Welcome to Slate Sundays, a new weekly feature from CryptoSlate that highlights in-depth interviews, expert insights, and engaging op-eds that delve into the ideas and voices influencing the crypto landscape.
Crypto payments are currently at the forefront.
From Circle’s billion-dollar IPO to the GENIUS Act paving the way for stablecoin regulation, the momentum is strong.
Prominent players on Wall Street, such as JPMorgan and Visa, are actively integrating stablecoin infrastructure into their systems, finally recognizing a more efficient technology that allows for near-instant, trustless value transfer on a global scale.
However, there’s a downside that often goes unmentioned: the user experience is still in flux.
Even the most patient individuals find it frustratingly cumbersome.
Why is that?
Crypto payments are mired in regulatory challenges
From the perspective of crypto payment providers, they are increasingly influenced by regulators and traditional finance, grappling with cumbersome requirements like KYC and KYB, and bogged down by red tape.
Having spent nine years covering crypto and receiving payments in virtually every cryptocurrency, it’s disheartening to note that receiving crypto payments has become more complicated, contrary to the narrative.
For instance, a recent experience involved a UK client with a Gemini account wanting to send USDC to my OKX address in Dubai.
After a frustrating few weeks of trying to unfreeze her account and submit additional KYB documents, she opted for a faster option: sending funds through Revolut to my bank account.
As if that wasn’t disheartening enough, here’s the kicker:
It turned out to be less expensive for her to send the payment—and cheaper for me to receive it.
It’s no surprise that Gemini reported a $280 million loss in the first half of 2025; they must be losing users rapidly.
As for OKX, there’s little motivation to improve in the UAE since all providers impose a flat crypto-to-fiat withdrawal fee of 75 AED (around $20).
While many in the industry appreciate regulatory clarity, some of us must adapt to unwelcome double conversions: cashing out from USDC to fiat in the UAE is impossible, and getting paid in Tether in Europe is equally unfeasible.
Talk about frustrating.
Converting USDC to USDT to AED (and facing hefty fees every time) feels like upgrading from a horse and cart to a Ferrari, only to insist on using molasses as fuel.
Don’t get me started on the crypto-native experience. Try explaining to an average person that if they mistakenly select the wrong network from an ever-expanding list, they risk losing their entire investment.
Or if they leave their assets on an exchange that gets compromised, there’s a chance they might lose all their funds.
Or if they take the plunge into self-custody and misplace their seed phrase…
How about Revolut instead?
You get the point. Hype? Off the charts. User experience? Absolutely lacking.
It’s just another banking platform, only harder to navigate and more costly, lacking any backup or guarantees. It feels as though crypto payments are still a work in progress.
Borderless payments are more effective within borders
That’s not to say crypto payments are entirely ineffective. They do a decent job of transferring funds within a single country. But banks excel at that too.
Nearly 32% of small- to medium-sized businesses in the U.S. have either paid or accepted a crypto payment, and of the estimated 560 million crypto owners, roughly a third regularly transact using digital assets, far surpassing other DeFi activities like staking and farming.
The GENIUS Act has at long last brought regulatory clarity for stablecoin issuers after years of ambiguity, successfully balancing the need for consumer protection and anti-money laundering measures while providing clear definitions for what constitutes a security.
So why does the user experience of crypto payments still cause anxiety? Isn’t blockchain supposed to facilitate quicker and cheaper transactions?
Bill Zielke, Chief Revenue Officer of BitPay, an early entrant in the crypto payments space aiming to lower processing costs and facilitate seamless crypto transactions, acknowledges that not all platforms deliver a stellar experience. He states:
“This is a valid concern, and one we frequently hear from users navigating wallets and exchanges that aren’t optimized for low-fee crypto transactions. In many instances, high costs stem from inadequate fee transparency, poor network selection, and cash-out services with steep spreads or withdrawal fees.”
He elaborates that BitPay’s strategy is different, targeting friction points to support cost-effective networks like Polygon, Arbitrum, Base, and Optimism. Although the risk of selecting the wrong network remains, at least the fees don’t sting as much.
“Users can send and receive payments with significantly lower confirmation fees than on legacy networks like Ethereum or Bitcoin.”
Choosing the right network is vital since fees may fluctuate, and network congestion can lead to skyrocketing gas fees.
Most casual users still depend on centralized exchanges, which often impose flat withdrawal fees, similar to OKX. A typical fee for cashing out hovers around $20, making small transactions impractical.
Ben Weiss, CEO of CoinFlip, a well-established crypto company with over 6,000 Bitcoin ATMs globally, has seen how crypto payments have progressed over the years. He observes:
“Many crypto payments incur a flat fee, so sending Bitcoin may cost the same whether you’re transferring $1 million or $5. Crypto isn’t well-suited for smaller transactions. While that’s slowly changing, achieving real efficiency requires time, and the interface and usability are still lagging behind the core technology.”
In cross-border transactions, crypto continues to contend with entrenched systems. The World Bank’s latest report shows that traditional remittance fees average between 6.4-7%, while digital remittances through crypto and mobile channels average around 5%.
Many DeFi platforms offer lower costs, but they demand users navigate complex wallets and private keys, or bridge between networks. Most everyday users are intimidated.
The allure of being your own bank fades
Another challenge for crypto payments is custody. Blockchain technology allows for genuine peer-to-peer transactions and personal autonomy, enabling individuals to operate as their own banks. However, most people prefer not to take on that responsibility.
Self-custody is still a daunting experience for newcomers, and many don’t grasp the need for financial sovereignty unless they’ve faced account freezes or been systematically debanked. Weiss notes:
“Not everyone wants to self-custody or learn about opening a cold storage wallet to send or receive crypto; some just want to invest in an ETF. I advocate for all measures that broaden the industry and attract more individuals to crypto. There’s no singular right way.”
Zielke adds:
“The primary challenge remains the user experience. Issues such as setting up wallets, high network fees, or the anxiety of sending assets to the wrong address can deter everyday users. However, we are witnessing significant advancements, particularly with stablecoins and Layer-2 networks, which are significantly reducing fees and transaction times.
We aren’t fully there yet, but the groundwork is in place and progress is being made. With improving regulatory clarity and more user-friendly infrastructure, we’re getting closer to a future where crypto payments are as straightforward as swiping a card.”
Until sending crypto payments becomes as effortless as tapping a credit card, it will struggle to become the preferred mode of value exchange globally.
Are we inadvertently recreating the banking system we tried to escape?
Crypto was supposed to be faster, cheaper, and simpler than traditional banks. Yet, persistent practical issues remain, and I hate to sound like Jamie Dimon, but if crypto payments don’t exceed bank services in ease, what’s the point?
As traditional finance rushes to integrate blockchain technology, are we witnessing banks absorb crypto innovations instead of crypto replacing traditional banking?
User experience struggles, hidden fees accumulate, and when you finally decide to cash out, you encounter fees no less severe than those of wire transfers. Zielke reflects on this predicament:
“Widespread adoption requires time, but I believe we’re on the correct path. It took years for credit cards to become ubiquitous, primarily due to the need for trust, consistent infrastructure enhancements, and a refined user experience. Crypto payments are on a similar trajectory but progressing more swiftly.”
So where do we go from here? The patterns are unmistakable: increased institutional adoption, enhanced stablecoin infrastructure, improved regulatory compliance, and a growing acceptance of crypto for large transactions and cross-border trade.
Nevertheless, the journey toward a seamless, everyday payment experience (one where crypto can match the convenience of using a credit card) is still lengthy and complicated.
The obstacles are no longer solely technical or regulatory; they also encompass user experience. Crypto must consistently undercut banks, especially for smaller payments, ensuring that sending and receiving is simple, clear, and resilient to errors.
Crypto payments are gaining traction not because they are inherently easy; they’re succeeding because the legacy system remains slow, exclusive, and closed off. While it’s encouraging to recognize progress, there’s still ample opportunity for enhancement. Winning by default doesn’t equate to winning by design.
