Skip to main content
A crypto card is a payment card that can be funded with crypto. The cardholder pays at a shop the usual way, with a Visa or Mastercard, and the money behind the payment comes from stablecoins or other tokens instead of a bank balance. There are two common designs. In a self-custodial card, the cardholder’s tokens stay in an account they control, and the card program draws on that balance when a payment is made. In a custodial card, the cardholder tops up a balance held by the program or its partner, and the card spends from that. Both are in these tables. The payment itself is approved off-chain on the normal card networks, so no blockchain shows the purchase. What does leave a trail on-chain is the money around it: the cardholder funding the card, the program recording or collecting a spend, and the program paying back its issuer afterwards. Allium indexes those events and turns them into daily metrics for every card program we track.

Terminology

Programs we cannot name individually are grouped under other_<issuer>, for example other_rain, so their volume is still counted.

Why every program looks different on-chain

There is no shared standard for how a card program operates on-chain, and the differences affect the numbers. Some programs deploy a contract for each cardholder and emit an event for every purchase. Others keep their ledger internal and only touch a chain when they settle up with their issuer, often once a day. Some report a topup when money reaches the cardholder’s account, others once the balance becomes spendable, and a few report both for the same money. Adding up whatever each program emits would produce figures that cannot be compared. A program that reports two topup steps would look twice the size of one that reports one. A program that settles in batches would show 850 purchases behind $833M of spend. A cardholder who exists on four chains would be counted as four customers. Allium reconciles this activity program by program. We study how each program works on-chain, pick the events that represent a purchase and a topup for that particular design, and publish them as curated metrics on a common definition. The result is a set of figures that hold up on their own and can be compared, summed and charted across programs and issuers. The raw per-event numbers stay available underneath for drilling in, and the curated columns are the ones to build on.

The metrics

The tables

Every table has one row per day. Amounts and counts add up across rows, so a weekly or monthly view is a date_trunc and a group by:
Account counts need more care: they are not additive across days or chains. The methodology covers how to roll them up.

Which table to reach for

crypto_card_spend_volume is the source of truth for total card spend. It counts each dollar once and includes the volume that no named program claims, which is what makes it a total. Reach for it when you are sizing the market, splitting spend by issuer, or comparing crypto card spend against something external. crypto_card_programs_overview covers named programs only. It is where the purchase counts, account counts and funding metrics live, so it is the right table for any question about a particular program.
Summing crypto_card_programs_overview gives named-program volume, not total card spend. The two tables are not meant to reconcile. The gap between them is the unattributed other_* volume, plus programs that run on two issuers and so appear once per issuer in spend volume and once in total in the overview.Ether.fi shows the difference well. The program tables report its own spend events, because they carry the purchase counts and active accounts. The spend volume table reports what Rain actually settled for Ether.fi. These are two different series, built for different questions, and their totals are expected to differ.

Methodology

Example queries

Spend, topups and accounts for each program, one row per month.
A null count means the metric is not measured for that program. Programs with no topup or purchase coverage show nulls in those columns.

Frequently asked questions

We track more than 50 named card programs, the widest coverage we are aware of, plus the issuer volume we have not yet tied to a named program, which is reported under other_<issuer> rather than dropped. What is missing falls into two groups.Issuers we have not added yet. We index a growing list of issuers and add more over time, so at any moment there are programs whose rails we do not read — Reap and StraitsX are two examples. A program that runs only on an issuer we have not added does not reach these tables at all.Cards run by centralized exchanges, such as Crypto.com, Binance, OKX and Bybit. A purchase on these can draw on a spot balance held on the exchange’s own ledger, so nothing about it touches a blockchain and there is no on-chain trail for us to index. We expect the volume is substantial, but we have no way today to put a figure on how much of the market it represents.
Our aim is to report what cardholders actually spent, which usually puts us below headline numbers built from raw on-chain activity. Every figure in these tables traces back to on-chain activity that anyone can audit, so we also leave out figures that programs report about themselves. Three examples of where the difference comes from:RedotPay. Public reports usually quote around $6.6B of RedotPay spend, which would be more than half of all the card spend we can track on-chain. Those figures come from the company and cannot be verified on-chain, so RedotPay spend stays out of our metrics.Wirex. We count card spends only. Reports built on raw activity also count outgoing bank transfers from Wirex accounts, which are not card purchases, and count Wirex settling with Visa on Stellar. That Stellar leg is the same money as the purchases it pays for, so counting both reports it twice.Ether.fi. We take Ether.fi’s volume from the settlements Rain makes on its behalf, which are net of refunds. Most published figures come from Ether.fi’s own on-chain spend events, which still include purchases that were later refunded. We cannot tell which individual Ether.fi spend events were refunded, so we rely on settlements for the headline number. The gross spend-event figure is still available in the per-program tables as spend_event_amount_usd if you want to compare against those reports.
These cards run on Fiat24, the Swiss institution behind the ur issuer in these tables. On 14 July 2026 Fiat24 paused crypto deposits and new user registrations while it upgrades its risk and compliance controls, and it has not announced when they resume.The tables show that cleanly. The last on-chain topup for all three programs lands on 2026-07-14, new accounts drop to roughly zero from August, and spend carries on as cardholders draw down balances they had already funded. SafePal and Bitget Wallet each ran about $4M to $5M of topups a month through the first half of 2026, then nothing. Spend has been decaying since, from around $4M a month to a few hundred thousand.Our coverage of these programs is unchanged over this period, so the decline reflects real activity on the cards.

Table Columns

Table name: payments.metrics.crypto_card_spend_volumeUnique key: unique_id