Stablecoin cards let customers spend digital dollars through familiar checkout terminals. Behind the growing volumes are issuers, custody providers, conversion services and settlement arrangements that determine the cost and what happens when a purchase goes wrong.
Summary
- Paymentscan’s November 3 dashboard showed approximately $1.37 billion in tracked October card volume, including some self-reported data.
- Its KAST series recorded $121 million through 31 on-chain transactions during October.
- Visa reported more than 160 live stablecoin-linked card programmes in its September update.
- Marqeta’s October 16 Coinbase agreement included custody, conversion and settlement services.
- Visa and Lloyds settled $750,000 during a seven-day stablecoin pilot announced on September 30.
Tracked stablecoin card volume has reached approximately $1.37 billion for October, as payment companies connect digital-dollar balances to existing card networks.
Paymentscan’s dashboard showed the monthly figure on November 3, alongside approximately 12.94 million tracked transactions and 363,321 active addresses. Its coverage combines on-chain observations with some issuer-supplied off-chain data, which users can exclude through a separate setting.
A customer sees a card payment approved on a phone or terminal. Behind the purchase, a stablecoin may be held, converted, pledged or used to settle an obligation between financial firms.
The merchant can still receive an ordinary currency payment through its existing provider. Whether stablecoins improve the customer’s experience depends on the funding route, total charges and arrangements for recovering money after a failed or disputed payment.
Stablecoin card totals measure different parts of a payment
Paymentscan’s methodology separates top-ups from spending. Depositing assets into a card account is not necessarily a purchase: the money may remain unused, leave through a bank transfer or be withdrawn on-chain.
Its spending view uses payment, clearing or settlement data, depending on the programme’s architecture. Some providers settle purchases individually; others aggregate them, so a single blockchain transaction may represent many customer payments.
The dashboard also defines a user through an active address, not a verified person. A person using more than one address can appear more than once, while an omnibus address can represent activity belonging to many people.
Those distinctions become visible in the KAST series. Its October table showed $121 million, 31 transactions and 4 active addresses, with the methodology identifying issuer settlement flows.
Dividing $121 million by 31 produces approximately $3.9 million per observed on-chain transaction. That is a settlement-record average; treating it as the average price of a customer purchase would misdescribe the measurement.
Similarly, dividing the same volume by 4 addresses would produce $30.25 million per address. It would not establish that only 4 people used the cards or that each customer spent that amount.
A growth chart can therefore show expanding activity without supplying a retail customer count or purchase distribution. Those require either transaction-level purchase records or a provider’s separately defined customer data.
The difference affects comparisons between programmes. A service which records each purchase on-chain may produce millions of events, while another can settle a comparable volume in a few dozen batches.
Paymentscan says it avoids counting issuer flows and the programmes using those issuers together in the same chart. Named programmes are separated from residual issuer activity to reduce double-counting.
An additional boundary is chain coverage. A programme that changes its settlement network can change a chain’s reported share without customers changing how much they spend.
For an October-to-November comparison, the reporting period matters too. November 3 contains only part of a month, so its running total should not be compared with a completed October as though both covered the same number of days.
The merchant usually receives money through a card network
Visa’s explanation of stablecoin-linked cards describes products connecting digital wallets to its acceptance network. The consumer can draw on crypto holdings without asking each merchant to integrate a new wallet or accept the underlying token directly.
That arrangement separates the asset funding a payment from the way the merchant accepts it. A shop displaying a card-network logo need not hold USDC, manage a private key or agree to receive a token simply because a customer uses a stablecoin-funded card.
An authorisation request travels through the merchant’s payment provider and the card network to the issuing side. The issuer checks the account and programme rules before approving or declining the purchase.
Marqeta’s October 16 agreement with Coinbase describes one version of the infrastructure. Coinbase would provide custody, fiat conversion and settlement on Base for enterprise customers’ stablecoin-backed cards.
The consumer brand, issuing platform and crypto infrastructure provider can therefore be different companies. The name shown in an app is not necessarily the entity holding the stablecoins or carrying out the conversion.
A customer funding a card with USDC may interact with several ledgers during one purchase. The app records available balance, the issuer records an authorisation, and settlement records show money moving between the firms that complete the payment.
Each record has a purpose. A terminal’s approval indicates that the issuer authorised a charge; it does not mean the merchant has already received a stablecoin transfer or that every settlement obligation has been discharged.
Rain’s expansion illustrates how the infrastructure can serve multiple brands and networks. Its Mastercard agreement followed an existing Visa business and included issuing and stablecoin settlement work.
A programme using Rain can therefore offer a branded consumer experience while relying on common infrastructure underneath. Comparing two app names does not necessarily compare two independent settlement systems.
The allocation of responsibilities becomes most visible when something fails. Customer support may need to distinguish a missing blockchain deposit from a declined card authorisation or a merchant refund that has not yet reached the account.
Cards can spend a balance or borrow against it
“Stablecoin card” describes the source of value, but it does not identify a single legal or technical product. A prepaid balance, a debit-like wallet arrangement and a secured credit account can all present a similar checkout experience.
MetaMask’s card announcement describes a self-custody model in which assets remain in the user’s wallet until purchase. The wallet and its permissions are part of the payment arrangement rather than an exchange balance loaded in advance.
Its earlier metal card rollout involved Mastercard, Baanx and CompoSecure. The announced design used a smart contract to validate and process payments from wallet assets.
The scope of self-custody should still be read alongside the spending permission. A customer may retain the wallet key while granting a contract authority to access designated assets for card transactions.
That differs from transferring stablecoins to a custodial app and receiving an internal dollar balance. In the custodial version, the customer relies on the provider and its partners to maintain and return that balance under their terms.
A secured credit arrangement introduces a further distinction. The Avalanche Card US agreement describes purchases supported by collateral and circumstances in which Rain Liquidity may liquidate it to meet obligations.
Its disclosed terms include a payment cycle and collateral valuation arrangements. A user may therefore see purchasing power against posted assets rather than a simple transfer of those assets to a merchant at each tap.
The product’s source of repayment matters when the collateral can change in value. A payment account supported by a dollar stablecoin has different price exposure from one supported by a volatile asset, even when both use the same network at checkout.
Peanut’s card funding explanation provides another example of a Rain-based arrangement. It distinguishes the card-network authorisation from a collateral withdrawal and describes a dedicated contract with user and Rain permissions.
That architecture allows the spending process and collateral access to have different timing. The merchant’s immediate authorisation does not mean every underlying asset movement is a conventional wallet transfer initiated by the customer at that moment.
Product labels alone cannot settle which version a customer has. The account agreement needs to identify who holds the assets, what may be charged, how repayment happens and what conditions can restrict a withdrawal.
A $100 purchase can create several different costs
Stablecoin transfer fees are only one component of the bill. A card account can involve conversion spreads, foreign exchange charges, cash withdrawal fees, membership costs and conditions on rewards.
As crypto.news previously reported, KAST’s business account launch combined fiat accounts, stablecoin funding, cards and local payouts. Its advertised rewards and returns depended on the relevant product, while regulated services were supplied through partners.
A customer comparing offers needs the charge applicable to their currency and jurisdiction. A free dollar transaction and a foreign-currency purchase can have different economics within the same programme.
For illustration, take a $100-equivalent foreign-currency purchase with a 1.5% cashback rate and a 1.75% FX charge. The cashback is $1.50 and the charge is $1.75, leaving a $0.25 net cost before any other fees or exchange-rate difference.
If the same hypothetical transaction has a 0.5% FX charge, the net reward becomes $1. The conclusion changes because the actual charge changed, not because the advertised cashback percentage changed.
A fixed fee has a different effect on small payments. A $0.10 charge is 1% of a $10 purchase, but only 0.1% of a $100 purchase.
A programme with frequent small purchases can therefore produce a different effective cost from one used for occasional larger payments. Applying a single headline percentage to the entire monthly statement can miss that difference.
Cash withdrawals require a separate calculation. A hypothetical $200 withdrawal with a $3 fixed fee and a 2% percentage charge costs $7 before local ATM charges or foreign exchange costs, equivalent to 3.5% of the cash withdrawn.
These are examples, not a quote for any particular customer. Their purpose is to show which inputs are needed before one card can be compared with another on total cost.
The currency selected at the terminal introduces another decision. Visa’s dynamic-conversion guidance explains that a merchant or ATM may offer conversion into the cardholder’s home currency, with an exchange rate and additional charges.
The offer comes from a different part of the payment chain from the card’s own published conversion terms. Selecting it can therefore change the rate used even when the card advertises inexpensive foreign spending.
A dollar stablecoin balance does not determine whether the customer should accept a particular terminal conversion. The relevant comparison is the disclosed conversion against the card programme’s own route, including any applicable fees.
Membership pricing introduces another denominator. A $1,000 annual fee costs approximately $83.33 per month; earning an extra 0.5 percentage point in cashback would require approximately $16,667 of monthly eligible spending just to offset that fee, before considering limits or other benefits.
The arithmetic assumes all spending qualifies and rewards remain unchanged. A programme’s spending caps, exclusions, reward currency and redemption restrictions can prevent a customer from realising the apparent headline return.
Issuers still need money between approval and settlement
Visa’s September financing account describes a less visible requirement: card programmes must fund settlement obligations before collecting all the relevant cardholder proceeds. A stablecoin-based programme still needs working capital across that gap.
The company described a Credit Coop facility used by Rain, with settlement information informing funding and incoming receivables routed towards repayment. Borrowing and repayment events are financial infrastructure activity, separate from customers’ retail purchase counts.
The arrangement shows why a blockchain settlement can be both fast and dependent on credit. Moving the settlement asset quickly does not eliminate the timing difference between an obligation coming due and the programme receiving money.
Consider a simplified programme owing $10 million at settlement time while $8 million of customer proceeds is immediately available. It needs $2 million from its own liquidity or an agreed funding source to close the gap on time.
If the $2 million arrives the next day, that does not retrospectively remove the need for funding on the first day. The question for the issuer is whether it can reliably finance the interval at an acceptable cost.
Stablecoins can change when funds move. A bank transfer limited by business hours and a blockchain transfer available over a weekend have different operational windows, although the recipient still needs to accept and reconcile the payment.
Visa and Lloyds’ September pilot settled $750,000 of obligations during seven days, with funds reaching Visa in under an hour, including over the weekend. The companies explicitly described the test as settlement work behind the payment experience.
The amount was a pilot total, not evidence that all Lloyds card activity had moved to stablecoins. Its contribution was to demonstrate the specified transfer and reconciliation process with live obligations.
Visa had already expanded its settlement pilot to nine blockchains in April. Its then-reported $7 billion annualised settlement run rate described activity between participating institutions, rather than the value of all purchases funded by stablecoins.
An annualised run rate extrapolates a current pace across a year. It should not be presented as a completed year’s transaction volume, and it cannot be added to monthly card spending without checking for overlapping activity.
A refund has to return through the payment arrangement
Stablecoin transfers and card reversals follow different rules. A transaction confirmed on a blockchain does not disappear because a merchant cancels an order; the payment provider must account for the corresponding change through the card arrangement.
OKX’s card status explanation distinguishes a reversal before settlement from a refund after settlement. A pending authorisation can reserve funds even when a purchase has not completed.
For a customer, an apparently missing balance can therefore represent an authorisation hold, a settled charge or a separate refund in progress. The status determines which participant needs to act and what record should exist.
The distinction is familiar in conventional cards, but a crypto-funded account adds the question of which asset is returned. The original deposit, purchase currency and account credit may not all use the same denomination.
For example, a user might deposit a dollar token and pay a merchant in euros. If the purchase is refunded later, the applicable conversion rules determine the account credit; the original stablecoin deposit alone does not answer that question.
An exchange-rate move can produce a difference between the dollar value charged and credited even when the merchant refunds the same euro amount. Whether that difference applies, and whether any original fee is returned, depends on the programme’s terms.
Interlace’s transaction-lifecycle documentation separates authorisation, clearing and settlement records. Its model illustrates why customer-support teams need the card reference and status, not just a blockchain transaction hash.
The hash can establish that a deposit reached the nominated address. It may say nothing about whether a merchant submitted a final charge, cancelled an authorisation or issued a refund through the card network.
Web3Card’s developer explanation similarly describes a path from terminal authorisation to on-chain settlement, with refunds recorded as a separate stage. The user’s app must reconcile those events into the displayed balance.
A dispute is different again from an ordinary refund requested from a merchant. The card programme’s agreement determines the complaint procedure, evidence and deadlines; blockchain finality does not substitute for that process.
The relevant comparison with a bank card is therefore practical: who accepts the complaint, what transactions are eligible, what deadlines apply and where any returned value is credited. A familiar card logo does not make every crypto account’s terms identical.
Global acceptance does not mean everyone can open an account
Card-network reach describes where an eligible card may be accepted. Issuance eligibility describes who can obtain that card, subject to the programme’s countries, identity checks and regulatory permissions.
StraitsX’s October 15 announcement expanded its issuing capabilities towards more than 100 markets, while expressly making programmes subject to regulatory, compliance and Visa requirements. It was an infrastructure capability announcement, not an unconditional offer to every resident of those markets.
The distinction can be obscured when a provider places a large merchant count next to a country count. A card accepted by millions of merchants can still be issued only to customers meeting a much narrower set of conditions.
Companies can also phase their launch through partners. A new market can require a different issuing entity, terms or funding arrangement from an existing market, even when the app and branding remain the same.
Western Union’s Stablecard launch illustrates a defined rollout: the August announcement described availability in 37 markets, with further expansion planned. Its USDPT-backed product connected remittance value with a Visa card through Rain.
The initial 37-market figure is historical launch scope, not a claim about the exact number available today. A customer still needs the live product’s eligibility and terms before relying on the card for receiving or spending money.
MetaMask’s product update provides another reason to check status beyond a launch release. The page carried a June 3 notice that US sign-ups were temporarily paused, despite the earlier nationwide availability announcement.
A product can remain usable by some existing customers while new applicants face a pause. The status of the applicant, the issue date and the country can consequently change the answer to “is this card available?”
Access to a stablecoin is not the same as access to the financial account built around it. An on-chain transfer may be permissionless while the card issuer requires identification, screens transactions and restricts particular users or locations.
Identity and account checks can therefore affect the spending route even when the blockchain is operating normally. A customer needs to know whether unused assets can be withdrawn and what process applies if card access is suspended.
A card statement may not contain the complete tax record
The asset used to fund a payment can have a tax history before it reaches the card account. A statement recording the merchant charge may not contain the original acquisition cost, transfers between wallets or the local-currency value required for tax reporting.
The IRS’s digital-asset guidance includes stablecoins in its digital-asset reporting framework and identifies payments for goods or services among relevant transactions. It requires sufficient records to support positions taken on a federal return.
The administrative question is separate from whether a particular payment produced a taxable gain. A dollar token can remain close to $1 while the customer’s tax accounting depends on the acquisition, disposal and applicable rules.
For illustration, a customer might receive a stablecoin payment for work, hold it, and later spend part of it through a card. The receipt of income and the later use of the asset are different events in the transaction history.
Another customer could buy the same token with existing savings and spend it immediately. An identical merchant charge would not make the two customers’ preceding records identical.
HMRC’s cryptoasset disposal guidance includes using tokens for goods and services among disposals which may produce a capital gain. Its recordkeeping instructions include the token, date, quantity, sterling value and relevant cost information.
Those are examples of two jurisdictions’ guidance, not a universal tax rule for every cardholder. The relevant treatment depends on residence, the transaction and any specific rules applicable to the asset.
The distinction matters for the product comparison because convenience at checkout does not determine the effort needed to reconcile the records afterwards. A provider can make spending easier while leaving customers responsible for compiling information from an exchange, wallet and card statement.
A practical export would identify the asset and amount debited, timestamp, conversion and fees, merchant currency, and any later reversal or refund. Matching those records to acquisition history is a separate task from checking whether the card’s monthly total is correct.
If a programme converts the deposit into an internal fiat balance before any purchase, the conversion and the subsequent merchant payment may be different events. Describing the whole process simply as spending stablecoins can conceal where the actual crypto disposal occurred.
Reward records can require their own classification. A token reward, an account credit restricted to future purchases and a cash rebate are different benefits, even if the app places each under a cashback heading.
The card’s marketing percentage cannot settle the tax treatment of those benefits. The usable evidence is the reward terms and the record of what the customer actually received.
The next useful numbers are repeat spending and total cost
The business case for stablecoin cards is strongest when they remove steps a customer would otherwise need to take. Someone paid in digital dollars may be able to spend without separately selling tokens on an exchange and waiting for a bank transfer.
Visa’s account of adoption identifies uses in markets where customers want access to dollar value and international spending. Its commercial role is clear: stablecoin-funded products bring that activity onto its card network.
The opposing question is whether the convenience remains worthwhile after all the costs and conditions. Paying fewer blockchain fees does not establish that a customer receives a better overall exchange rate or a cheaper way to withdraw cash.
A meaningful comparison follows the same amount through two complete routes. If one route starts with USDC and ends with a local-currency purchase, the alternative must include the cost of selling the USDC, withdrawing fiat and making the equivalent payment.
The comparison changes if the customer already holds local currency in a bank account. Purchasing a stablecoin solely to fund a card adds a step that an existing stablecoin holder would not need.
That is why the same product can be useful for one customer and unnecessarily expensive for another. The starting asset, destination currency, payment size and frequency determine the calculation.
The public growth data does not settle how much spending would persist without incentives. Establishing retention requires cohorts observed over time, with reward changes and eligibility measured consistently.
Useful disclosures would include active cardholders defined as people, purchase counts separated from settlements, repeat-use rates and the share of activity earning temporary rewards. An issuer’s aggregate volume cannot supply all those answers.
Provider concentration belongs in the comparison as well. A network’s growth can depend heavily on a single programme, while several consumer brands may use the same issuer, liquidity facility or custody provider.
The KAST table supplies a concrete example of why the event count matters: Paymentscan records October’s $121 million through 31 on-chain transactions, with issuer settlement identified among the tracked activity types.
What to watch
- Consistent spending data: Monthly purchases separated from top-ups, clearing records and settlement batches.
- Customer retention: Repeat use after introductory rewards or cashback terms change.
- Actual charges: Currency-specific fees, conversion spreads and annual costs applicable to eligible customers.
- Refund handling: Where returned value is credited and how long holds, reversals and disputes take to resolve.
- Live availability: Issuance countries, onboarding pauses and the regulated partners serving each programme.
FAQ
How much stablecoin card activity was recorded in October?
Paymentscan’s November 3 dashboard showed approximately $1.37 billion in its October spending series. The total includes some issuer-supplied off-chain information and depends on the selected coverage settings.
Does a stablecoin card pay the shop in cryptocurrency?
Not necessarily. Many products fund purchases with stablecoins while the merchant receives its normal card-network payment in fiat currency.
Why did KAST have only 31 recorded October transactions?
Paymentscan tracks issuer settlement for that programme, so each observed transaction can aggregate many purchases. It is not a count of every retail checkout.
Are all stablecoin cards self-custodial?
No. Products include custodial balances, wallet-based spending and collateral-backed credit arrangements, with different permissions and repayment rules.
Can foreign exchange fees outweigh cashback?
Yes. In an illustrative $100 payment, a 1.75% FX charge exceeds a 1.5% reward by $0.25 before other costs.
Is an annualised settlement figure the same as annual spending?
No. A run rate extrapolates the pace of settlement activity, while annual spending measures completed purchases over a year.
Can every resident of an advertised market apply?
No. Card acceptance, issuing capabilities and customer eligibility are different measures, with jurisdiction and compliance conditions attached.
Does blockchain finality prevent a card refund?
A card refund is a separate payment and accounting event handled through the programme’s arrangements. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures reflect regulatory filings and reporting available at the time of writing and change with each disclosure. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of November 3, 2026. Legal and tax questions should be discussed with qualified advisers.
