Editor's Note: A decade ago, fintech neobanks improved the banking experience through mobile applications but did not change the underlying system of how money moves. Today, encryption technology is attempting to touch deeper changes, reconstructing "how money flows."
This article, from the four dimensions of "Store, Spend, Grow, Borrow," outlines the development path and competitive landscape of crypto neobanks: from self-custody wallets and stablecoin payments to on-chain trading, lending, and yield mechanisms. Author Jay Yu (Research and Investment Team Member at Pantera Capital) suggests that, using the velocity of money flow as a clue, the breakthrough for crypto neobanks might first appear in high-frequency, high-turnover growth and lending scenarios, then gradually extend to payments and storage.
Before issues like privacy, compliance, real-world connectivity, and credit systems are fully resolved, crypto neobanks are still in the early exploratory stage. But it is certain that they are not just new financial applications; they are attempting to build a new track for the movement of funds.
Below is the original text:
Introduction
No matter which banking or fintech app you open today—be it's Bank of America, Revolut, Chase, or SoFi—scrolling down the interface gives a sense of déjà vu: Accounts, Pay & Transfer, Earn Yield. These interfaces are almost interchangeable.
This highly similar design reveals the common underlying logic of banking: banks are essentially the interface manifestation of the four core relationships we have with "money":
- Store: A place to hold and preserve assets
- Spend: A mechanism for daily expenses and transfers
- Grow: A set of tools for passive or active wealth management
- Borrow: A channel to access external funds and utilize leverage
Over the past decade, the proliferation of mobile technology has driven the rise of "neobank" apps like SoFi, Revolut, and Wise. They have made financial services more inclusive and redefined what it means to bank—replacing physical branches with intuitive, always-online digital interfaces.
Today, as encryption technology enters its second decade, a new paradigm is emerging. From self-custody wallets and stablecoins to on-chain credit and yield mechanisms, the permissionless, programmable nature of blockchain enables banking-like experiences to be global, instant, and composable.
If mobile internet gave birth to neobanks, then encryption technology is nurturing permissionless neobanks: a unified, interoperable, self-custody-centric interface that allows users to store, spend, grow, and borrow funds in the on-chain economy.
History of Fintech Neobanks
Similar to the crypto industry, the rise of neobanks also occurred after the 2008 financial crisis. Unlike traditional banks replicating physical branch networks, neobanks act more like technology platforms, providing banking services to users through mobile interfaces.
Most neobanks partner with traditional banks in the backend, with the latter providing deposit insurance and compliance infrastructure, while the neobanks themselves control the front-end user relationship. With fast account opening processes, transparent fee structures, and digital experience-centric design, many neobanks have gradually become users' preferred entry point for saving, spending, and managing wealth.
Reviewing the growth paths of these neobank startups with market capitalizations in the billions of dollars, a common point emerges: they master user relationships through unique digital product forms, whether through refinancing services, early salary access, transparent foreign exchange rates, or other differentiated features. This initiates a user-centric transaction volume flywheel, then gradually expands the product matrix to monetize existing users.
Simply put, the victory of fintech neobanks lies in their mastery of the "entry point of money": by reshaping the medium through which users save, spend, invest, and borrow, they firmly occupy the interface layer of fund interaction.
Today, the crypto industry is at a node similar to where neobanks were 5-10 years ago. Over the past decade-plus of development, crypto has nurtured a series of its own "wedge products":
- Anti-censorship asset storage through self-custody wallets
- Low-threshold digital dollars through stablecoins
- Permissionless credit markets represented by protocols like Aave
- And 24/7 global capital markets that can even turn internet memes into wealth carriers
Just as mobile internet infrastructure opened the neobank era, programmable blockchains are providing a permissionless financial backend architecture.
The logical next step is to combine these permissionless backend capabilities with neobank-like easy-to-use frontends. The first generation of neobanks moved the bank's frontend from physical branches to mobile interfaces while retaining the traditional banking system as the backend; today's crypto neobanks do the opposite—they retain convenient mobile experiences but begin to change the underlying path of fund flow: from traditional banking rails to stablecoins and public blockchains.
In other words, if neobanks rebuilt the bank's frontend on top of mobile internet, then crypto technology is providing an opportunity: to rebuild the bank's backend on top of permissionless rails.
Landscape of Crypto Neobanks
The Landscape of Crypto Neobanks
Today, more and more projects are gradually converging under the vision of "crypto neobanks." We have seen that on permissionless crypto rails, the basic capabilities around the four financial relationships of store, spend, grow, and borrow are gradually taking shape:
- Self-custody asset storage through hardware wallets like Ledger
- Daily payments through Etherfi cards or Bitget QR codes
- Trading on platforms like Hyperliquid for asset growth
- On-chain lending through protocols like Morpho
At the same time, a large number of supporting participants are underpinning the underlying infrastructure, including: Wallet-as-a-Service, stablecoin clearing systems, compliance licensing services, localized on/off-ramp channel partners, and cross-protocol orchestration routers.
Furthermore, in some cases, crypto exchanges themselves, such as Binance and Coinbase, are already moving closer to fintech neobanks, attempting to further control the core relationship between users and their assets.
For example, Binance Pay provides payment support for over 20 million merchants globally; while Coinbase allows users to automatically earn up to 4% rewards simply by holding USDC on the platform.
In such a complex and multi-layered crypto neobank ecosystem, it is necessary to systematically map this landscape: How are different crypto platforms competing to become the user's "primary financial relationship interface"? Which aspects of saving, spending, investing, and borrowing are they targeting?
Storing Money the Crypto Way
To truly achieve self-custody of crypto assets and interact with the blockchain, users must first possess some form of crypto wallet. Roughly speaking, the crypto wallet ecosystem can be divided along two dimensions: the security ↔ usability axis, and the consumer application ↔ enterprise infrastructure axis.
Differentiated winners with strong distribution capabilities have emerged in various quadrants:
- Ledger represents secure, consumer-oriented hardware wallets;
- Fireblocks and Anchorage provide secure enterprise-grade wallet infrastructure;
- MetaMask, Phantom, Privy belong to consumer-oriented wallets focused on improving usability and user experience;
Turnkey and Coinbase Prime occupy more of the "high accessibility + enterprise-grade" infrastructure positions.
The core advantage of using a wallet application as a beachhead to build a neobank is that the wallet frontend—like MetaMask and Phantom—often controls the entry layer for user interaction with crypto assets. The so-called "fat wallet thesis" argues that the wallet layer captures the vast majority of consumer-facing distribution power and order flow, and the cost for end-users to switch wallets is extremely high.
Indeed: Currently, about 35% of Solana transaction volume is completed through the Phantom wallet. This moat composed of excellent mobile experience and user stickiness is extremely impressive.
Moreover, since consumers (especially retail) often value convenience over price, wallets like Phantom and MetaMask can charge take rates as high as 0.85%; in comparison, a token swap on a protocol like Uniswap might only cost 0.3%.
However, building a complete, profitable neobank solely on a single wallet platform is surprisingly difficult. The reason is that to achieve规模化 profitability, users must not only "store" tokens but also frequently use these tokens within the wallet.
Phantom, MetaMask, and Ledger may have household name recognition, but if users only treat crypto wallets as "cash shoeboxes under the bed," they can hardly monetize. In other words, wallets must transform into active trading and payment platforms to convert distribution advantages into revenue.
MetaMask and Phantom are clearly moving in this direction.
For example, MetaMask recently launched the MetaMask card, attempting to monetize its existing base of crypto-native users and become the default solution for "spending with cryptocurrency." Phantom followed suit by launching Phantom Cash and further entering the "grow money" field—integrating Hyperliquid's builder codes to offer perpetual contract trading within the app.
As Blockworks stated: "Although Drift or Jupiter might be Solana's native darlings, the real money has flowed to Hyperliquid."
This is a universally applicable lesson for the entire wallet track: you must not only master the user's wallet itself but also master the scale of funds flowing inside and outside the wallet through behaviors like 'spend, grow, borrow'.
Spending Money the Crypto Way
The second category of competitors for crypto neobanks are platforms that allow users to spend cryptocurrency.
Similar to "storing money the crypto way," we can also divide "spending money the crypto way" applications along two dimensions: from on-chain transfers to off-chain consumption (e.g., buying a cup of coffee); and from retail consumer-facing applications to enterprise-facing infrastructure.
Interestingly, many "neobank" projects that have gained market attention in the past few months—such as Kast, Tria, Tempo, Stable—almost all target the "paying with cryptocurrency" wedge. Especially in two major directions, market heat is particularly concentrated:
Retail consumer-facing applications integrating stablecoin cards, e.g., Avici, Tria, Redotpay, EtherFi;
Enterprise-facing "stablecoin public chains" or "stablecoin infrastructure," e.g., Stable, Plasma, Tempo.
Retail End: Making Crypto Apps More Like Banks
The first category of retail "payment apps" essentially, at the user experience level, makes crypto applications increasingly resemble traditional banks or fintech neobanks: familiar interface tabs like "Home, Banking, Card, Invest" are all available.
With the maturation of crypto card issuers like Rain and Reap, and the expansion of Visa and Mastercard's support for stablecoins, crypto cards themselves have gradually become commoditized. The real differentiation lies not in "issuing a card" but in the ability to continuously drive and retain transaction volume—whether through innovative cashback mechanisms, localized ground efforts, or onboarding non-crypto-native users onto the platform.
This trajectory is highly similar to the rise of fintech neobanks: success was never just about "issuing cards" or "making an App," but about mastering a specific user group, from students (SoFi), to low-income families (Chime), to international travelers (Wise and Revolut), and building trust, loyalty, and scaled transaction volume on that basis.
If the path is correct, these "payment-first" crypto neobanks could become important entry points for driving large-scale adoption of blockchain infrastructure.
Furthermore, crypto neobanks may also guide users towards a new generation of payment systems that go beyond traditional card rails.
Card-based consumption might just be a transitional phase—it still relies on the Visa and Mastercard clearing networks and inherits their centralized constraints. New signals have emerged: for example, Bitget Wallet has launched QR code-based stablecoin payment pilots in Indonesia, Brazil, and Vietnam. This points to a potential future where crypto-native settlement systems could completely bypass traditional card issuers.
Enterprise End: Stablecoin Infrastructure & "Stablecoin Chains"
The second category of recently emerging "neobank" applications are stablecoin infrastructure projects built for enterprises, including Stable, Plasma, Tempo, Arc, etc., often called "stablecoin chains."
An important background for their rise is the increasing demand from institutional players—traditional banks, fintech companies like Stripe, and existing payment networks—for more efficient fund rails.
These "stablecoin chains" often share similar characteristics:
- Using stablecoins as Gas tokens to avoid fee instability caused by custom Gas token price fluctuations
- Streamlining consensus mechanisms to accelerate high-frequency, large-value payments from A to B
- Enhancing transfer privacy through trusted execution environments (TEE)
- Custom data fields to adapt to international payment standards like ISO 20022
However, technological improvements alone do not guarantee adoption.
For payment-oriented public chains, the real moat is merchants. The key question is how many merchants and businesses are willing to migrate their operations to a specific chain.
For example, Tempo attempts to leverage Stripe's vast merchant base and payment network to drive transaction volume and adoption [12], introducing a new group of merchants to the crypto rails. Other chains, like Plasma and Stable, attempt to become "first-class citizens" for Tether USDT, strengthening the role of stablecoins in inter-institutional circulation.
In this field, the most enlightening case is Tron. It handles about 25-30% of global stablecoin transaction volume.
Tron's rise is largely due to its advantages in emerging markets—such as Nigeria, Argentina, Brazil, and Southeast Asia. With low fees, fast confirmation, and global coverage, Tron has become a common settlement layer for merchant payments, cross-border remittances, and dollar-denominated savings accounts.
For all emerging payment-oriented public chains, Tron is an existing competitor that must be faced. Challenging it requires a 10x improvement on a base that is already "cheap, fast, global"—which often means focusing on merchant expansion and network scale growth, rather than marginal technological optimization.
Growing Money the Crypto Way
The third relationship that "crypto neobanks" establish with users is helping them grow their money. This is one of the most innovation-intensive sectors in crypto, giving birth to multiple financial primitives from 0 to 1—from staking vaults, perpetual contract trading, to token issuance platforms and prediction markets. Similar to before, we can also classify "grow money" applications along two dimensions: from passive yield to active trading, and from frontend interface to backend liquidity.
A classic case of a "grow money" application evolving into a full-featured neobank comes from centralized crypto exchanges (CEX), like Binance or Coinbase. Exchanges initially offered a simple and effective value proposition—"this is where you grow your wealth by trading crypto assets." As transaction volume continued to climb, exchanges gradually became core places not only for growth but also for storing and managing assets.
Coinbase and Binance have both launched their own blockchains, wallets, institutional-grade products, and crypto cards, monetizing their core user base through new products and network effects. For example, the adoption rate of Binance Pay continues to rise, with more and more merchants using it to accept crypto payments for everyday goods.
The same path has been validated in DeFi projects. Take EtherFi as an example: it started as an Ethereum liquid staking protocol, providing passive yield for users re-staking ETH to EigenLayer. Subsequently, EtherFi launched a DeFi strategy vault called "Liquid," configuring user funds into the DeFi ecosystem to pursue higher yields under controlled risk. Then, the project expanded to EtherFi Cash—a groundbreaking credit card product that allows users to directly spend their EtherFi balance in the real world.
This expansion path is highly similar to fintech neobanks: establishing a foothold through a unique product wedge (passive staking and yield), achieving scale by becoming the "best solution" in a niche, then horizontally expanding the product matrix to monetize existing users (like the EtherFi card).
To date, the crypto field has given birth to multiple 0→1 innovations supporting users to "grow money": for example, perpetual contract platforms like Hyperliquid have grown into some of the most profitable crypto companies; prediction markets like Polymarket are gradually entering the mainstream. It is very possible that the next step for these platforms is also to monetize through new product forms—allowing users to store more, spend more on the platform, and leveraging network scale effects.
Starting with a "grow money platform," especially an active trading platform, has a significant advantage: high trading frequency and large transaction volume. For example, Hyperliquid has processed $3 trillion in trading volume in the past 18 months. Compared to "store money platforms" and "payment platforms," "grow money platforms" have a stronger user flywheel and stickiness, meaning they control a larger "captive user pool" that can be converted and monetized in subsequent expansions.
However, these platforms are also highly dependent on market cycles and are labeled as "financial casinos." This reputation may limit their reach to a truly global mass user base—after all, the psychological expectations for "banks" and "casinos" are ultimately very different.
Borrowing Money the Crypto Way
Just as in the traditional economic system, lending capacity is an important engine for driving on-chain economic growth. For crypto neobanks, lending is also one of the most critical and sustainable sources of revenue. In the traditional financial system, lending is a highly permitted activity, requiring multiple reviews like KYC, credit scores, and borrowing history; in the crypto world, the lending system simultaneously has both permitted and permissionless models, corresponding to different collateral capital requirements.
The mainstream model in the current crypto field is a permissionless, on-chain operated, over-collateralized lending system. DeFi giants like Aave, Morpho, and Sky (formerly MakerDAO) embody the core spirit of crypto "code is law": since blockchains naturally cannot access users' FICO credit scores or social reputation information, they can only ensure solvency through over-collateralization, sacrificing capital efficiency in exchange for broader accessibility and safety protection against default risk.
Among them, Morpho is seen as the next-generation evolution of this model. It introduces a more modular, permissionless system design and adopts more refined risk pricing mechanisms, improving capital efficiency while maintaining security.
On the other end of the spectrum is permitted lending. As more and more institutional capital allocators enter DeFi through market making and other methods, this model is gradually being adopted. Protocols like Maple Finance, Goldfinch, Clearpool mainly target institutional users, essentially building "traditional credit counters" on-chain. They enable institutional borrowers to obtain non-over-collateralized loans through strict KYC and off-chain legal agreements.
The moat of these protocols comes not only from liquidity (like permissionless lending pools) but also from their compliance frameworks and B2B business development capabilities. Additionally, there are projects in the permitted lending field—such as Figure Markets, Nexo, and Coinbase's lending products—that primarily target retail borrowers, taking a compliance-first approach. They require borrowers to complete KYC and also require asset over-collateralization, and in some cases are "wrapped" as upper-layer products on top of protocols like Morpho, as Coinbase Lending does. In these scenarios, their core appeal is often faster settlement speed and fund availability compared to traditional bank loans.
However, the true "holy grail" of crypto lending is non-over-collateralized credit for consumers—this is precisely the breakthrough that fintech products like SoFi and Chime excelled at, using it to cover the "unbanked population." So far, the crypto industry has not made substantial breakthroughs in this field, failing to replicate the "consumer credit flywheel" established by fintech neobanks.
The fundamental reason is that the crypto world lacks a robust, Sybil-resistant identity system and sufficiently strong real-world constraints on default behavior. The only exception is "flash loans"—a form of instantaneous uncollateralized lending entirely enabled by blockchain mechanism characteristics, but they mainly serve arbitrage robots and complex DeFi strategies, not everyday consumers.
For the next generation of crypto neobanks, the key to competition may lie in advancing into the "middle ground" of this landscape: retaining the speed and transparency of permissionless DeFi while introducing the capital efficiency of traditional lending. The ultimate winner is likely to be a platform that can solve the decentralized identity problem or commoditize it, thereby unlocking consumer credit and allowing crypto to truly rebuild the "credit card" financial mechanism. Before that, crypto neobanks may still rely mainly on over-collateralized lending as the core means of supporting DeFi yield.
Making Money Move Faster
Fundamentally, the core value proposition of crypto neobanks is to make money move faster—just as fintech neobanks like SoFi and Chime did through mobile apps over the past decade. Blockchain rails inherently "flatten" the distance between any two accounts: a single transfer can complete value movement, no longer needing to hop through layers of international banks, the SWIFT system, and countless complex, outdated intermediary systems.
Although the four fund relationships of "store, spend, grow, borrow" utilize this "flattening effect" brought by blockchain in different ways and correspond to different trade-offs and monetization models, I believe they can ultimately be understood as a pyramid structure defined by the **velocity of money**.
At the top of the pyramid is growing money, with the highest fund turnover speed (e.g., Hyperliquid's trading fees); followed by borrowing (monetized through interest); then payments (through fees and foreign exchange spreads); and at the bottom is storage (monetized mainly through on/off-ramp fees and B2B integration).
From this perspective, the easiest path to building a crypto neobank might be to start from the growth and borrowing layers—because these layers have the highest fund velocity and user engagement. Protocols that first capture "value in motion" can often subsequently extend down the pyramid, gradually converting existing users into full-stack financial users.
Opportunity Space for Neobanks
So, what might be the next step for crypto neobanks? Where exactly is the opportunity to build the next generation of permissionless neobanks?
I believe there are still several (interrelated) directions worth further exploration:
1) Parity in Privacy and Compliance
2) Real-World Composability
3) Fully Leveraging "Permissionlessness"
4) Localization vs. Globalization
5) Non-Over-Collateralized Lending and Consumer Credit
1. Parity in Privacy and Compliance
Stablecoins and crypto rails have clear advantages over traditional financial systems in terms of speed and ease of use. But to truly compete head-on with fintech neobanks and the existing banking system, crypto neobanks must achieve functional parity in two key dimensions: privacy and compliance.
Although privacy is not universally considered a rigid demand in retail consumer scenarios, and stablecoins have achieved scaled adoption without strong privacy guarantees, when more and more enterprise applications—such as payroll, supply chain finance, cross-border clearing—migrate on-chain, privacy becomes crucial. The reason is that the public visibility of B2B transfers may leak business secrets and sensitive information. I believe this is an important reason why many newly launched stablecoin chains highly emphasize privacy capabilities in their roadmaps.
Conversely, crypto neobanks also need to think about how to achieve parity with their predecessors in terms of compliance. This includes gradually building a global regulatory moat and licensing system, and proving to consumers and merchants that crypto solutions are not inferior to traditional finance in compliance—perhaps leveraging new technological paths like zero-knowledge proofs. Only by solving both enterprise-grade privacy and compliance credibility can crypto neobanks truly achieve scaled expansion beyond their fintech predecessors.
2. Real-World Composability
"Composability" is often regarded as a core advantage of crypto rails—relying on unified standards, frameworks, and smart contracts. But in reality, this composability is often limited to within the crypto world: between DeFi primitives, between yield protocols, and between (mostly EVM) blockchains.
The truly difficult composability challenge is how to connect blockchain standards with real-world legacy standards: such as international banking systems like SWIFT, merchant POS systems and standards like ISO 20022, and local payment networks like ACH, Pix. With the proliferation of crypto cards and increased use of stablecoins in cross-border payments, positive progress has been made in this direction.
Furthermore, most current crypto card products still mainly serve crypto-native users, essentially acting as off-ramping tools for "crypto whales." But the real challenge facing crypto neobanks is to break through the crypto-native crowd and onboard new user groups through real-world composability and truly innovative financial primitives. Platforms that solve the composability problem will significantly lead in on/off-ramp experience, thus more efficiently carrying user scale.
3. Fully Leveraging "Permissionlessness"
Fundamentally, the goal of crypto neobanks is to reshape a more efficient monetary standard: instant settlement, global liquidity, infinitely programmable, and not constrained by the bottlenecks of a single entity or government.
Today, anyone with a crypto wallet can trade, transfer, or earn yield without the intermediaries of the fiat system. Crypto neobanks should fully leverage this permissionless nature to accelerate fund flow and build a more efficient financial system.
On crypto rails, global capital flows at internet speed, and its coordination mechanism is no longer administrative orders but incentives and game theory. The next generation of neobanks will utilize blockchain's permissionlessness to enable new primitives like perpetual contracts, prediction markets, staking, token issuance to quickly compose with existing financial rails.
In economies with high stablecoin penetration, there is even an opportunity to build permissionless card networks—a system similar to Visa or Mastercard but in the opposite direction: no longer converting stablecoins to fiat at the consumption end, but settling on-chain by default; only "on-ramping" fiat into stablecoins to be compatible with traditional payment methods.
Going further, "permissionlessness" is not only applicable to human users but may also give rise to an agentic economy. For AI agents, obtaining a crypto wallet is far easier than opening a bank account; with stablecoins, AI agents can autonomously initiate on-chain transactions upon user authorization or preset rules. Permissionless neobanks are precisely the underlying base and interaction interface for this "human-agent economy."
4. Localization vs. Globalization
Crypto neobanks also face a strategic choice: depth vs. breadth.
Some may choose a path similar to Nubank, establishing dominance in a single region through deep localization, cultural fit, and regulatory understanding, then expanding outward; others may adopt a global-first strategy, launching permissionless products globally and doubling down on regions with the strongest network effects.
Both paths are valid: the former relies on local trust and distribution, the latter on scale and composability. Stablecoins might be the "highway" for international payments, but crypto neobanks still need "local off-ramps"—deep integration with regional systems like Pix, UPI, Alipay, VietQR—to achieve true local usability.
Especially, crypto neobanks have a unique opportunity in "serving the unbanked," providing dollar or crypto-denominated capital access to regions with weak financial infrastructure or unstable local currencies. In the future, regional "super apps" and globally composable neobanks may coexist for a long time.
5. Non-Over-Collateralized Lending and Consumer Credit
Finally, non-over-collateralized lending and consumer credit might be the true "holy grail" of crypto neobanks.
This issue converges multiple challenges mentioned before: it requires a robust, Sybil-resistant identity system; it needs to connect off-chain credit records with on-chain accounts; it needs to handle differences in credit models across regions and be compatible with traditional systems. Precisely because of this, non-over-collateralized lending in DeFi is currently mainly concentrated in the field of institutional private credit, not consumer credit—even though the latter is much larger in traditional finance.
Part of the answer might come from mechanism design innovation. Flash loans are a native uncollateralized lending form born from blockchain characteristics. Similarly, smart revolving credit lines built around stablecoins and interest-bearing assets, real-time LTV management, automatic liquidation buffers, and automatic repayment with yield could gradually reduce collateral requirements.
Once successful, on-chain consumer credit will significantly increase the velocity of money, provide a strong incentive for the unbanked to onboard, and, like credit expansion in the real world, drive overall economic growth.
Conclusion
Just as the rise of fintech neobanks a decade ago reshaped banking, crypto neobanks are also attempting to redefine how we save, spend, grow, and borrow money in the digital age. But the difference is that fintech neobanks mainly innovated the frontend interface, while crypto neobanks attempt to update the bank backend itself—building a global, composable, censorship-resistant way of value transfer through stablecoins and public blockchains.
Therefore, crypto neobanks are not just an application interface but may be the gateway to a programmable financial system.
Of course, this road has just begun. Building a true "full-stack crypto neobank" is far more than launching a crypto card or a wallet protocol with a UI. It requires a clear target audience, rapid expansion along the product matrix, and establishing advantages first in areas with high fund velocity.
If future crypto neobanks can continue to break through in privacy and compliance, real-world composability, permissionlessness, local and global strategies, and consumer credit, they have the potential to evolve from a marginal entry point for digital assets into the default operating system of the global economy.
Just as the first generation of neobanks changed the "interface" of banking with mobile internet, this generation might use crypto technology to rewrite the underlying logic of money itself.
