Case file · Card
PST.net
A media-buyer virtual-card platform, not a privacy tool. You can get a first card with just email, but any real use (over a $500 aggregate) forces full biometric eKYC via Sumsub. Listed as a cautionary entry.
The systematized overview
The bureau vs the internet.
2.0/10 · Tiered - mandatory KYC above $500
PST.net markets a "no-KYC first card" through affiliate channels, which is why people search for it here - but it is a business virtual-card platform, not a privacy service. You can register with email and a messenger handle and get a first card, but any real use (a $500 aggregate across deposits, transfers and withdrawals) forces full biometric eKYC via Sumsub. It is custodial, explicitly unregulated with no compensation scheme, and issues via an unnamed bank. We list it as a cautionary dossier: near-zero anonymity for real use, and it scores at the bottom of the category on its contract alone.
2 recurring praises · 3 recurring gripes
Most praised: fast onboarding and clean bins praised by media buyers. Most cited downside: mandatory biometric ekyc for any real use.
We track our editorial score and community sentiment separately — neither moves the other. Read together, they're the systematized overview.
The facts
Issuer, custody & load terms.
- Issuer / BIN
- Undisclosed - "over 20 BINs across 5 banks in USA and Europe"; entity PSTNE (England and Wales per its Terms)
- Custody
- Custodial float (Terms frame issuance as a "loan secured by Virtual Items"); Bitcoin/USDT top-up
- KYC trigger
- First card / under $500 aggregate: email + messenger only. Above $500: mandatory Sumsub biometric eKYC
- Card type
- Virtual Visa / Mastercard (multiple BINs)
- Load method
- USDT (TRC-20 / ERC-20) and BTC
- Limits
- $500 aggregate before mandatory verification; higher after eKYC
- Fees
- ~2-2.9% top-up + card fees; excessive-refund/dispute fees
- Coins
- USDT, BTC (no Monero)
- Payment privacy
- Email + messenger for the first card; no anonymity for real use (mandatory eKYC above $500)
- Availability
- Global (marketer/media-buyer focus); geo restrictions apply
- Freezes / voids if
- Discretionary freeze "to protect the Company’s business interests"; account closure with deduction of "penalties, losses/expenses"
- Since
- ~2019
The full read
Our analysis, in plain words.
PST.net reaches this directory through affiliate marketing that dangles a "no-KYC first card." The contract tells the real story: an Unverified Account is capped at a $500 aggregate across all deposits, transfers and withdrawals, and the moment you cross it you must pass full biometric eKYC via Sumsub - passport or national ID, proof of address, SMS, and a video/photo check. For any real use, identity is mandatory. This is a business virtual-card platform for media buyers, not a privacy tool.
On structure it scores at the bottom of the category without needing a single disputed incident: near-zero anonymity for real use, a custodial float that the Terms frame as a "loan secured by Virtual Items," an explicit statement that it is unregulated with no compensation scheme, an issuing bank it never names, and discretionary powers to freeze funds "to protect the Company’s business interests" and to deduct "penalties, losses/expenses" on closure. Those are its own contract terms, quoted directly.
There are also user complaints of account deletions and stranded funds, including a claimed large loss after completing KYC. We could not open the review pages that carry them, and the aggregators that did load rate the site favourably, so under our integrity rule we do not fire a seizure cap or a "scam" label on a named, operating company from reports we cannot verify. We carry them as unverified allegations. The honest verdict stands on the contract alone: a mandatory-eKYC-for-real-use custodial card, listed here as a cautionary dossier at the bottom of the cohort.
The score, broken down
How the 2.0 is built.
Privacy
weight 50%What identity, data and metadata the service can demand or collect.
12 × 50% = 0.6 of 10
Trust
weight 30%Whether it can technically deliver what it claims — code, audits, age.
22 × 30% = 0.7 of 10
Reliability
weight 20%Whether the no-KYC claim holds under real-world pressure.
35 × 20% = 0.7 of 10
Weighted total 2.0 / 10 · no reliability rule triggered, so the score stands. See the rubric →
Every point, sourced
What earned the score.
Privacy
The fine print, read for you
The clause they bury.
“Once a client’s aggregate activity exceeds $500, the client must pass Verification (Annex #1): passport / driver’s licence / national ID, proof of address, SMS, and video/photo verification via Sumsub.”
What it meansThe "no-KYC first card" is a $500 on-ramp, not a privacy product. Cross a $500 aggregate across any deposits, transfers or withdrawals and you must hand over full biometric identity documents to keep using the account. For any real spend this is mandatory KYC - which is why we rate it level 3 and treat it as a cautionary listing, not a no-KYC card.
Read the source →“The Company may freeze funds or suspend an account at its discretion "to protect the Company’s business interests," may refuse to open an account "without giving any explanation," and on closure may deduct "penalties, losses/expenses."”
What it meansThese are genuinely-contractual discretionary powers over your money, with balance deductions on closure. We report them from the actual Terms as the (non-defamatory) basis for a low trust score. Separate user complaints of account deletions and stranded funds exist but sit only on review pages we could not independently open - so we carry them as unverified allegations, not as a scored freeze.
Read the source →A first card and activity under a $500 aggregate need only email + a messenger handle. Above $500 (counting deposits, transfers and withdrawals together), full biometric eKYC via Sumsub is mandatory - passport/ID, proof of address, SMS and video verification. For any real use, KYC is required.
Policy review — point by point
-
Mandatory eKYC above $500
An Unverified Account is capped at a $500 aggregate; above it, full Sumsub verification (passport/ID, proof of address, SMS, video) is mandatory per Annex #1. ↗
-
Unregulated, no compensation scheme
The Terms state PST.net is "not regulated by financial authorities" and "not subject to protection [of] any governmental compensation scheme." ↗
-
Discretionary freeze + closure deductions
It may freeze funds "to protect the Company’s business interests," refuse an account "without giving any explanation," and on closure deduct "penalties, losses/expenses." ↗
-
Unverified freeze/seizure complaints
User complaints of account deletions and stranded funds exist on review pages we could not independently open; carried as unverified allegations, not a scored incident. ↗
PST.net’s Terms name the entity as PSTNE, registered in England and Wales, under English governing law - though we could not confirm a Companies House match, so we report that as its own claim rather than verified fact. Community sources allege a Canada/Regus virtual office and Russian origins; we note those as unverified. Either way the card is custodial via an unnamed issuing bank, and the operator states it is unregulated with no compensation scheme, so practical recourse is limited.
We keep watching
Incident & policy timeline.
- ~2019 onward
Built for media buyers / affiliates
PST.net grew into a widely-used virtual-card platform for marketers and affiliates, funded in crypto, with a large satisfied base that praises fast onboarding and clean BINs.
source ↗ - 2022
Terms set a $500 unverified ceiling
The Terms (last updated 2022) establish an Unverified Account usable up to a $500 aggregate, above which full Sumsub eKYC is mandatory. The document is stale relative to current marketing.
source ↗ - Ongoing
Unverified freeze/seizure complaints (not corroborated on a fetchable source)
Review pages carry complaints of account deletions and stranded funds (including a claimed large loss after KYC), but those pages could not be independently opened, and the aggregators that did load rate the site "good/medium." We carry these as unverified user allegations and do not fire a seizure cap on them.
source ↗
The verdict
Where it stands.
Strengths
- A first card / under $500 works with just email + a messenger handle
- Real, multi-year product with a large satisfied media-buyer base
- Funded in crypto (USDT / BTC); many clean BINs
Trade-offs
- Mandatory biometric eKYC (Sumsub) above a $500 aggregate - no anonymity for real use
- Explicitly unregulated with no compensation scheme; custodial
- Issuing bank / BIN sponsor never named; terms stale (2022)
- Discretionary freeze/closure clauses with balance deductions on closure
Across the internet
What reviewers report.
Consistently praised
- Fast onboarding and clean BINs praised by media buyers
- Crypto top-ups (USDT/BTC); large active user base
Recurring complaints
- Mandatory biometric eKYC for any real use
- Complaints of account deletions and stranded funds (unverified)
- Unregulated, custodial, unnamed issuer
Genuinely mixed: a large satisfied media-buyer base alongside a cluster of freeze/seizure complaints (Trustpilot/ScamAdviser/forums) that we could not independently open - so they stay unverified allegations, not a scored freeze. Two aggregators that did load rate the site "good/medium." The low score rests on the contract, not the complaints.
Keep exploring
Related lists & categories.
Ask the bureau
PST.net, common questions.
Is PST.net no-KYC?
Only for a first card and under a $500 aggregate. Any real use forces full biometric eKYC (passport + video) via Sumsub. It is a business virtual-card platform, not a privacy tool - we rate it KYC level 3 and list it as a cautionary entry so people who find the "no-KYC first card" marketing know the real requirement.
Why is it in a no-KYC directory at all?
Because it markets a "no-KYC first card" through affiliate channels, so people search for it here. The consumer-protection value is telling them the truth: no anonymity for real use, custodial, unregulated, with an unnamed issuer.
Have people lost money on PST.net?
There are user complaints of account deletions and stranded funds, including a claimed large loss after completing KYC. We could not independently verify those (the review pages would not load for us), and two aggregators that did load rate the site favourably, so we report them as unverified allegations and do not treat them as a proven seizure.
Your exact case not covered? The live Ask the bureau answers it and turns it into a public FAQ.