Banking as a service let fintechs launch accounts and cards without a banking licence of their own. They rented a bank’s licence and stitched together a processor, KYC provider, and FX partner. Our guide to BaaS providers covers that traditional stack.
Stablecoin infrastructure can consolidate more of those layers. One provider may issue the card, hold or connect to the wallet, run compliance, and settle with Visa or Mastercard using stablecoins. Several stablecoin card issuers now add accounts, FX, payouts, and yield to the same integration.
That does not mean the issuer replaces the entire neobank. The useful question is which layers it can consolidate, which economic model those layers enable, and what the program still has to build and operate itself.
This analysis draws on How to Launch a Stablecoin Card Program, based on more than 30 card programs tracked by Paymentscan and interviews with issuers and operators.
The Stack Stablecoin Issuers Can Consolidate
Every card program depends on the same roles:
- A card network, such as Visa or Mastercard
- An issuer and BIN sponsor
- A processor handling authorisation, clearing, and settlement messages
- A wallet or custody provider holding the funds behind spending
- A compliance stack covering KYC, KYB, transaction monitoring, and sanctions screening
- Non-card services such as accounts, yield, credit, FX, and payments
A traditional fintech program typically contracts several of these separately. A stablecoin card issuer usually bundles most of them into one contract and integration. In our guide’s count, one stablecoin card issuer can replace up to eight separate vendors.
That consolidation is the main operational argument for the model. It reduces the number of contracts and integrations required before the first card goes live, while connecting the card directly to the wallet and payment infrastructure around it.
How Stablecoin Rails Differ From Traditional BaaS
For a team that would otherwise build on a traditional issuing stack, stablecoin issuers make five main arguments:
- Fewer vendors. One contract can replace a separate BIN sponsor, processor, KYC provider, and FX provider.
- Faster launch. Issuers quote anything from days on white-label products to three months or more for custom builds.
- Settlement every day. Issuers that settle with the card network in stablecoins do so seven days a week, including holidays.
- Less collateral. Faster settlement means less unsettled spend to cover, reducing the working capital tied up in reserves.
- Yield on balances. Program balances can earn yield while remaining available for card authorisations, depending on the issuer and stablecoin.
Traditional issuers still lead on operating history and unsecured credit:
| Traditional Issuer | Stablecoin Card Issuer | |
|---|---|---|
| What users see | Traditional IssuerFiat balance | Stablecoin Card IssuerFiat or stablecoin balance |
| Credit | Traditional IssuerUnsecured credit underwritten against credit history | Stablecoin Card IssuerOnchain credit; directly with some issuers |
| Operating history | Traditional IssuerDecades | Stablecoin Card IssuerA few years |
| Settlement schedule | Traditional IssuerBanking days | Stablecoin Card IssuerDaily where the issuer settles onchain |
| Typical vendor model | Traditional IssuerSeveral providers | Stablecoin Card IssuerMore services consolidated into one integration |
Traditional issuing remains the stronger fit for fiat-only flows with existing banking relationships, markets a stablecoin issuer cannot cover, and teams whose regulators or partners are uncomfortable with crypto exposure.
Stablecoin infrastructure is most useful when the product already needs wallets, stablecoin funding, cross-border payment rails, or an account layer around the card.
What One Integration Can Cover
The degree of consolidation varies by provider and product tier:
| Layer | Potentially Provided by the Issuer | What Still Varies |
|---|---|---|
| LayerCards and processing | Potentially Provided by the IssuerIssuance, BIN sponsorship, authorisation, clearing, and settlement | What Still VariesNetworks, issuing markets, local BIN coverage, and card type |
| LayerWallets and custody | Potentially Provided by the IssuerHosted or self-custodial wallets | What Still VariesWho holds the assets and which chains and stablecoins are supported |
| LayerAccounts | Potentially Provided by the IssuerVirtual or named account details | What Still VariesCurrencies, account ownership, regions, and customer type |
| LayerFX and ramps | Potentially Provided by the IssuerFiat-to-stablecoin conversion, swaps, and offramps | What Still VariesMarkups, available pairs, licences, and corridors |
| LayerPayments | Potentially Provided by the IssuerLocal and international payouts | What Still VariesSupported rails, currencies, recipients, and settlement times |
| LayerYield and credit | Potentially Provided by the IssuerYield-bearing balances or collateral-backed borrowing | What Still VariesAvailability, asset support, liquidity, and risk model |
| LayerRewards | Potentially Provided by the IssuerCashback, points, or merchant offers | What Still VariesWho funds the reward and whether it is native to the issuer |
Wirex offers cards alongside accounts, FX, payments, yield, and credit in one integration. Stripe combines issuing with accounts, payments, yield, and stablecoin issuance through Bridge. StraitsX and Interlace cover accounts, FX, and payouts, while Rain combines cards with payouts and rewards.
The exact account currencies, payout rails, funding models, and issuing regions are covered in our dedicated stablecoin issuer comparison and virtual-account comparison. The important point here is structural: the card no longer has to sit on an isolated issuing stack.
Why the Card Alone Rarely Pays
The three largest programs Paymentscan tracks are all neobanks, but they use the surrounding stack differently:
| Program | All-Time Card Spend | Model | Main Revenue Driver |
|---|---|---|---|
| ProgramRedotPay | All-Time Card Spend$7.00B | ModelBroad global reach, including underbanked markets | Main Revenue DriverFees on the card |
| ProgramEtherFi | All-Time Card Spend$1.07B | ModelSaving and spending through vaults, tokenised assets, and credit | Main Revenue DriverBalances, on- and offramps |
| ProgramKAST | All-Time Card Spend$950M+ | ModelPremium positioning around a broader account product | Main Revenue DriverBalances, on- and offramps |
Spend from the Paymentscan dashboard, October 2026. RedotPay spend is self-reported by the RedotPay team.
These programs illustrate two models. RedotPay trades on reach and charges for the card itself. EtherFi and KAST use the card to bring balances and activity into a wider financial product.
The balances around the card can be substantial. As of 31 October 2026, EtherFi cardholders held approximately $318 million in their card accounts, $294 million of it supplied as collateral to the Aave v4 lending protocol. Plasma One cardholders held approximately $33 million, including $14 million in the P1USD vault.
The main revenue lines beyond interchange are:
- On- and off-ramp and FX fees when users move money in or out or spend in another currency
- Yield on deposits from balances held in the product
- Stablecoin issuance, which can keep more of the reserve economics within the product
MoonPay Issuance lets a brand launch its own stablecoin with MoonPay as the regulated issuer, although it is unavailable in the EEA, New York, and Canada. Bridge also provides stablecoin issuance infrastructure, while StraitsX issues XUSD and XSGD.
In the guide’s worked example of a European fintech, yield on balances accounted for approximately 60% of revenue. Our analysis of crypto card interchange explains why interchange alone rarely covers the full cost of a program.
The economic case for consolidating the stack is therefore broader than saving on integrations. Accounts, conversion, balances, and payments can become the revenue model around a card that would otherwise struggle to pay for itself.
Two Ways to Build the Product
Most stablecoin banking products follow one of two architectures.
Crypto-native. Users deposit stablecoins from a supported chain into a wallet, which may be self-custodial or hosted by the issuer. Deposits are bridged and swapped into the funding asset. At purchase, the issuer debits the required amount and settles with the network. The user sees a stablecoin balance.
Stablecoins as plumbing. Users fund the product in fiat through a bank transfer or card top-up. A licensed entity holds the balance and converts it to stablecoins behind the scenes. The card settles from that treasury, while the user sees a USD or EUR balance and never handles a token.
The choice determines who holds user funds, how card spending is funded, and which licences and safeguarding requirements apply. Our guide to custodial and self-custodial card funding examines those models in detail.
What the Program Still Owns
Consolidating vendors does not remove the work of running the product. The customer relationship, first-line support, and compliance responsibilities in the program’s markets remain with the program.
Everything else depends on the tier and architecture:
| Layer | Usually Provided by | The Program’s Decision |
|---|---|---|
| LayerNetwork and BINs | Usually Provided byIssuer | The Program’s DecisionLocal or cross-border BINs; Visa or Mastercard |
| LayerProcessing | Usually Provided byIssuer or its processing partner | The Program’s DecisionUsually none |
| LayerWallet and custody | Usually Provided byIssuer, program, or wallet partner | The Program’s DecisionCustodial or self-custodial |
| LayerStablecoin settlement | Usually Provided byIssuer | The Program’s DecisionWhich stablecoins and chains to support, or whether to hide them |
| LayerLocal rails and ramps | Usually Provided byIssuer or separate ramp provider | The Program’s DecisionWhich funding methods users receive |
| LayerLedger and program management | Usually Provided bySplit between issuer and program | The Program’s DecisionHow much to operate internally |
| LayerApp and user experience | Usually Provided byProgram | The Program’s DecisionBuild natively, embed components, or use a white-label product |
Even with the issuer running the infrastructure, a program needs clear ownership of compliance, support, disputes, treasury, and the customer experience.
This is the boundary of the one-provider model. The issuer can consolidate infrastructure, but it does not decide why the product exists, manage every customer interaction, or remove the program’s obligations in each market.
Where the Model Fits Beyond Neobanks
Not every product built on this infrastructure is a full neobank.
Exchanges such as BingX, wallets including Bitget Wallet, MetaMask, and Phantom, and payment apps such as Chipper add cards so users can spend without leaving an existing product. For these companies, the card is an add-on rather than the centre of the account.
Established payment companies are taking the same route. Western Union’s Stablecard is a wallet and Visa card backed by the USDPT stablecoin and issued with Rain. It is live in 37 markets.
A smaller group is building financial products around existing communities. Barça Mobile, FC Barcelona’s official mobile network, announced a wallet and card built with Wirex on Stellar in August 2026.
These products use many of the same infrastructure layers as a neobank without trying to become a general-purpose bank. Their advantage comes from distribution: an existing wallet, exchange, payment network, brand, or community already gives users a reason to open the product.
Conclusion
A stablecoin card issuer can replace much of a traditional BaaS vendor stack. Cards, processing, wallets, accounts, conversion, payouts, rewards, and even yield or credit can increasingly sit behind one integration.
What it cannot replace is the program itself. The product still needs a reason to exist, a customer relationship, an operating team, and a regulatory model that fits its markets.
The strongest use case is therefore not “a neobank from one API”. It is a product with existing distribution or a clear customer need using one integrated provider to reduce the infrastructure required underneath it.
Get the Full Guide
This analysis draws on How to Launch a Stablecoin Card Program, Paymentscan’s free guide based on more than 30 card programs and interviews with issuers and operators. It covers issuer selection, economics, custody, and a launch checklist.
Disclaimer: Wirex sponsors Paymentscan’s platform and research. This article draws on our guide, How to Launch a Stablecoin Card Program, which is based on conversations with several issuers. Paymentscan retained full editorial control.