Wirex CEO Pavel Matveev argues that avoiding foreign-exchange costs may be a more lasting reason to use a stablecoin card than earning cashback. His case is plausible, but the savings he cites have not been independently verified, and the spending figures available do not prove that customers stick around.
- Matveev says some cross-border purchases could save up to 2% by avoiding currency conversions.
- Wirex reports repeat card use but has not said how many customers remain active.
- Stablecoin cards still depend on issuers, payment networks and settlement infrastructure.
- A Rain-linked contract exploit shows that funds in card programs face risks beyond those of personal wallets.
FX savings are a pitch, not a guaranteed return
Stablecoin cards let customers pay through familiar payment networks, while stablecoins or other balances support the card program behind the scenes. Some programs also use stablecoins for settlement, the transfer of funds between the parties involved in a payment. These arrangements vary. Merchants do not necessarily need to handle stablecoins for a card program to settle payments on a blockchain.
Matveev told crypto.news that Wirex settles in six fiat currencies as well as stablecoins. He says this can help customers paying in euros or pounds avoid two currency conversions that might otherwise add costs.
“Any issuer can switch cashback off tomorrow, whilst an FX saving is there every time you tap the card.”
Matveev estimates that a cross-border purchase could save up to 2%. That is his estimate, not a measured or guaranteed saving for cardholders. He provided no calculation or transaction-level comparison. The result depends on the currencies involved, the card’s terms, the conversion route and any fees. Some cards also waive foreign-exchange fees, so customers need to compare the specific alternatives.
The broader point holds up: an issuer can change or withdraw cashback promotions, while avoiding an unnecessary conversion could cut costs again and again. But crypto branding does not prove that a card saves customers money. Actual transaction fees and exchange rates do.
Repeat spending is not proof of retention
Matveev says Wirex-issued cards handled about a fifth of the $1.2 billion spent through stablecoin cards in September. He did not specify the year. He also says Wirex spending spans more than 30 partner programs, the average transaction is around $95, and active customers make roughly a dozen purchases each month. These figures come from Matveev. No underlying dataset or definition of “active customer” was provided.
The figures suggest that customers counted as active use their cards often. They do not show how many issued cards are used, how many customers stop using them, or whether a small group accounts for most of the spending. There is no six-month retention rate or breakdown of transaction volume by user.
Matveev recommends checking spending after six months, including during weak market conditions, and seeing whether activity is spread across many customers. That is his proposed way to assess adoption, not an established industry standard. He also says Wirex payment volume rose during February’s market downturn, but did not specify the year, comparison period or size of the increase.
Matveev says cashback accounts for a small share of Wirex spending and that a substantial share of its volume involves currencies other than the U.S. dollar. He gave no percentages for either claim, so the figures available do not show how much Wirex activity reflects the FX-savings argument.
Issuing cards requires more than a partner logo
Under Wirex’s partner model, a business can use one integration to launch a branded card program and shape the customer experience. Wirex says it remains the issuer, the company responsible for issuing the card, and holds the issuing permissions and bank identification number, or BIN, which identifies the card issuer. Partners still have obligations under their program agreements and applicable law.
Matveev says Wirex’s principal memberships with Visa and Mastercard allow it to issue cards directly, without an intermediary bank or BIN sponsor, in most jurisdictions. The qualification matters: Wirex cannot issue directly everywhere. Wirex Limited is described as authorized by the U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority as an electronic money institution, and Wirex uses banking partners in some other markets. An electronic-money authorization does not make a company a bank or grant it a single global permission.
Matveev says independent issuers need approval from Visa or Mastercard, local regulatory permissions and settlement arrangements. Getting them can take capital, regulatory scrutiny and years of relationship-building. Wirex says it verifies customer identities, screens against sanctions and politically exposed persons lists, and monitors transactions for potential fraud and financial crime. Those are the company’s descriptions of its controls, not an independent assessment of how well they work.
Matveev also says interchange revenue, income associated with card transactions, is relatively small for Wirex in most jurisdictions. Issuing a card takes more than collecting a fee when customers tap. It requires network access, compliance and systems to move funds.
Network growth figures measure different things
Visa reported nearly 200% year-over-year growth in stablecoin-linked card payment volume across more than 160 programs, according to figures reported by crypto.news. The publication also reported that business and commercial programs accounted for approximately 17% of Visa’s stablecoin-linked card volume in fiscal 2026 year-to-date. The figures are attributed to Visa. The information available does not include independently verified underlying data.
These figures cover the network as a whole, not Wirex. They also cannot be compared directly with Wirex’s reported card activity or with the value of funds settled through a particular stablecoin arrangement.
Visa and Stripe-owned Bridge said in a March announcement that their cards were operating in 18 countries, with plans to reach more than 100 by the end of 2026. The year of the March announcement is not specified. The target is a plan, not confirmation that the rollout has happened.
SoFi and Mastercard announced live SoFiUSD card settlement on Sep. 22, but did not specify the year. SoFi began migrating a card program expected to process more than $25 billion in annualized volume. “Live” describes the settlement arrangement. The announcement does not mean the full card program had already migrated or that SoFiUSD had processed the projected volume.
According to the companies, merchants can receive settlement funds in a SoFi Bank account without holding stablecoins or building blockchain infrastructure. SoFi said SoFiUSD is dollar-redeemable and issued by SoFi Bank, which is regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The distinction matters: blockchain-based settlement does not necessarily require merchants to receive or manage tokens.
Card access and control of funds are different risks
“Non-custodial” generally means customers control the keys to assets in their own wallets. Matveev says Wirex customers retain control of wallet funds and could still have other ways to access those assets if an issuer failed, even if card access was disrupted. That claim does not automatically apply to funds already moved into card infrastructure. The information available does not explain where every Wirex card balance is held or what recovery rights apply in each jurisdiction.
A Rain-linked incident on Solana shows the difference. Security firm Blockaid reported that an exploit on Aug. 28 drained approximately $1.1 million from stablecoin card-program contracts. The year is not specified. Blockaid said the attack targeted contracts holding deposited card funds, not customers’ self-custodial wallets or private keys. Users did not sign the transactions that drained the funds.
Blockaid described the amount as funds drained, not a final tally of unrecovered customer losses. The information supplied does not establish how much, if any, was later recovered. Rain said it upgraded every program still using the affected contract version. That response is not an independent security audit of the replacement contracts.
The incident does not show that all stablecoin cards share the same vulnerability. It does show why “self-custodial” does not describe every balance connected to a card. A customer may control a personal wallet while funds deposited into a card program sit under separate technical and operational controls.
Stablecoin card questions, answered
-
Can a stablecoin card save up to 2% on foreign spending?
Matveev says some cross-border purchases could achieve that saving. No methodology or independent measurement was provided. Actual costs depend on the card terms, currencies and conversion route.
-
Do Wirex’s spending figures prove customer retention?
No. The reported average transaction and monthly purchase frequency describe activity among active customers, but do not show how many customers remain active or how widely spending is distributed.
-
Does non-custodial mean card funds are always protected by a customer’s wallet keys?
No. Funds moved into a card-program account or contract may face different controls and risks. Check where spending balances are held and what happens if the program is disrupted.
Stablecoin cards will earn their place through useful payments, transparent costs and clear explanations of custody, not by putting crypto language on a plastic card. FX savings may last longer than cashback, but the test is simple: do customers keep using the card, and do they actually pay less?
