A Simple Crypto Transfer Goes Wrong
What began as a casual venture into cryptocurrency turned into a financial setback for Tzoni Raykov, an oil engineer who lost $1,500 worth of digital coins due to unclear instructions on the Revolut platform. A long-time user of Revolut for everyday payments, Raykov had recently begun exploring its crypto features, inspired by the company’s promotional push.
Initially cautious, Raykov tested the platform by transferring 10 USDC coins, which successfully appeared in his Revolut account. Encouraged, he attempted to move a larger amount—1,500 USDC coins—from another crypto confusion wallet. However, this time, the coins were never credited. The problem stemmed from an unnoticed technical distinction: while the first transaction used the “Polygon PoS” network, the second used “Polygon (bridged),” a different protocol. This converted his tokens into a version called USDC.e—unsupported by Revolut.
Although Revolut’s deposit instructions mention using the “Polygon” network, they didn’t clarify the difference between variants. Raykov says clearer guidance could have helped him avoid the costly mistake. Feeling powerless and ignored, he criticized the lack of support and transparency in the crypto space, especially from a company of Revolut’s size.
Industry Gaps and Accountability
Revolut, which serves over 10 million users in the UK and is on the path to becoming a licensed bank, told Raykov that his deposit failed because the platform doesn’t support USDC.e tokens. In messages to him, support staff acknowledged the crypto confusion over the network types and promised to pass on his feedback. Yet, Revolut maintained that the failure wasn’t due to a conversion issue, but rather the receipt of an unsupported token type.
Unlike traditional banks, which follow established protocols for reversing mistaken transfers, cryptocurrency transactions lack such safety nets. In the UK, most banks adhere to a voluntary code that allows for recovery of misdirected funds—a framework not mirrored in the crypto industry. With no legal obligation to retrieve unsupported coins, Revolut has left Raykov empty-handed.
Raykov remains determined to fight for his funds. “They are waiting for me to get bored and give up,” he said. “But I won’t. The coins are in their system.” His story exemplifies the risks users face when dealing with crypto platforms that lack robust consumer protections.
A Broader Call for Regulation
Raykov’s experience is a small part of a much larger debate about the need for regulation in the rapidly expanding cryptocurrency space. Despite recent scandals—including the collapse of crypto giant FTX and massive thefts like the $1.5 billion hack of Bybit—governments are beginning to embrace crypto more favorably. However, experts caution that the industry’s meteoric growth has outpaced its internal controls.
Professor Mark Button, a cybercrime expert, emphasized that without regulation, these companies are prone to technical lapses and poor accountability. “If we are going to be serious about cryptocurrencies in the future… there needs to be some kind of regulation,” he said.
Mykhailo Tiutin, CTO at AMLBot, echoed the need for caution. His firm helps assess the risk of crypto transfers, similar to the verification processes used in traditional banking. While Tiutin believes crypto confusion generally safe, he warned users to thoroughly research services before trusting them. “The successes and the losses are ultimately at your own risk,” he concluded.
Raykov’s case underscores the urgent need for clearer guidelines, user protections, and industry standards as cryptocurrencies inch closer to mainstream adoption.
