Best Crypto Community Management Agencies in 2026

Fourteen crypto community management agencies, segmented by what each one is best for rather than ranked. One of the fourteen publishes a retention percentage against a named client, and its own case study files that number under product metrics. Eight claim 24/7 coverage; three publish how it is staffed. The publisher is listed alphabetically among them and is not first.

• 14 — Community management specialists in this guide, listed alphabetically — one of them the publisher, and not the first
• 1 — Publishes a retention percentage with a named client — and its own case study files it under product metrics
• 3 of 8 — Agencies claiming 24/7 coverage that publish how the clock is staffed
• 1 — Names a single language it moderates in

Who published this, and what they sell

This guide is published by Growgami, a crypto and Web3 marketing agency. The publisher sells the service being written about here, and that is stated first rather than disclosed at the foot of the page.

Growgami is listed in the set below, and it is listed the way every other entry is. The entries are alphabetical, so Growgami sits where its name falls and nowhere else. It is not first, and there is no first: this guide publishes no rank, no score and no ordinal, and the machine-readable version of the set declares itself unordered.

Its entry carries the same nine fields as every other one, including a limitation, and that limitation is not the softest on the page. Growgami did not go through the selection gate the other entries went through — it is here because it sells this service and a reader assembling a shortlist is entitled to weigh it too. Wherever it fails a test this guide applied to everyone else, its entry says so in its own first clause.

No entry was paid for. There are no sponsored placements, no affiliate links, and no commercial arrangement with any agency named. Every entry can be checked against the source linked beside it — except Growgami's, which is the only entry here with no such link, because no claim about Growgami is published anywhere Growgami does not control.

The set at a glance

The agencies

There is no first place here. The agencies are listed alphabetically, and every entry carries the same nine fields — including a limitation, which is stated as a question of fit rather than of quality, and a proof signal. Every proof signal but one is linked to a source off this site; the exception is the publisher's own entry, which has no such source and says so. Read the "best for" line first: it is the only claim this guide makes about where an agency belongs.

• AP Collective

  Best for

  A community run as one part of a go-to-market programme rather than as a standalone moderation contract.

  Core services

  Management and moderation in real time, a framework for consistent communication, and feedback to your team — against six stated outcomes including cutting false information and spam, and keeping members longer.

  Core strength

  The only retention percentage published by anyone in this guide, attached to a named client.

  Proof signal

  Its Fableborne case study publishes 70.8% Day 1 Retention under a heading reading Product Metrics — a block distinct from the Results block above it — beside $23M+ User Deposits and 250K+ Players Acquired. The label travels with the number: it is a product retention figure for the game during a period the campaign supported, not one attributed to a community team.

  Region

  Hong Kong postal address on its contact page; its own community ranking states seven regions, among them New York, Dubai, South Korea, Singapore and London.

  Pricing signal

  Not published for community work — its own comparison table gives its tier as Custom. The band on that page is the category's, not its own.

  Why it stands out

  It is the only company here whose ranking methodology states a rule and then applies it to itself: agencies that only moderate rank lower than agencies that moderate and grow. Its advice to buyers is sharper than its own service copy — judge on retention, sentiment, response time and member-to-user conversion, not member count alone.

  Best fit

  A consumer product where the community channel is one workstream inside a launch programme, and you want one team holding the narrative across both.

  Limitation

  Its service page is markedly less specific than its ranking article: no coverage hours, no languages, no staffing model, no response target, no embedded case study. Every operational specific about its community operations sits on the blog post that ranks the category, so a buyer arriving from search lands on the less informative of its two pages.

  Source: AP Collective · Website: AP Collective

• BUNCH

  Best for

  Moderation bought as a staffed operations function with QA and a contract, rather than bought as marketing.

  Core services

  Crypto community management, Telegram community moderation, crypto customer support and KYC, sold alongside a separate trust-and-safety line covering content, social, video, live-streaming and comments moderation.

  Core strength

  The only published monthly rate in this guide, and the only service level stated in units of time.

  Proof signal

  Its Telegram page publishes $1,100 to $1,350/mo for Full-Time Agents, under a heading reading Outsourcing Telegram Crypto Community Moderation Pricing, with complimentary QA audits and custom shifts or 24/7 beside it. Its stated service level is 24/7 availability with an average moderation turnaround time of seconds.

  Region

  Metro Manila and Cavite, Philippines — two street addresses published, with named leadership and named sales contacts assigned to Europe and US Eastern.

  Pricing signal

  Published. The only entry here with a monthly figure on the page rather than a band, a bracket or a call.

  Why it stands out

  It is the only vendor here that is a moderation operations business rather than a marketing agency, and reads that way: double-pass techniques, NDAs, and a Project Calibration step where a sample of your content is processed into proposed productivity estimates and quality thresholds before anything is signed. It is also the only company in this guide that separates two clocks — moderation active strictly 24/7, against a 24/5 account management team.

  Best fit

  A team whose problem is throughput and enforcement — scam DMs, impersonators, volume at listing — and who would rather buy agent-hours against a quality threshold than a growth narrative.

  Limitation

  No client is named on either community page and no community outcome figure is published; a testimonials page is linked from the footer, but the community pages carry no client name, logo, community size or result. That is a legible trade rather than an omission — BUNCH publishes its price and its process and withholds its roster, the inverse of every marketing agency in this set.

  Source: BUNCH · Website: BUNCH

• Coinband

  Best for

  Building a community in a specific non-English language market from zero ahead of a sale.

  Core services

  Community engagement, content creation, social media management, moderation and support, event coordination, and analytics and reporting. Community Management is item two of seven in its own services nav.

  Core strength

  The largest published set of community-tagged case studies in this guide — eight, each with a named client.

  Proof signal

  Its PUMLx case publishes a labelled results pair, +28,000 community members beside +900 game users. Eight cases on its index carry a Community management tag: GT Protocol, Dexcheck, Crypto GPT, GG Token, Rolaz Gold, Galaxy Arena, PUMLx and DegenZoo.

  Region

  Hong Kong, Dubai and London in the community page footer; another page on the same site publishes six offices and four phone numbers. It also publishes a company registration number, 44977608.

  Pricing signal

  Not published. Its FAQ routes to a custom quote, and the budget dropdown on its proposal form is a prospect-selected qualification control, not a rate.

  Why it stands out

  The PUMLx case is the only named community case study in this guide that states a language market as the object of the work: the project already had a large English-speaking community, and the brief was to build the Russian-speaking one. Everywhere else in this category the claim is the word multilingual. Here it is a market, a client and a number.

  Best fit

  A token sale with a regional audience you cannot reach in English, where you want to see previous work in that specific market before committing.

  Limitation

  The PUMLx timeframe is stated three ways on one page. The H1 subhead — repeated in the meta description and social tags — asks how to build a community of 28.000 participants from 0 in 14 days; the body then says during the 3 weeks of the advertising campaign, and later within a month. A reader cannot establish how long the 28,000 took, which matters if you are pacing your own launch against it.

  Source: Coinband · Website: Coinband

• CoinBoosts

  Best for

  Moderators booked as a discrete ordered item rather than bundled inside a retainer.

  Core services

  Four on the community page: Discord community management, Discord chat activity, social media management, and a Telegram community manager and moderator line.

  Core strength

  The only vendor in this guide that publishes its working hours as a constraint rather than as an unconditional claim.

  Proof signal

  No client, figure or case study is published on the community page. The one operational commitment it does publish is the window: we are active monday to friday from 9 AM to 12 PM GMT +2. It also states that it replies to Telegram enquiries within 15 minutes.

  Region

  Stated as a time zone rather than an address — its team is located in GMT+2. No postal address is published; the footer states it was founded in 2018.

  Pricing signal

  Not published on the community page; orders are placed over Telegram. Payment terms are published, which is unusual here — all payments in cryptocurrency.

  Why it stands out

  Every other company in this guide that states coverage at all states 24/7. CoinBoosts states a window, and the window is narrower than business hours as written. That is a smaller claim and a more useful one: a buyer can plan around a published constraint and cannot plan around an adjective.

  Best fit

  A small project that wants a named number of moderator hours ordered and paid for like a product, and whose community does not need cover outside European daytime.

  Limitation

  Two gaps, both in what is published. The hours answer describes the agency, and the community pages do not separately state moderator coverage, so a buyer cannot tell from the site whether moderators work the same window as the sales desk. And community management is sold from the same catalogue as engagement-volume products — the Community category carries Discord Chat Activity beside Community Management, and the site's other categories are upvoting, trending and social verification. If your requirement is that community activity be organic, that is worth raising before the call rather than after it.

  Source: CoinBoosts · Website: CoinBoosts

• Coinbound

  Best for

  An existing Telegram or Discord where answer speed is the binding constraint.

  Core services

  Six blocks: community strategy, crypto community set-up, community management and moderation, moderation teams, community event planning and coordination, and analytics and reporting.

  Core strength

  The only response-time figure in this guide published as a headline stat with a labelled container around it.

  Proof signal

  A stat box labelled Average Community Question Response Time reads <5 Minutes. Two engagement figures sit beside it: Galaxy Arena, where it states members rose 699% and visitor engagement rate reached 80%, and Metamoose NFT, where it states community engagement rate went from 7.14% to 60%.

  Region

  New York — the community page footer reads Made with ❤️ in NY.

  Pricing signal

  Not published. The community FAQ answers the cost question with it depends and routes to a proposal.

  Why it stands out

  Two engagement rates and a response target, all against named clients, is more outcome-shaped proof than almost anyone in this category publishes — the rest of the set leads with member counts. It is also one of only three companies here stating no coverage window at all on its community page, which is a smaller claim than the eight around it are making.

  Best fit

  A funded brand whose channel already has people in it and whose complaint is that questions sit unanswered, rather than that nobody is joining.

  Limitation

  None of the three community figures is traceable to a case study from this page. The response time, the 699% and the 7.14%→60% all appear as marketing-block copy; the page links to case studies generically and embeds none, so a buyer cannot see the period, the community size at the start, or how the rate was calculated. Ask for the case behind each figure before carrying any of them into a comparison.

  Source: Coinbound · Website: Coinbound

• EAK Digital

  Best for

  A project that expects a crisis and wants a written protocol for it before it happens.

  Core services

  Community building strategies, moderation and support, and crisis management, on a page titled for 24/7 Web3 community management. Community Management appears in the site's own footer service list.

  Core strength

  Crisis response described as a process with a defined end, rather than as availability.

  Proof signal

  Four named case studies are surfaced on its community page — Gate, Wanchain, Theta and Neo — alongside seven client testimonials attributed by name, title and company, including Storm Trade and Pionex. All of them describe PR and KOL engagements; no community figure appears on the page.

  Region

  Its footer states a Dubai headquarters and a global team spanning five continents; the two postal addresses actually published there are in Istanbul and Umm Al Quwain.

  Pricing signal

  Not published — the CTA is a free discovery call leading to a zero-obligation proposal.

  Why it stands out

  It is the only company in this guide that describes an exit. Post-crisis debriefings identify areas for improvement, and it offers to design training sessions for your stakeholders so they can take moderation in-house later. Every other vendor here describes an open-ended retainer, which makes this the only published answer to what happens when you stop paying.

  Best fit

  A team whose real fear is the bad week — an exploit, a depeg, a delisting — and who wants the escalation path written down while nothing is on fire.

  Limitation

  Its round-the-clock claim rests on an office network its own two properties describe differently. eakdigital.com states a Dubai headquarters; eakwire.com, whose footer carries EAK Digital LTD, states a London headquarters with offices in Los Angeles, Tokyo, Seoul, Dubai, Buenos Aires and Istanbul. The one city with a published street address, Umm Al Quwain, is on neither list. A buyer relying on time-zone cover should ask which teams actually sit where.

  Source: EAK Digital · Website: EAK Digital

• FINPR

  Best for

  A buyer who wants the staffing arithmetic — how many moderators, on what shifts — settled before signing.

  Core services

  Two plans rather than one offer. Telegram includes a weekly FAQ sheet, announcement creation, frequent engagements, moderation, low response time, growth advisory and reporting. Discord includes custom bots, 24/7 coverage, a sub-ten-minute response time, synchronized announcements and server boost.

  Core strength

  The most specific staffing disclosure in this guide — the only company here publishing both a headcount and a shift length.

  Proof signal

  Its Discord plan states that your audience will be manned by 4 moderators and 1 tech support. Its Telegram plan states 2 moderators, each working 12h per day, and lets the buyer choose 8 hours per day or 24/7. The response target is stated twice: standard response time is less than 10 minutes.

  Region

  Dubai — FINPR AGENCY FZCO, IFZA Business Park, Building A2, published in the footer. It describes itself as in the cryptocurrency space since 2017.

  Pricing signal

  Not published. Its onboarding sequence names a pricing step — explore pricing plans — without a figure, and the copy refers to market-competitive packages.

  Why it stands out

  It prices the shape of the work rather than the adjective: a Telegram plan and a Discord plan, each with its own staffing and its own numeric response target. And it is the exception to the pattern that defines this category — its own six-agency ranking puts Crowdcreate first and FINPR second. Across seven agency-published rankings checked for this guide, it is the only publisher that did not place itself at the top of its own list.

  Best fit

  A team comparing two proposals that both say 24/7, wanting to know which has more humans behind it, at what hours, answering inside what target.

  Limitation

  The three case studies on its community page are social-media content cases. Keabank's results are three qualitative bullets with no figure; InstaXchange's are LinkedIn impressions and Instagram reach; Darkex's are +32k followers on X and +4,4k users on Telegram. Its FAQ names what it reports — users, messages, queries raised and answered, reactions to announcements, sentiment — but no client example of any of it is published, so nothing on the page measures whether anyone stayed.

  Source: FINPR · Website: FINPR

• Growgami

  Best for

  A project that wants its Telegram and Discord run by the team already briefing its creators, as part of a launch programme rather than as a standalone contract.

  Core services

  Community work is not a named standalone practice on its own site. It appears as a workstream inside a community-building use-case page and inside its memecoin vertical page — moderation, anti-bot tooling, content scheduling, ambassador programmes — and its own services page lists four disciplines, none of which is community management.

  Core strength

  Its published position on what a community is for: it states that a 2,000-member community at 30% daily active is worth more than 50,000 inactive wallets, which is the same argument the measurement-led vendors in this set make.

  Proof signal

  Three community figures, every one a client aggregate with no client attached: a 3.4x increase in governance participation for clients running structured campaigns, 28% of active community members becoming depositors, and 150K+ community members built across its DeFi client programmes. None carries a date, none links to a case study, and there is no off-site source to link for any of them.

  Region

  No location published. Its contact page and its site footer name neither a city nor a country.

  Pricing signal

  Not published for community work. No rate, band or unit appears on either page where community work is described — unlike its launch and DeFi pages, which do publish bands.

  Why it stands out

  It publishes a ten-criterion buyer's checklist for hiring an agency in this category, at /how-to-choose-a-crypto-marketing-agency, and runs it against itself. It also publishes a dated measurement of its own AI visibility: 0.86% share of voice across fifty tracked buying-intent prompts in the week to 15 September 2026, which put it tenth of ten agencies in that tracking set.

  Best fit

  A team already buying creator work from one vendor and unwilling to hand a second vendor the Telegram.

  Limitation

  Listed with the gap in front: this entry does not clear the second of the three tests every other entry here cleared. That test asks a community page to say something operationally specific — who staffs it, for how many hours, on which platforms, in which languages, or against what response target. Growgami's community pages publish none of the five. No coverage window, no language list, no staffing model, no response target, and no retention or engagement figure against a named community. It is in this set because it sells the work and publishes this guide, not because it passed the gate — and that is a worse answer than any of the other thirteen entries gave.

  Website: Growgami

• LuvKaizen

  Best for

  A founder who has been moderating the Telegram personally and can no longer, especially once a token is live.

  Core services

  Five pillars: Telegram and Discord set-up with structure, roles, bots and safety configured before the first member joins; 24/7 moderation; engagement programs covering AMAs, quests and ambassador systems; FUD and crisis management with written playbooks; and reporting on growth, activity and sentiment.

  Core strength

  The clearest published account in this guide of what moderators are trained on, as opposed to what they do.

  Proof signal

  States 200+ campaigns since 2019 and amplification from a 5,000+ KOL network on its community page, both self-reported. Note what they count: 200+ campaigns is a campaign count, and no community-specific volume figure is published anywhere on the page.

  Region

  Not stated on the community page. The market pages in its related-links rail — Dubai, UK, USA, Singapore, India — are target markets rather than offices, and reading city names off that rail gives the wrong answer.

  Pricing signal

  Not published. It runs an article titled Crypto Community Management Cost, dated June 15 2026, which lists seven cost drivers and three scope tiers with no figure attached to any.

  Why it stands out

  The training claim is specific enough to interrogate on a call: moderators are trained on crypto-specific scam patterns — fake support DMs, phishing links disguised as giveaways, impersonator admins — before they touch your server. Its engagement copy also names retention as the measured object rather than as a benefit, saying it tracks which loops actually move retention instead of assuming any quest program works.

  Best fit

  A post-launch project where impersonators started arriving daily and the channel needs cover that scales up at a listing and back down after.

  Limitation

  A page titled Crypto Community Management Cost that publishes no cost is a specific gap rather than a general one, because the same blog publishes rate tables for adjacent lines — $25–120 per video for UGC creators and $1–5 clipping CPMs among them. A buyer arriving from a cost-intent search gets a framework on the one line where a rate card exists elsewhere on the same site.

  Source: LuvKaizen · Website: LuvKaizen

• Moderators United

  Best for

  A pre-launch Discord that needs architecting before the first member joins.

  Core services

  Six blocks: free Discord server set-up, community set-up and strategy, moderation and safety, engagement and retention, bot integration and automation, and analytics and reporting.

  Core strength

  The only vendor here whose entire business is community management — there is no PR, KOL or SEO line to cross-sell into.

  Proof signal

  No client and no community figure is published. What the site does publish is a list of 27 named Discord servers under a heading stating they are communities its moderators supported before joining Moderators United — prior employers of individuals, not clients of the agency. The heading is the point: quoting that list as a client roster misreads a line the company wrote carefully.

  Region

  Not stated. No postal address, country or time-zone claim anywhere on the site; its LocalBusiness structured data carries an empty address and empty opening hours.

  Pricing signal

  No retainer figure. One item is priced, at zero: free Discord server set-up, offered as a community foundation built for nothing.

  Why it stands out

  It discloses its own disadvantage. The second paragraph of its homepage reads: while our agency is new, our team isn't. Nobody else in this guide volunteers that on their own front page. It is also the only single-platform vendor here — Discord only, with Telegram appearing nowhere on the page — and it keeps Moderation & Safety separate from Engagement & Retention as two blocks rather than one line item.

  Best fit

  A team three months from launch that wants channel architecture, roles, bots and escalation rules set up correctly the first time.

  Limitation

  The site publishes no client, no region, no team size, no founding date and no rate. A buyer evaluating it has the service description, the moderators' prior-server list and an email address. It is in this guide because community management is its only practice and its page is specific about what moderation and retention work consists of — not because the evidence behind it runs deep.

  Source: Moderators United · Website: Moderators United

• OMNI Agency

  Best for

  A community that has grown in headcount and gone quiet, where the first job is diagnosis.

  Core services

  Six named blocks: community infrastructure and set-up, daily operations and moderation, growth partnerships and network activation, onboarding and member activation, engagement programs and events, and measurement and health reporting.

  Core strength

  The most explicit published measurement framework in this guide — it names the metrics it reports and the metrics it considers low-value.

  Proof signal

  Its case index titles the Script TV case Growing Script TV's Community to 24K Followers and 4,444 Discord Members — a named client with a stated Discord member count. Its Scratcher case is tagged Community Management and carries 20X ROI on Spend.

  Region

  No postal address published at the URLs checked; contact is an email address. Its own article on the Toronto market places the company in Toronto.

  Pricing signal

  A category band, framed as the category's: retainers typically range from $3K to $15K per month depending on scope, coverage hours and platform mix. No OMNI rate card exists.

  Why it stands out

  It is the only company here that publishes a written argument against the metric its competitors lead with — that total member count, total messages and join velocity are easy to chase while their predictive value for community mobilization is limited — then names what it reports instead: daily communicators, chat-active percentage, returning member rate, time-to-second-message. It is also the only vendor whose coverage claim is conditional, and the only one whose case material carries a date field.

  Best fit

  A project whose member count looks healthy and whose channel does not, and which wants the diagnostic before it buys the headcount.

  Limitation

  The named-client rosters on two of its own pages do not match. Its about page says 100+ brands including Polkadot, OKX and Paysafe; its Toronto article says 100+ clients including Animoca Brands, OKX and Coinbase. Only OKX is common to both, so a buyer trying to establish which ecosystems OMNI has worked in cannot do it from the site without asking.

  Source: OMNI Agency · Website: OMNI Agency

• theKOLLAB

  Best for

  A project already buying creator work that wants the channel run by the team briefing the creators.

  Core services

  Five blocks: community strategy, platform management across Twitter, Discord and Telegram, content and interaction, moderation and support, and analytics and growth.

  Core strength

  The most detailed published answer in this guide to how community work would be measured.

  Proof signal

  Its homepage states 250+ named crypto creators with a combined reach of over 50 million followers, 150+ campaigns for Web3 projects and 2,000+ pieces of content, and names Trust Wallet among its clients. Note what those measure: creators and campaigns, not communities.

  Region

  Not stated. No postal address, country or time zone at the URLs checked; the footer carries the legal name only.

  Pricing signal

  Not published — costs are said to depend on scope, platforms, content type, community size and region, with a package designed after a call.

  Why it stands out

  Its answer to how it measures community management is the only one in this guide that names churn as a tracked metric, alongside new members, retention rates, community expansion, active users, messages per day, reactions, replies, mentions, AMA participation and referral metrics. Separately, and worth knowing before any comparison: the site's own announcement bar, dated 16 September 2026, states that CoinBureau have taken an ownership position in theKOLLAB. The terms are not stated on the page.

  Best fit

  A team running a KOL programme that does not want a second vendor holding the Telegram, and cares more about one accountable measurement framework than a second opinion.

  Limitation

  The community page's only case study is a social-media case, and the page says so in its own lead-in: Our Success Stories introduces how its social media management services have transformed Web3 projects, and the case shown is Soul Protocol at 500K+ impressions and a 250% follower increase on X. There is no community figure of any kind on the community page, so the measurement answer is the strongest thing on it.

  Source: theKOLLAB · Website: theKOLLAB

• Token Promoters

  Best for

  A community whose working language is named on the vendor's page rather than covered by the word multilingual.

  Core services

  Five blocks on the moderation page: crypto community moderation, availability across messaging and social platforms, languages, track record, and flexible scheduling. Platforms named are Telegram, Discord, Twitter and Instagram.

  Core strength

  The only company in this guide that enumerates the languages it moderates in.

  Proof signal

  Under a block headed Languages: available in English, Chinese (Mandarin), Tagalog and Nigerian, with other languages available on request. Quoted as published — Nigerian is not a language and the page does not say which one is meant. The value of the field is that a list exists at all; thirteen of the fourteen companies here publish none.

  Region

  Not stated. No postal address, country or time zone at the URLs checked; the footer reads ©2022.

  Pricing signal

  Not published on the moderation page — the buttons route to a contact form, though other services on the site are ordered as products.

  Why it stands out

  Besides the language list, it publishes its scheduling model as an explicit either/or rather than an unconditional claim — moderators can accommodate either part-time or full-time depending on your needs — and describes who the moderators are rather than how many: crypto Telegram and Discord moderators who are themselves crypto traders. It sells moderation only, and names itself that way, with growth products kept on separate pages.

  Best fit

  A project whose largest holder base speaks Mandarin or Tagalog and which has been told multilingual by three vendors without getting a list from any of them.

  Limitation

  Two gaps in what a prospect can actually read. The page's content-management shortcodes render as raw text in the served HTML, so the body arrives as wrappers with configuration attributes interleaved among the sentences, and the same is true of its agency page. And moderation is sold from the same catalogue as upvoting, trending, mass-DM and account-verification products, which is worth raising on the first call if your priority is that community activity be organic.

  Source: Token Promoters · Website: Token Promoters

• X10 Agency

  Best for

  A community whose volume is expected to swing sharply, where the question is how fast moderators can be added.

  Core services

  Five bullets: 24/7 support in the project's public Telegram chat or Discord server; 1 to 14 community managers on 8-hour shifts; set-up of the server and chat with designs, bots and tools; fighting spammers and scammers; and moderation and engagement through content, giveaways and contests.

  Core strength

  The most explicit scaling model in this guide, published as a range with a shift length attached.

  Proof signal

  Three stat pairs on its community page: 24/7 coverage, 20+ team members worldwide, 200+ projects worked with. Body copy states that based on community size it can allocate from 1 up to 14 community managers covering 24/7, every time zone, and that its moderators have managed crypto communities since 2017.

  Region

  Published as a spec field rather than an address — GEO: worldwide; platforms: Discord, Telegram, Twitter. No postal address at the URLs checked; contact is an email address and a Telegram link.

  Pricing signal

  Not published — the call to action invites you to contact them for a special offer.

  Why it stands out

  1 to 14 community managers working by 8 hours shifts, covering all 24 hours is the only line published anywhere in this guide that lets a buyer reconstruct the staffing arithmetic: three eight-hour shifts, scaled by community size. FINPR publishes the two-shift version for one channel; this is the generalised one. It is also one of only two entries here that names a language at all, as Worldwide, ENG, Local languages.

  Best fit

  A launch or listing window where the channel goes from quiet to unmanageable in a day, and the vendor question is how many people can be added and how quickly.

  Limitation

  No client is named and no outcome figure is published on the community pages; 200+ projects is the only volume claim, with no roster behind it. The site also carries two different copyright ranges in the chrome of a single served document — 2017–2023 and 2018 — and one requested community URL resolved to an unavailable-page template. Confirm the offer is current before relying on anything on it.

  Source: X10 Agency · Website: X10 Agency

What buyers ask next

Does any crypto community management agency publish a retention figure?

One, out of fourteen. AP Collective's Fableborne case study publishes 70.8% Day 1 Retention — under a heading reading Product Metrics, a block separate from the Results block above it, beside $23M+ User Deposits and 250K+ Players Acquired. So it is a retention figure for the game during a period the campaign supported, not one attributed to a community team. AP Collective's own ranking article presents the same number in a community context; the label is on the case study. Everything else in this category is a member count, a follower count, or a framework with no number in it. OMNI Agency and LuvKaizen both publish the retention metrics they track — returning member rate, chat-active percentage, time-to-second-message — with no client figure against any of them. theKOLLAB names churn as tracked. Nobody publishes the number. If retention is the outcome you are buying, you will be asking for it on a call.

What does a 24/7 coverage claim actually commit an agency to?

On its own, nothing you can check. Eight of the fourteen claim round-the-clock coverage somewhere on their own site, and six of those eight assert it unconditionally on the community page itself: BUNCH, EAK Digital, FINPR, LuvKaizen, Moderators United and X10 Agency. Three of the six publish a mechanism behind it. FINPR states 2 moderators, each working 12h per day, for Telegram, and 4 moderators and 1 tech support for Discord. X10 Agency states 1 to 14 community managers working by 8 hours shifts, covering all 24 hours. BUNCH states full-time agents on custom shifts or 24/7, and is the only vendor here separating two clocks — moderation active strictly 24/7 against a 24/5 account management team. The seventh and eighth qualify it: OMNI publishes the only conditional claim, scoping 24/7 multilingual to high-volume launches and business hours to established communities, and AP Collective claims 24/7 moderation in the ranking table it publishes rather than on the service page a buyer arrives at. The remaining six make no round-the-clock claim, and two of those are more informative for it: CoinBoosts publishes monday to friday from 9 AM to 12 PM GMT +2, and Token Promoters publishes part-time or full-time depending on your needs. Coinband, Coinbound and theKOLLAB state no window at all — theKOLLAB's 24/7 is asserted by a third-party summary and does not appear at its origin, so it is not counted here. The fourteenth is this guide's publisher, which publishes no coverage claim of any kind and gets no credit for the silence. One question separates any two of them: how many people, on what shifts, and who is awake at 3am in your largest market.

Which of these agencies name the languages they moderate in?

One. Token Promoters publishes, under a block headed Languages, that moderation is available in English, Chinese (Mandarin), Tagalog and Nigerian, with other languages on request. That string is recorded exactly as published — Nigerian is not a language, and the page does not say which one is meant. X10 Agency comes closest to a second with Worldwide, ENG, Local languages, where the local languages are not enumerated. The word multilingual appears on LuvKaizen and OMNI, and on AP Collective and EAK Digital through a third party's comparison table, always without a list behind it. Coinband is the only company here that demonstrates a language market rather than claiming one: its PUMLx case states the project already had a large English-speaking community and that the work was building the Russian-speaking one. If your community's centre of gravity is Korean, Turkish or Portuguese, this category publishes nothing you can act on.

Is moderation the same service as community growth?

Not to the companies that think hardest about it, and the difference decides what you should be paying for. Five of the fourteen separate the two in words. OMNI gives the distinction its own FAQ entry: community management is operational, community growth is acquisition-focused. AP Collective runs a section headed Moderation-Only vs Growth-Led Community Management and writes that the mistake founders make is paying moderation-only prices and expecting growth-led outcomes. LuvKaizen keeps 24/7 moderation and engagement programs as separate pillars; Moderators United keeps Moderation & Safety separate from Engagement & Retention. Two more separate them by declining one side outright — BUNCH and Token Promoters sell moderation and do not claim growth, which is a clean position rather than a gap, and a buyer who needs growth should not read their pages as offering it. The rest present moderation as one block among several equal ones. Read the distinction as a signal about how a vendor thinks rather than as evidence about the work: three of the agencies arguing it hardest are also the three whose community pages are most obviously written for search.

What does crypto community management cost?

Twelve of the fourteen publish no rate for community work at all, which is the norm in this category rather than a mark against anyone doing it. One publishes a price: BUNCH lists $1,100 to $1,350/mo for full-time agents, under a heading reading Outsourcing Telegram Crypto Community Moderation Pricing. Two publish a category band and say plainly that it is the category's rather than theirs — OMNI, that retainers typically range from $3K to $15K per month depending on scope, coverage hours and platform mix; AP Collective, that pricing ranges from around $1,500 per month for moderation-only to $15,000 and up for multi-region, launch-grade coverage. Neither is a rate card. Two other objects on these sites look like prices and are not: a prospect budget dropdown on a proposal form is a qualification control, and a page titled Crypto Community Management Cost can contain no cost at all — LuvKaizen's lists seven cost drivers and three scope tiers with no figure attached to any of them.

How were the agencies in this community guide chosen?

Three tests to get in, all run against each company's own live pages rather than a sitemap, a directory or another agency's list. One: community management is a named practice with its own page, not a bullet inside a services list. Two: that page says something operationally specific — who staffs it, for how many hours, on which platforms, in which languages, or with what response target. Adjectives did not count. Three: the page was live and reachable when the research was captured, and every absence recorded here was established by opening the page rather than by inferring it. Four further questions then shaped what each entry says rather than whether it is in: does the company publish a retention or engagement metric rather than a member count; does it distinguish moderation from growth; is there a named client community case study rather than a general marketing case displayed on a community page; are languages and coverage hours stated concretely. Eleven cleared the first three tests with operational specifics. Two — theKOLLAB and CoinBoosts — clear the bar narrowly, and their entries say so rather than being padded. The fourteenth entry is Growgami, which publishes this guide and does not clear test two: its community pages name no staffing model, no coverage hours, no platforms list, no languages and no response target. It is listed anyway, by a disclosed route rather than through the gate, because it sells this work and a reader assembling a shortlist is entitled to weigh it — and the failure is the first clause of its own limitation rather than a footnote. Companies a search for this category surfaces whose own sites do not present community management as a live service were checked and left out, including two whose candidate service URLs returned 404. A confirmed absence is worth as much to a reader as a listing.

What can this guide's community criteria not establish?

Whether any of these agencies is good at the work. Nothing on a public page establishes that, and no entry here claims it in either direction. The criteria also cannot tell you whether a published figure is true — only that it is published, and where. They cannot tell you who would actually be in your Telegram at 3am, what a scope like yours costs, or whether a result is from last quarter or four years ago: thirteen of the fourteen publish no date on any case material, so most claims in this category cannot be placed in time from the page alone. They do not detect a vendor that publishes little and moderates well, and they do not detect the reverse either. And they cannot reconcile the one term everybody in this market uses loosely — no company in this set defines engagement rate anywhere, so two agencies could report 60% for entirely different measurements and both be telling the truth. Those are vetting questions rather than set-assembly questions, and they are answered by asking the agency directly.

Do the agencies publishing rankings in this category put themselves first?

Usually, and not always — and the exception is worth more than the rule. Seven agency-published rankings were checked while researching this category. Six place their own publisher at number one: ICODA, AP Collective, Coinbound, EAK Digital through a newswire property it owns, LuvKaizen, and Coinband in a general marketing list. The seventh is FINPR, whose six-agency ranking puts Crowdcreate first and FINPR second. So self-ranking is the norm here and it is not universal, and anyone who tells you it is universal has not checked FINPR. Two further facts sit alongside that. Six of the fourteen agencies in this guide publish no competitor ranking at all, and they are, with one exception, the operations-led vendors rather than the marketing-led ones. And one ranking in the category comes from outside the population entirely — an advertising platform that ranks ten agencies and does not appear in its own list. Rankings here also go stale without being corrected: at least one modified during 2026 still ranks a company for a community service its own site no longer presents.

What should you ask a community management agency before signing?

Five questions this category will not answer on a page. How many moderators, on what shift pattern, and which of them covers your largest market's night — three of fourteen publish that. Which languages, named rather than described as multilingual — one of fourteen publishes that. What is your definition of engagement rate, and what did it move from and to on a named community — nobody publishes both halves. What retention number can you show from a community you ran, and over what period — one retention figure exists in this whole category and its own case study files it as a product metric. And the one that sorts a shortlist fastest: is the case study you are showing me a community case study, or a PR, social or KOL case study displayed on a community page? Several agencies here surface named clients and attributed client quotes on their community pages where the engagement being described is a different service line.

When was every claim on this page captured?

Every figure, quotation and stated absence on this page was read from the pages each company's own server returned on 16 September 2026. Nothing came from a summary, a directory or another agency's ranking except where the entry says so, and no figure is here unless the markup around it was read to establish what the number labels — which is how the Product Metrics heading on AP Collective's retention figure was found, and how a participant figure credited to a client on one service page was found to be absent from that client's own case study. Two items were volatile on the day of capture: theKOLLAB's announcement bar, dated that same day, states that CoinBureau have taken an ownership position in the company, with no terms given; and X10 Agency's site carries two different copyright ranges in one served document and a community URL that resolved to an unavailable-page template. Treat rates, coverage windows, office lists and stated years as things to confirm at the link beside each entry.

Growgami is on this list — why, and what does it not publish?

Because it sells community management and publishes this guide, and both facts are better stated than hidden. It sits where the alphabet puts it, between FINPR and LuvKaizen, on a page that publishes no rank, no score and no ordinal for anyone. What it does not publish is the more useful half of the answer. It runs no named standalone community practice — the work appears as a workstream inside a use-case page and a vertical page — and it fails test two of the three tests every other entry here cleared: no staffing model, no coverage window, no platform list, no languages, no response target. It publishes three community figures and all three are client aggregates with nobody attached and no date. So on the question this page exists to ask — who tells you how the clock is staffed — the publisher is among the worst answers in its own set, and its entry says so first. Two things here are worth using rather than taking on trust: /how-to-choose-a-crypto-marketing-agency scores Growgami against the same ten criteria it hands you for everyone else and names the three it comes off worst on, and its own AI visibility is measured on a dated schedule that keeps putting it tenth of ten tracked agencies — 0.86% share of voice in the week to 15 September 2026, against nine agencies it competes with. /crypto-seo-agency publishes that measurement's method, prompt set and sample size, from an earlier capture in the same series. Neither is flattering and both are checkable.

Where to check any of this

Growgami neither owns nor influences any of these. Use them to verify claims made here and anywhere else.

• Discord Safety Library — Discord. The platform's own moderation, server-safety and reporting material. Read it before a vendor call and you can tell within a minute whether a described moderation practice matches how the platform actually works.
• Telegram FAQ — Telegram. Telegram's own account of admin privileges, mass deletion, membership control, and what to do about impersonation and scam accounts. The ground rules any Telegram moderation vendor is working inside.
• Internet Archive Wayback Machine — Internet Archive. Thirteen of the fourteen agencies here publish no date on their case material. Paste a case study URL in and you can see when the claim first appeared and whether the numbers have changed since.
• The FTC's Endorsement Guides — U.S. Federal Trade Commission. The disclosure rules covering paid endorsements and incentivised posting — relevant wherever community activity is bought rather than earned, and the rules this guide's own disclosure is written against.

Ask all of them the five questions

Every agency above is linked to the page its claim came from, so you can check what each publishes before you spend a call finding out. The questions worth bringing are in the FAQs: staffing and shifts, named languages, a definition of engagement rate, a retention number from a community someone actually ran, and whether the case study is a community case study. Growgami sells this service too — ask it the same five.

Also on this site