A prepaid multi-currency or travel card can have no purchase fee and still carry costs through currency conversion. The fee schedule is therefore only part of the comparison.
When a traveller loads pounds and pays in euros, a provider may take a margin through the exchange rate. The useful comparison is how many euros the pounds buy, alongside any separately disclosed charges.
The same gap between the fee a customer sees and the cost of conversion applies to cards linked to stablecoin balances.
Some card marketing describes spending crypto directly without converting it. That can describe the cardholder’s experience: they tap at a terminal or pay online, and their app balance falls. It does not, by itself, establish what currency the merchant receives or how the payment is funded.
For cards linked to stablecoin balances, conversion may happen before a purchase or when the card is used. In many programmes, the merchant is paid in fiat currency through the card network. The currency may depend on the merchant’s acquiring agreement. The other questions are where the conversion rate was set, who set it and how much was deducted.
On chain volume is not direct consumer spending
Crypto-card spending has grown, but the figures are much smaller than headline stablecoin transfer volumes, and different datasets cover different activity.
In a January 2026 report, Artemis Analytics estimated that monthly crypto-card volume rose from about $100 million in early 2023 to more than $1.5 billion by late 2025. That pace corresponds to more than $18 billion annualised; it is not a measured full-year total. The broader crypto-card series includes spending linked to stablecoins and other crypto balances.
For context, a May 2026 speech by ECB President Christine Lagarde, published by the BIS, put stablecoins in circulation at more than $300 billion. Supply is a stock, while transaction volume measures flows. McKinsey and Artemis cited reported on-chain volumes of up to $35 trillion annually, but estimated an annualised payment run rate of about $390 billion based on December 2025 activity. Trading, internal transfers and automated transactions account for much of the difference. These measures should not be treated as directly comparable market totals.
Artemis’s January report said the vast majority of crypto-card volume used fiat settlement rails. That is a dated research observation, rather than a rule for every programme. Visa’s explanation of stablecoin-linked cards distinguishes traditional fiat settlement from a model in which issuers settle with Visa in supported stablecoins, with conversion to fiat for merchant payouts. Institutional settlement and the merchant’s payout are separate stages.
Where the conversion happens
Typically, when a customer taps a card or pays online, the issuer authorises the purchase by checking whether it can be covered. Clearing and settlement follow later. The currency held by the customer, the asset used to fund the purchase, the currency used between institutions and the merchant’s payout currency need not be the same.
Two funding approaches are pre-funding and conversion at purchase. Some products use collateral-backed credit instead, which should be assessed separately from a prepaid card.
In a pre-funded model, the cardholder prepares a spendable balance before using the card. For a fiat-loaded prepaid card, the provider converts the asset into fiat when the card is loaded, at the quoted rate. The fiat balance is then available for spending. A wallet funded in stablecoins may use a different mechanism, with conversion occurring later.
A collateral-backed product may reserve digital assets to support a credit facility instead of selling them immediately. Its terms should explain custody, repayment, interest, collateral requirements and any liquidation rights. Holding assets in advance is not, by itself, evidence that a card is prepaid or that conversion has already happened.
In a conversion-at-purchase model, the asset remains in the customer’s account until a payment is funded. The US Coinbase Card terms, in Appendix 4, for example, authorise the sale of the selected digital asset at Coinbase’s prevailing trading rate and the transfer of fiat proceeds to the card account. Those terms are specific to that product and jurisdiction.
If the purchase currency differs from the card account currency, a separate foreign exchange conversion may also affect the cost. What looks like one card payment may therefore involve two conversions, depending on the product.
A pre-funded card in practice
UPay describes a card that lets customers fund a wallet with supported digital assets and use them for everyday spending. Cardholders can also add the card to Apple Pay, and the company offers white-label card programmes for businesses through its UPay Business offering. Its card-page disclaimer acknowledges that digital-asset-to-fiat conversion may occur during payment transactions, depending on the network and settlement process. This is the provider’s description of its service, rather than independent verification of a particular customer’s payment flow.
For a specific UPay card, customers should review the applicable cardholder agreement and current fee schedule to establish whether the product is prepaid or collateral-backed, when assets are converted and which charges apply. One-time card charges, subscription charges, transaction fees and tier conditions should be compared separately; a percentage charge should not be assumed to represent the entire cost.
The distinction applies across providers: an advertised transaction percentage does not establish the funding rate, foreign exchange rate or final deduction. The following example is hypothetical and does not represent UPay’s verified pricing.
What a 100 euro purchase could cost
Consider a hypothetical pre-funded card used for a €100 purchase. At a reference rate of €1 to $1.10, the purchase is worth $110. Assuming the rate applied to the card payment includes a 1% FX markup, the card needs $111.10 to cover the purchase. A 2% transaction fee on that amount adds $2.22, bringing the required card balance to $113.32.
Now suppose the customer funded that dollar balance earlier using USD stablecoins. If each token is credited as $0.995 when converted, reflecting a 0.5% funding spread against an assumed $1 value, funding the $113.32 balance would use about 113.89 tokens. Compared with the $110 reference cost, the difference is $1.10 in FX markup, $2.22 in card fees and about $0.57 from the funding spread.
The total is about $3.89 above the $110 reference cost, or 3.54%, assuming each token is valued at $1 for this comparison. The result is rounded and assumes the transaction fee is applied after the FX markup. Providers may calculate charges differently. Funding or blockchain transfer charges could add to the cost, and a token trading away from its intended peg would change the comparison.
Comparing the complete cost
The example shows why a transaction fee is not, by itself, the price of a purchase. The funding rate and the rate applied to the card payment can both change the final deduction. The FCA’s international-payment pricing review identifies the problem of advertising the absence of a fixed fee while retaining an exchange-rate markup. Its review concerns international-payment providers; it offers a pricing-transparency comparison, rather than a finding about every stablecoin card. As with a travel card, the useful comparison is how much leaves the account for the same purchase.
Timing also matters. A customer may prepare a balance on Friday and make a euro purchase on Sunday. The funding rate may already be fixed, while a separate conversion can still apply to the purchase. Some providers charge for weekend exchanges: Revolut’s UK help page describes plan-dependent weekend charges. That is an example from Revolut’s UK terms, not evidence of a weekend fee on UPay or every stablecoin card.
Customers also need the terms available in their country. Eligibility, supported assets, funding and spending limits, and fee tiers can differ. Refunds may be credited in a different currency from the asset originally sold. Custody arrangements, access to the balance and the treatment of funds if a provider fails also matter; ordinary card acceptance does not establish how a digital-asset wallet is protected. A lower transaction cost should be weighed alongside those risks.
Key questions
Is paying with stablecoins cheaper than a normal card
It may be, but a valid comparison includes the funding spread, foreign exchange costs, card charges and any relevant annual or one-time costs over the same spending period. A low purchase fee alone does not establish a saving.
Who sets the conversion rate
The provider or its conversion partner may set the asset-sale rate. A separate currency conversion may use the network’s or issuer’s rate, or a merchant’s dynamic currency conversion quote if the customer selects it. The applicable terms and transaction quote determine which rate is used.
Why do some cards charge annual fees and others do not
Providers use different pricing models. An annual fee, one-time purchase charge or usage charge can each contribute to the total. The central question remains the same: what amount is deducted to fund and complete the purchase, and what protections apply to the balance?
This article provides general information and does not constitute financial, investment or tax advice. Product terms, rates and availability may change.
Reference links
Christine Lagarde speech on stablecoins, 8 May 2026, published by the BIS
McKinsey and Artemis on stablecoin payment volumes, 18 February 2026
Artemis crypto-card analysis, 15 January 2026
Coinbase US User Agreement, Appendix 4 Coinbase Card
FCA international-payment pricing transparency
Revolut UK currency exchange fees and limits
Visa explanation of stablecoin-linked card settlement models
