Collect & Exchange: appearance in casino deposit flows and the merchant question
CySEC CASP listing and repeated api.collectnexchange.cy appearances in iDEAL checkout paths
Key Takeaways
- Collect & Exchange CY Ltd is listed in CySEC's authorised CASP register as CASP003/25 and is registered as HE456884 in Limassol.
- Screenshots repeatedly show the api.collectnexchange.cy endpoint in iDEAL checkout routes at several casinos, but they do not prove completed payments or settlement recipients.
- Co‑founder Yaron Noah publicly identified Asaf Hanukaev as co‑founder and claimed in‑house technology in a LinkedIn post reviewed by FinTelegram.
- Article 70(4) of MiCA allows related payment services only when the CASP or a relevant third party is authorised under PSD2, and the visible API alone does not satisfy that requirement.
Collect & Exchange CY Ltd is listed in Cyprus's authorised CASP register and its API endpoint repeatedly appeared in iDEAL deposit paths at multiple casinos, according to FinTelegram's review. Co-founder Yaron Noah published a public LinkedIn post on 4 October 2026 identifying himself and Asaf Hanukaev as co‑founders and saying the company uses in‑house technology. It remains unclear which entity was the merchant in each integration, what exact service was provided and who was ultimately supposed to receive the funds.
Regulatory presence and corporate details for Collect & Exchange
Collect & Exchange CY Ltd is listed in the authorised CASP register of the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) as CASP003/25. The company is registered with number HE456884 and a registered address at Thessalonikis 13, Limassol, according to its published terms. In its public communication Noah also used the reference “PYKS 1/25”; the difference between that name and CASP003/25 has not been clarified by the company or by FinTelegram.
The company advertises services including custody of crypto assets, crypto/fiat exchange, crypto/crypto exchange and transfers in euros and crypto. The LinkedIn post by Noah reviewed by FinTelegram names Yaron Noah and Asaf Hanukaev as co‑founders and attributes in‑house developed technology to the company. Those are public claims; they do not establish share ownership or beneficial ownership, nor personal involvement in specific integrations with casinos.
Technical routes observed in casino cashiers and repetition of the endpoint
FinTelegram documented screenshots that show visible technical sequences in cashiers at several operators. Those routes describe navigation between screens and domains but do not prove completed money transfers, crypto conversions or final beneficiaries of settlement. The visible routes include:
Viu-Viu: tx.segopay.com → nexorafintech.com → api.collectnexchange.cy → pay.ideal.nl — descriptor shown “COLLECT EXCHANGE via Trust Payments”.
GXBet: tx.segopay.com → nexorafintech.com → api.collectnexchange.cy → pay.ideal.nl — the descriptor appears as Collect Exchange; provider wording incomplete.
Byno.xyz: tx.segopay.com → billing-24.com → api.collectnexchange.cy → pay.ideal.nl — descriptor “COLLECT EXCHANGE via Trust Payments”.
Winhero: tx.segopay.com → nexorafintech.com → billing-24.com → api.collectnexchange.cy → pay.ideal.nl — descriptor visible; in a separate screenshot a €200 request expired showing Collect & Exchange with Stripe, without being able to attribute that screen to a specific casino.
The repetition of the api.collectnexchange.cy endpoint and the visibility of descriptors support the existence of a recurring technical connection. They do not determine whether Collect & Exchange acted as the merchant, a crypto‑service provider, a payments intermediary, or a different participant in each integration.
MiCA and the limitation on payment services
The MiCA authorisation listed in CySEC's register does not by itself address the euro leg of the checkout paths. Article 70(4) of the MiCA Regulation allows related payment services only where the CASP itself or a relevant third party holds authorisation under the PSD2 Directive. The operational question is which entity performed the regulated payment service on those routes and under what authorisation: the mere appearance of an API does not resolve that question.
Product, terms and the apparent tension with iGaming use cases
In its product announcement of 21 January 2026, Collect & Exchange explicitly included iGaming among target sectors for its crypto‑acquiring service. The company's public acquiring terms contain two differently worded restrictions: clause 10.1.4 broadly prohibits activities related to gaming, while Section 17, item 24(b)(2) restricts gambling, betting or gaming without the proper authorisation or licence. The terms also describe an API for payment requests and status retrieval. That general description does not establish the specific role of the observed endpoint in the iDEAL paths.
Comparing the product announcement with contractual clauses shows tension between marketing and contractual restrictions, but does not by itself prove non‑compliance.
The central question: who was the merchant and who controlled settlement
The next step to clarify each integration is to identify the contractual client behind the integration: was it the casino operator, a gateway, an aggregator or an intermediary third party? FinTelegram poses specific questions:
Which entity was onboarded as the merchant in each case?
Which casino domains and target markets were declared to the provider during onboarding?
Who verified the operator's relevant gaming authorisations or licences?
Which party controlled the final settlement destination of funds?
The public evidence FinTelegram presented confirms a recurring interface and supports the public identification of founders, but leaves unresolved the merchant account relationships and settlement parties behind the flows.
Call for sources and documentation
FinTelegram requests first‑hand information on Collect & Exchange integrations with casinos, merchant onboarding records or contractual records with payment partners. Contracts, incorporation records and transaction documentation could help establish roles and settlement recipients. Submissions can be sent confidentially via Whistle42.
"Noah identifies himself publicly as CEO and co‑founder of Collect & Exchange CY and names Asaf Hanukaev as co‑founder," according to the post reviewed by FinTelegram.
What this means for operators and regulators
The presence of an authorised crypto provider in a checkout is a starting point to investigate contractual relationships and payment liability, but is not proof that each connected activity is authorised. Operators, gateways and compliance teams should review merchant onboarding contracts, settlement routes and any PSD2 authorisations when a MiCA provider appears in a fiat checkout.
For those working in iGaming payments, it is sensible to audit:
merchant onboarding records and acquiring contracts;
descriptors and visible technical routes in cashiers;
PSD2 authorisations or equivalents for any payment service in the sequence.
FinTelegram's investigation leaves key questions about liability and the destination of funds open. Identifying the merchant contract and the entity that controls settlement is the missing piece.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Collect & Exchange registered with CySEC?
Yes. Collect & Exchange CY Ltd is listed in the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission's authorised CASP register as CASP003/25 and is registered as HE456884 with an address at Thessalonikis 13, Limassol, according to its published terms.
Does the API appearing in cashiers prove it processed deposits?
No. The appearance of the api.collectnexchange.cy endpoint in documented routes describes visible technical navigation and screens, but does not demonstrate completed money transfers, crypto conversions or the final beneficiary of settlement. Visible screenshots are not equivalent to settlement records.
Who is identified as the company's founders?
Yaron Noah publicly identifies himself as CEO and co‑founder and names Asaf Hanukaev as co‑founder in a LinkedIn post reviewed by FinTelegram on 4 October 2026. Those are public statements and do not establish beneficial ownership or equity stakes.
What does MiCA require for payment services related to crypto?
Article 70(4) of the MiCA Regulation allows related payment services only where the CASP itself or a relevant third party holds authorisation under the PSD2 Directive. Therefore, it is necessary to identify which entity performs the payment service and under what authorisation.
Tags
About the author
Isabela Fuentes
Payments Correspondent
Isabela Fuentes covers payments and fintech in the gambling industry — processor and PSP deals, payment-method launches, crypto rails, and the compliance shifts that decide what players can pay with at the cashier. She opens with the deal or launch, names the companies and methods precisely, and translates the jargon into what operators and players gain or lose. From PIX and open banking to stablecoin settlement, Isabela Fuentes follows the money moving the sector.
More from Isabela Fuentes
