The rapid growth of stablecoin-powered payment cards is exposing the crypto neobanking industry to a growing concentration risk, with a large share of crypto neobanks relying on card infrastructure provided by a small number of issuers, according to an analysis by crypto card researcher Tristyn Pawson. Crypto neobanks — app-based financial services offering accounts and spending products built on digital-asset rails — often do not hold that infrastructure themselves, which is why the issuers behind them occupy a role most cardholders never see.

Pawson found that 18 of the 25 active crypto cards listed on Payments rely entirely on either Rain or Wirex, raising questions about what would happen to customers and card programs if either provider faced a major operational, regulatory, or financial disruption. The findings suggest that much of the sector's rapid expansion has been built on a narrow infrastructure base.

Two Issuers Anchor the Sector

Rain, which Pawson describes as the largest crypto card provider, supplies cards for more than 130 crypto neobanks, including EtherFi, Kast, Plasma, Karta, Tangem, and Western Union. Issuers hold this central position because they carry the card-network memberships and banking relationships that consumer-facing crypto apps generally lack, making them the bridge between on-chain balances and the payment networks merchants already accept.

Wirex provides card infrastructure for products including Wirex One, Coca, Bfinance, Ethena Pay, and Send.

The concentration extends beyond card issuance itself. Pawson noted that some platforms depend on these providers for on- and off-ramps, virtual accounts, and payment infrastructure, potentially creating a single point of failure across several parts of their businesses.

What a Disruption Could Mean

A disruption would not necessarily translate into an immediate collapse. Pawson acknowledged that a regulatory or corporate failure would more likely result in a managed wind-down, although he cited the possibility of cards being switched off with little notice if a card network relationship were terminated.

The question is particularly relevant for customer funds held within prepaid card balances. Pawson argued that while users' main self-custodied wallets could remain unaffected, funds already transferred into card balances could become exposed to the issuer's failure or insolvency process. The difference turns on custody: self-custodied wallets are controlled by users' own keys, whereas prepaid card balances are held on the issuer's side of the relationship, which is why an insolvency process can reach them.

Replacing a major card infrastructure provider would also take considerable time. Pawson estimates that establishing a new principal membership, integrating APIs, and securing BIN sponsorship could take 6 to 18 months. Those terms describe the plumbing of card issuance: principal membership is direct membership in a card network such as Visa or Mastercard, while BIN sponsorship is an arrangement in which a licensed bank lends its issuer identity — the bank identification number embedded in a card's leading digits — to a firm that lacks its own.

The scale of the dependency is underscored by transaction volumes. Rain and Wirex's combined monthly transaction volume is estimated by Pawson at nearly $1 billion, underscoring the scale of infrastructure concentrated among small number of providers.

Growth Amid Concentration

The concentration comes at a time when stablecoin cards are expanding beyond crypto-native users and into remittances, payments, and broader consumer financial services. These cards allow holders to spend digital dollar balances at everyday merchants through established payment networks. Rain, for example, recently launched a MoneyGram card that allows stablecoin balances to be spent through the Visa network.

That mainstream reach raises the stakes of the infrastructure question: as household names such as Western Union and MoneyGram attach their brands to stablecoin cards, the issuer arrangements behind those products increasingly stand between mainstream consumers and their day-to-day spending.

The broader question for the sector is whether the growth of stablecoin payments is creating genuinely new financial infrastructure or simply shifting dependence from banks to a handful of specialized fintech providers.

According to Pawson:

Beyond the immediate user chaos, a Rain collapse would destroy years of progress for the broader Stablecoin payments space. I can't see it happening, but the real issue is the lack of decentralisation in this scenario.

Web3 spent half a decade convincing mainstream users that stablecoins are a legitimate alternative to traditional banking. The whole point is decentralisation, yet a single $700 million blackout erases retail trust overnight.

When you build on a single point of failure, you rent your business.

Source: BitcoinKE