as bank deposits. Bitstore Europe UAB’s customer funds sit in a custodial wallet (Cobo is the custody partner the tracker names), not in a segregated e-money account at a licensed EMI, and that is a different risk profile from a card issued by, say, a Lithuanian EMI.

The third is the usual crypto-card risk, the kind that applies to the category rather than to this card specifically. Crypto transfers are irreversible, so a stablecoin sent to the wrong network or to a wrong address cannot be retrieved by the network; recovery, if it happens, is a manual support process with no guarantee. Stablecoins can also lose their peg: USDC briefly traded below its dollar peg in March 2023 during the US banking stress, and Tether’s USDT has had its own peg tests. None of that is specific to Bit.Store, but it is the environment the card operates in, and it is part of the reason the “top up” step needs more care than a normal prepaid card.

The pieces I would check first, in order, are these. Is the company on the Bank of Lithuania’s electronic money institution register, and has that changed since this was written? Has the Trustpilot picture changed? Has the company published a current incident notice, or a current fee schedule, or a current issuer name? The answers to those three questions tell you more about whether to load a meaningful balance than the rest of this review combined.

What to take instead

The right alternative depends on what is missing for you. If you are outside the 54-country list, if the Trustpilot pattern is a deal-breaker, or if you want a card whose issuer is named in public, the comparison below is where I would start. All three alternatives are scored against the same ten-point rubric as Bit.Store, and all three are virtual-first products.

A bit more on each. Cardex runs on four networks, which is unusual, and it markets an “AI-Powered Conversion Rate” that picks the best rate at the moment of payment; the site does not publish a percentage, so the claim is hard to test without a transaction. The country claim is “200+”, but there is no published list, and the App Store listing is Naira-focused, which is a real signal about who the card was designed for. CardFlow is the easiest entry: a free virtual USD Mastercard in a few minutes, with BTC, USDT, ETH or Naira bank transfer as funding. The site does not state monthly fees, purchase fees or blocked categories, so the price question is open. HyperCard is the most “prepaid card” of the three: deposit USDT, BTC or ETH in the app, converted to USD or EUR on the card, network not stated. The 176-country claim is about where the card is accepted, not where it is issued, and the distinction is the same one I walked through in the country section above.

Two things are missing from the alternatives that I would want to see before I switched. None of the three publishes a complete fee table, and none of them publishes a full list of blocked merchant categories. Both of those gaps are common in the category; both are also the things you find out about at the worst possible moment. If any of these three are appealing, the practical test is the same as for Bit.Store: small first top-up, small first payment, one wallet tokenisation test, one support question before you load a meaningful balance.

Who I would recommend it to

I would not recommend Bit.Store to a reader whose monthly volume is more than a few hundred dollars, to a reader who needs cash access, to a reader who is not on the unofficial 54-country list, or to a reader who cannot afford to have a balance locked during a maintenance window. I would not recommend it as a primary card to anyone; the Trustpilot pattern is too consistent, the issuer gap on the virtual side is too new, and the physical card is gone.

The narrow case where I would consider it is a reader who wants a virtual Visa or Mastercard for small crypto-funded spending, lives outside the restricted list, accepts the prepaid model, keeps the loaded balance small enough that a freeze would be inconvenient rather than catastrophic, and is comfortable with the risk that the balance is held by a custodian that is not a bank. The card itself does the basic job. The company behind it has to prove it can keep doing the basic job too, and right now the public evidence on that is mixed.

If your main reason for wanting a crypto card is “I cannot get an ordinary bank card”, the right first move is to look at the alternatives in the section above rather than at Bit.Store specifically, because each of them offers a slightly different trade on country coverage, KYC depth and named issuer, and at least one of them is more likely to fit your situation. If your main reason is “I already hold crypto and I want to spend it without going through a bank”, Bit.Store does that, and you should treat it as a small-balance tool with the limitations above rather than as a primary account.

Frequently asked questions

What is Bit.Store card?

Bit.Store is a prepaid virtual card that you top up with cryptocurrency; the crypto is converted to a card balance at the moment of loading, and the card then spends that balance like a normal Visa or Mastercard online or in store. The company behind it is Bitstore Europe UAB in Lithuania. The card exists today as a virtual product only, after the physical Mastercard was discontinued in March 2026.

How does Bit.Store card work?

You sign up, complete a basic KYC step, get a virtual Visa or Mastercard, top it up with a supported cryptocurrency (BTC, ETH, USDT, USDC and others are named by the third-party tracker), and the system converts the crypto to a balance on the card at the time of loading. The card then spends that balance. It is a prepaid model, so the card cannot overdraw.

Is Bit.Store a bank?

No. The operator, Bitstore Europe UAB in Lithuania, is registered as a virtual-currency exchange and a depository-wallet operator, not as a bank and, according to the third-party tracker, not as a licensed e-money institution either. The card programme sits on a Visa or Mastercard network with an issuer that is not publicly named in the current material.

Who owns Bit.Store?

The platform is operated by Bitstore Europe UAB, a Lithuanian company (number 306465386) registered in 2024. The custody partner named in the third-party tracker is Cobo. The card’s virtual issuer is not publicly named, and the former physical card was issued by Paytend Europe UAB.

Is Bit.Store card available in my country?

The third-party tracker lists 54 countries as available and calls out Belarus, China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria and the United States as restricted. That is unofficial and not confirmed by the card’s own pages, which do not publish a clean applicant-country list. Treat the 54-country figure as a working number and confirm at sign-up.

Does Bit.Store card require KYC?

The current product description on the third-party tracker says “Simple KYC verification”, which is a step removed from the 2023 launch marketing of a “KYC-free” prepaid card. The exact documents the verification asks for are not stated in the public material, so this is something you find out at sign-up rather than from a published list.

How do I top up Bit.Store card?

In the model the third-party tracker describes, you transfer a supported cryptocurrency (BTC, ETH, USDT, USDC and others) to the deposit address the app gives you, and the system converts it to the card’s balance at loading. The top-up fee is 2.5% according to the tracker, up from 1.5% earlier. Networks are not stated in the public material, which is the most important thing to check before you send.

How do I add Bit.Store card to Apple Wallet or Google Pay?

The 2023 launch and the third-party tracker both describe Apple Pay and Google Pay as supported from launch. Whether tokenisation works in your case depends on the BIN range, your device region and the wallet’s settings; if the card does not appear in the wallet, that is the usual reason. There is no published documentation I could find that walks through the steps.

Is Bit.Store card safe?

The card uses standard payment-network protections (3-D Secure on the online path, CVV, tokenisation through Apple Pay and Google Pay), and the 2023 launch mentioned an extra two-factor authentication layer. The risk that is specific to Bit.Store is custodial: your balance is held by a company that is not a bank and, per the third-party tracker, not a licensed e-money institution either, and the user reports from late 2024 through 2025 describe maintenance windows and blocked balances. Treat the loaded balance as a balance you can lose.

Is Bit.Store card worth it?

For a small virtual balance funded from crypto, in a country where it is available, and with the understanding that the operator is not a bank, the card does the basic job. The Trustpilot picture (1.8 from 23 reviews, 82% one-star) and the physical card’s closure in March 2026 mean I would not load a meaningful balance or use it as a primary card. For anything beyond small spending, the alternatives in the comparison section are a better starting point.

Content created by the «cryptocardcheck» team