Avoid the London DeFi Wallet Engineering Roles at All Costs! (It will ruin your engineering career) - Software Engineer bei Crypto.com: Mitarbeiterbewertung

1.0
10. Aug. 2022
Empfehlen
CEO-Befürwortung
Geschäftsprognose

Pros

- Probably being paid for doing nothing much at work.

Kontras

1) Communication barriers. ( I was assigned to the development team based in Shenzhen even though I was hired as a London employee. All the team members can't speak English and only speak Mandarin in all the meetings) 2) 0 flexibility to change teams. (Due to the bear market, the company is freezing hiring and laying off engineers, which means I will be stuck in the current team for a long time with another London-based English-speaking engineer). 3) Terrible code quality (There isn't a single unit test in a whole monolithic repository that's handling the DeFi backend logic. I won't be confident in using the buggy DeFi wallet app that's handling crypto money) 4) Always out of the loop due to the time difference. Hard for me to attend the standup meetings as the Shenzhen team members have standups at 3am GMT every day. 5) No learning opportunities. All the knowledge-sharing sessions are conducted in Mandarin and the London engineers are completely left out. 6) Voice not being heard by upper management. I've raised my concerns but they were all ignored by the managers and all the things mentioned when I signed the contract were false promises.

Mehr Bewertungen zu Crypto.com entdecken

5.0
29. Jan. 2026
Mitarbeiter (anonym)
Empfehlen
CEO-Befürwortung
Geschäftsprognose

Pros

they have a lot of jobs

Kontras

they are one of the best

2.0
19. März 2026
Empfehlen
CEO-Befürwortung
Geschäftsprognose

Pros

Work From Home Decent Salary

Kontras

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
Bewertungen anzeigen nach: Hilfreich|Sterne|Datum|Alle