Consumer complaint received 2026-06-08 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Virtual currency
Issue: Confusing or missing disclosures — 
Company: Payward Ventures Inc. dba Kraken
State: OH

Complaint narrative:
Between XXXX XXXX XXXX, I purchased approximately {$30000.00} of the digital asset XXXX on Kraken. Before making these purchases, I conducted reasonable due diligence consistent with sound investing practices and Krakens own Terms of Service. I reviewed publicly available information about the project, including its website, documentation, and recent activity. At no point did I find any indication that a contract migration was underway. The only way I could have discovered the migration would have been to perform an extremely specific search such as active XXXX token migrationsomething no reasonable customer would know to do without being prompted. Kraken provided no such prompt or disclosure. I later learned that Kraken had platformrelevant knowledge as early as XX/XX/XXXX that XXXX deposits would be paused and that the token was under migration review. Kraken sent an email on XX/XX/XXXX only to customers who already held XXXX at that time. Because I had no prior XXXX holdings, I received no notice. Kraken has since acknowledged in writing that : I was not included in the XX/XX/XXXX communication, and No inplatform warning or pointofsale disclosure was displayed during the period when I made my purchases. As a result, I entered these transactions without material information that Kraken already possessed and that would have directly affected my decision to buy the asset. On XX/XX/XXXX, Kraken published migration details and snapshot dates, but this was after my purchases. The migration terms ( including a 90/10 allocation model and snapshot timing ) resulted in a significantly reduced allocation for customers like me who purchased during the undisclosed migration window. Kraken later introduced a second snapshot on XX/XX/XXXX, but this still did not make me whole relative to what I purchased. I contacted Kraken multiple times requesting clarification and resolution. Kraken eventually confirmed the communication timeline and admitted that no pointofsale disclosure was provided. However, they declined to offer compensation, citing their Terms of Service. The core issue is that Kraken failed to disclose material information at the poin t of sale, despite having exclusive, timesensitive knowledge of an active migration. This lack of disclosure prevented me from making an informed decision and caused financial harm. Please note that I am not disputing the XXXX project teams actions, the migration mechanics, or the allocation model they implemented. My complaint is solely about Krakens failure to provide pointofsale disclosure of material information that Kraken already possessed. The issue is not the migration itself, but the fact that I was allowed to purchase the asset during an active migration window without any notice, prompt, or warning that such a migration was underway. I also want to note that I was not expecting investment advice from Kraken, nor was I relying on Kraken to evaluate the merits of the XXXX project or its migration. My expectation ( any reasonable consumer ) was simply that Kraken would provide a basic factual notification of a significant, platformrelevant event that was already underway and known internally. Without such a notification, there was no reasonable way for me to know that a migration was in progress, and no reasonable consumer would think to search for something as specific as active XXXX token migration without being prompted. My concern is strictly about the absence of this pointofsale disclosure. I am requesting CFPB review of Krakens failure to provide clear and timely disclosures related to a material change affecting the asset I purchased.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation