I went through @Delphi_Digital’s report on crypto neobanks, and there’s a lot in there. Here are the bits that stood out to me ↓ 1️⃣ Crypto card usage is growing fast Crypto card volume hit $9.8B cumulative, with 23.43M transactions and 1.6M addresses. May 2026 alone did $830M+ in monthly volume, roughly 16x growth in two years. And even that likely undercounts the market because exchange-issued cards like @Coinbase and @Gemini settle some activity internally, so it does not show up onchain. 2️⃣ The market is already concentrated There are 190+ crypto neobanks now, but most volume still goes through a small group of players. This feels like one of those markets where everyone launches the same card, but only a few have a real edge. 3️⃣ @Visa is still the king here Visa handles roughly 96% of all onchain crypto card volume. Actually insane if I'm being honest. And even when the front-end looks crypto-native, most of the experience still runs through existing card rails. You tap the card, Apple Pay works, the merchant gets paid, and the crypto part mostly happens in the background. 4️⃣ The card is not the real upgrade This was the most important part for me. Because stablecoins make the payment stack more efficient behind the scenes. Instead of relying on slow settlement cycles, companies get a faster way to move, reconcile, and manage money globally. The user still gets a normal payment experience, but the backend gets cleaner. 5️⃣ Delphi splits crypto neobanks into 5 models → Full-stack issuers → Exchange-backed cards → Non-custodial DeFi-native cards → Stablecoin-native neobanks → Remittance-first cards I liked this framework because it makes it easier to tell which teams are building a real financial product, and which ones are mostly shipping another card with crypto branding. 6️⃣ The picks-and-shovels model looks strong Because full-stack issuers like @raincards sit closer to the card network layer, and they own more of the infra and capture economics across multiple card programs. I like this model because full-stack issuers do not need to be the crypto card everyone uses. They benefit when more wallets, exchanges, and apps want to launch cards of their own. 7️⃣ The real demand is in weak banking markets I don’t think the biggest use case is people in developed markets replacing Apple Pay or their normal credit card. Those already work fine. IMO, the stronger use case is in markets where traditional banking is expensive, unreliable, or hard to access, and that’s why @RedotPay stood out in the report to me. 8️⃣ Remittance-first cards feel more practical than “spend crypto” cards For companies like @Bitso, @Felixpago, and @get_aspora, the card is more like the last step. The real product is moving money across borders, giving people dollar access, and letting them spend locally after receiving funds. Felix Pago has already processed over $5B in cumulative volume for more than 1M users across South America, which says a lot about where demand is real. 9️⃣ DeFi-native cards are trying to make the wallet the bank account Products like @MetaMask, @phantom, @ether_fi, and @gnosispay are taking a different route. Instead of moving funds from wallet → exchange → bank → card, the idea is to spend from the wallet side. @ether_fi Cash is interesting here because users keep assets in an onchain vault and borrow against them for everyday spending. Still early, but I like the direction. 🔟 The endgame is probably convergence Stablecoins can win without every crypto company winning. @Visa, @Mastercard, @Stripe, and other incumbents are already moving toward stablecoin settlement, so I don’t think this ends with crypto replacing the entire card stack overnight. More likely, incumbents absorb parts of the backend upgrade, while a few crypto-native players survive by owning distribution, balances, or a very specific regional pain point. My read: A crypto card by itself is not that interesting anymore. The winners will be the ones people trust to hold, move, and spend their stablecoin balances.