Stablecoin payment cards are moving towards long-term use; how the platform's native model reshapes competition

U card products are increasing, and market competition is also changing. The threshold for opening a card and the efficiency of applications determine whether users are willing to take the first step; after actual daily use, the integration of payment cards with existing asset accounts, as well as the stability of payment, management, and exception handling, will further influence long-term choices.

Making stablecoins more naturally integrated into daily consumption is becoming an important product value of platform-native cards. These products are driving U cards from independent consumption tools to account services, allowing users to complete fund transfers, card management, and consumption record inquiries within the existing account system, reducing the need to switch between digital asset platforms, external wallets, and independent card services.

At the same time, the actual user experience of platform-native cards also depends on the stability of platform fund management and payment services.

Stablecoin Payment Cards Are Entering Daily Consumption

In 2025, Visa disclosed that the transaction volume of stablecoin co-branded cards was approximately $5.2 billion, a year-on-year increase of 319%. In the second half of the same year, the number of Visa card payments using fiat-backed stablecoins as the source of funds exceeded that of other crypto assets, with an average transaction amount of less than $100.

This average transaction value is closer to daily subscriptions, online shopping, travel, and daily necessities, indicating that stablecoin payment cards are entering more small, high-frequency scenarios, no longer just used as occasional asset conversion tools.

However, the proportion of consumption payments in the entire stablecoin market remains limited. In the twelve months ending March 2025, the transaction volume of retail-grade stablecoins accounted for less than 1% of the adjusted total transaction volume. Stablecoins are still mainly used for large transfers, institutional clearing and settlement, and liquidity management, while payment cards further bring these digital funds into daily payments.

The two sets of data together present a market that is still in its early stages but is gradually becoming more commonplace. As usage frequency increases, users' judgments about stablecoin cards will shift from "Can it be activated?" to "Is it suitable for continued use?"

Custodial and Self-Custodial Models Correspond to Different Usage Methods

What is referred to as "U card" in the Chinese market is more commonly known as a crypto-linked card or stablecoin-linked card in the public materials of institutions like Visa and Mastercard. It is not a unified category of cards but a type of product that uses stablecoins or other digital assets as the source of funds and completes payments through traditional card networks.

Merchants usually still collect payments in local fiat currency, and how digital assets enter the payment process depends on the fund management and settlement arrangements of different products.

Custodial products typically require users to first transfer stablecoins into a platform account, fund account, or card account, after which the platform or partner institution records the balance and processes payments. Fund transfers, currency conversions, and payment settlements are centralized in the same service, so users do not need to handle wallet authorizations or on-chain operations themselves, and there is a relatively clear service entry point in case of issues.

This method is usually easier to understand and use, but users still need to confirm in advance how funds will be managed after entering the card, how remaining balances will be handled, and which party is responsible for refunds and abnormal transactions.

Self-custodial or semi-self-custodial products allow assets to remain in personal wallets before payment, with the corresponding amount processed through authorization, locking, or other mechanisms at the time of payment. This arrangement allows users to retain more control over their assets while requiring them to understand wallet authorization, supported assets, and related payment rules.

Therefore, the two models correspond to different usage methods. Custodial products emphasize centralized processes and operational convenience, while self-custodial products emphasize asset control and fund flexibility. The user experience of the former relies more on platform services, while the latter typically involves additional steps such as wallet authorization and on-chain interactions.

The exchange time of different products can also affect the actual experience. Some cards require users to first convert digital assets into fiat currency or card balances before spending from the existing balance; others complete the conversion at the time of payment. The former makes it easier to confirm available balances in advance, while the latter reduces the steps for pre-exchange, but the final deduction is more susceptible to the exchange rate and settlement mechanism at that time.

Refunds may not necessarily return to the originally used asset. Some products will credit refunds to the fiat card balance, stablecoin account, or internal platform balance, with the time of arrival depending on the processing speed of the merchant and payment channel.

U Cards Are Transitioning from Independent Tools to Account Services

A U card typically requires multiple institutions to collaborate. The platform facing users, the actual issuing institution, asset management parties, and settlement service providers may each be responsible for different aspects.

The Visa or Mastercard logo indicates that the card has entered the corresponding acceptance network, but it does not specify who manages the funds, nor can it directly answer which party should handle payment anomalies.

Independent card products usually revolve around card opening, recharging, and consumption, not relying on the account system of any single digital asset platform. Users can transfer funds from external wallets or other channels, resulting in relatively low dependence on a single platform, but often require re-registration and separate management of the card, with asset records and consumption records potentially scattered across different services.

Another approach is to directly integrate the card into the existing account and asset system of the platform. These platform-native cards allow users to complete fund transfers, card management, and record inquiries within the same platform, reducing the need for additional registration and account switching.

Once the card is incorporated into the existing account system, it can further connect to memberships, points, and other platform benefits. At the same time, the platform's operational capabilities will more directly affect the card experience. The more centralized the front-end operations, the higher the requirements for fund management, payment services, and the stability of partner institutions in the back-end.

Thus, platform-native cards are no longer just a payment card but are gradually becoming part of the platform's account services. Users are not only choosing the card itself but also the asset accounts, exchange mechanisms, customer service, and ecosystem behind the card.

Recent Cases Under the Platform-Native Route

OneBullEx Mastercard is one of the recent examples of a platform-native stablecoin payment card. It directly integrates into the existing account and asset system of OneBullEx, allowing users to complete fund transfers, card management, and record inquiries within the same platform.

According to information released by the platform, this is a Mastercard virtual card issued in the Hong Kong region, with USD as the settlement currency within the card, primarily used for balance consumption, without providing a credit limit or supporting overdrafts. After users complete card opening and initial recharge activation, they can view card information and balances without waiting for the physical card to be delivered.

When using the card, users can transfer USDT from the platform's fund account to the card and convert it to USD balance for consumption. Compared to independent card services, this method reduces steps such as external withdrawals, repeated registrations, and cross-account management.

The card can be linked to WeChat Pay, Alipay, Apple Pay, or Google Pay based on regional, device, and third-party platform support, and can be used for corresponding online and contactless payment scenarios. Access to the Mastercard network provides the necessary acceptance foundation, but the specific usage scope still depends on local openness, payment platform, and merchant rules.

From a broader perspective of the platform-native model, these payment cards further connect digital asset trading, account management, and daily payments. For platforms centered on smart trading and digital asset services, payment cards can extend the asset services within the platform to real consumption scenarios, promoting digital assets from trading and storage tools to more everyday financial applications.

OneBullEx Mastercard can be seen as a recent practice in the development direction of platform-native cards, further extending the asset services within the platform to daily payment scenarios, with its long-term user experience depending on whether the account system, payment services, and cooperative channels can maintain stable collaboration.

Platform-Native Cards Moving Towards Long-Term Use

Platform-native cards incorporate card opening and subsequent use into the same service system. By simplifying the registration and application process, users can enter payment scenarios more quickly; after opening the card, fund transfers, card management, and exception handling are still handled by the same account system. This integrated experience constitutes the main value of platform-native cards and provides a foundation for further connecting memberships, points, transactions, and other financial services.

As U card products increase, low thresholds and quick card openings remain important advantages in attracting users. On this basis, whether daily operations are smooth and whether refunds or exceptions can be handled promptly will further influence whether users will use the card long-term.

Compared to self-custodial products, platform-native cards emphasize operational convenience and account collaboration, and their actual experience is also related to the platform's fund management, payment services, and cooperative channels. The two models correspond to different usage preferences, with platform-native cards being more suitable for users who value activation efficiency and centralized management, while self-custodial products emphasize asset control and fund flexibility.

The next phase of competition in the U card market will revolve around both card opening efficiency and long-term user experience. Lower application thresholds and quick card openings make it easier for users to enter payment scenarios, while subsequent account management and service stability will affect whether a card can truly become part of daily use.