83% of US bettors open to crypto deposits, Paysafe study says

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

Payments move to the center of the betting fight

Paysafe’s finding that 83% of surveyed U.S. sports bettors would consider using cryptocurrency to fund wagers lands at a point when payments have become one of the most contested parts of the regulated betting market. The question is no longer limited to which sportsbooks offer the best odds or promotions. Operators, processors and regulators are increasingly focused on how players move money in and out of accounts, how fast those transactions settle and what risks come with each method.

That shift has been building as online sports betting matures in the U.S. Bettors have grown accustomed to mobile-first wagering, especially around high-volume sports such as the NFL, while operators compete on app performance, sign-up offers and withdrawals. At the same time, payment rails have drawn scrutiny because they sit at the intersection of consumer protection, fraud controls, anti-money-laundering obligations and user experience.

Crypto now sits squarely in that debate. Digital assets promise speed and convenience for customers who already hold tokens or stablecoins, but they also raise questions about suitability, traceability and state-level authorization. Paysafe’s survey suggests demand is broad. The harder question is whether regulation, compliance systems and operator risk appetites can catch up.

Paysafe had already signaled the product push

The survey follows a broader commercial move by Paysafe to position itself as a bridge between digital assets and regulated gambling. The company recently launched Pay with Crypto for U.S. gambling operators, allowing players to connect crypto wallets and deposit through supported digital assets, including stablecoins, where permitted. The transactions are converted to U.S. dollars before reaching the wagering account, a structure designed to give players crypto access while keeping operators within familiar cash-accounting frameworks.

That model reflects the industry’s practical compromise. Most licensed sportsbooks do not want to hold volatile tokens on their balance sheets or rework their platforms around crypto-native wagering. But many want to capture customers who already own digital assets and expect to use them across financial services. Conversion products offer a way to add crypto at the cashier without turning a sportsbook into a crypto exchange.

Paysafe’s leadership had previewed that direction earlier. At ICE in Barcelona, Zak Cutler, the company’s president of global gaming, said regulated operators were preparing for greater crypto integration over the next 12 to 24 months. In that earlier discussion, Cutler framed wider crypto adoption as an inevitable response to player demand, particularly among customers who both hold crypto balances and gamble online.

The latest research gives that thesis consumer data to support it. It also helps explain why payment companies are moving before most state rules expressly authorize crypto deposits. In a competitive market, being ready when regulators permit a method can matter as much as offering it immediately.

State rules remain uneven

The U.S. market is still fragmented. Online sports betting is regulated state by state, and payment permissions vary accordingly. Wyoming has been the clearest early mover after Gov. Mark Gordon signed HB 133 in 2021, permitting “digital, crypto, and virtual currencies” as payment. Colorado and Virginia also allow crypto conversions as deposits, according to prior reporting on Paysafe’s rollout. DraftKings has separately planned a crypto-to-cash product in several states.

That patchwork matters because payment adoption in gambling is not merely a product decision. A method that is popular with bettors can still be unusable if state law, regulator guidance or operator licensing conditions do not allow it. The Paysafe survey’s state-level findings highlight the gap. Bettors in markets where crypto deposits are permitted have already used them, while respondents in larger markets such as New York and Illinois expressed high interest despite more limited current availability.

This gap between consumer demand and legal permission is familiar in U.S. gambling. Sportsbooks often develop national product road maps that must be switched on or modified state by state. Crypto adds another layer because regulators must consider not only gambling law but also know-your-customer checks, sanctions screening, blockchain analytics, volatility, chargeback differences and tax documentation.

That is why stablecoins may be especially important. For operators and processors, dollar-linked assets can reduce volatility concerns while preserving some of crypto’s settlement advantages. For regulators, however, stablecoin deposits still require confidence that the source of funds can be verified and that payment intermediaries are accountable.

Credit cards show how quickly payment norms can change

The crypto debate is unfolding as another payment method loses ground. FanDuel recently banned credit card deposits across its U.S. sportsbook, casino and racing products, following similar action by DraftKings. The move came after Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren pressed FanDuel for information on its credit card policy before the Super Bowl, citing concerns about fees and consumer debt tied to betting.

Only a minority of legal online betting states ban credit card deposits, but the direction of travel has become clearer. Credit cards expose bettors to interest, cash advance fees and the possibility of wagering with borrowed money. That creates political and reputational risk for operators, especially as problem gambling concerns rise alongside market growth.

The retreat from credit cards helps explain why alternative payment methods have become strategic. If operators remove or restrict a widely used funding option, they need substitutes that are fast, reliable and acceptable to regulators. Debit cards, bank transfers, e-wallets, prepaid products and instant payment systems all play roles. Crypto is now competing to join that list, especially for younger or more financially digital customers.

But the contrast with credit cards also carries a warning. Payment methods can move from accepted to controversial when consumer risk becomes visible. Crypto advocates emphasize speed and user control. Critics may focus on volatility, fraud, illicit finance concerns or the ease of moving funds across platforms. Whether crypto becomes mainstream in betting will depend partly on whether operators can show it is safer than the payment methods regulators are already questioning.

Mobile betting habits increase the pressure

Consumer behavior is pushing operators toward broader cashier options. An Optimove study of NFL bettors found that most wagering remains digital, with 76% of respondents placing bets through mobile or online platforms. The same study said 77% planned to wager during the NFL season and that many use more than one sportsbook each week. That means payments are not a back-office function; they are part of customer acquisition and retention.

In that environment, a failed deposit or slow withdrawal can cause a customer to move to a rival app. Optimove also found that bettors value usability and promotions, while poor app experiences and irrelevant messages can drive churn. Those findings align with Paysafe’s earlier World Cup research, which found that rapid payouts and localized payment methods were major factors in sportsbook choice.

The NFL is a useful lens because it concentrates betting volume into predictable windows. Customers may fund accounts shortly before kickoff, hedge during a weekend or withdraw after a winning slate. Payment friction during those moments can have outsize commercial consequences. If crypto deposits can settle quickly and reliably, they could appeal to customers who already hold digital assets and dislike bank delays.

Still, convenience alone is not enough. The same Optimove research said 63% of bettors admitted spending more than they could afford or intended, despite high awareness of responsible gambling resources. Any new payment method that makes deposits easier will be judged against that risk. Operators will need controls around limits, affordability signals and responsible gambling messaging if they want regulators to view crypto as an innovation rather than an accelerant.

Global experience points to both utility and risk

Developments outside the U.S. show why regulators are cautious. In Indonesia, where online gambling is illegal, authorities have reported a shift in gambling deposits toward QR payments and cryptocurrency. The country’s financial intelligence agency said crypto has complicated tracing by separating deposit and withdrawal mechanisms, even as overall gambling deposits declined.

The Indonesian example is not directly comparable to licensed U.S. sports betting, where operators must comply with state oversight and federal financial rules. But it underscores a broader point: payment innovation can help legitimate platforms serve customers, and it can also help illegal operators adapt. Regulators evaluating crypto in gambling will be aware of both realities.

For Paysafe and other payment providers, the commercial opportunity is clear. Large numbers of bettors say they own crypto, want faster transactions and would use digital assets if allowed. For sportsbooks, crypto could become another tool to reduce friction and differentiate their cashier experience. For regulators, the task is to decide where digital assets fit within consumer protection and financial integrity standards.

The stakes are significant because payment preferences can shape market share. If regulated sportsbooks cannot meet demand for modern payment options, some bettors may look to offshore platforms that already accept crypto with fewer safeguards. If states permit crypto too quickly without clear rules, they risk importing avoidable compliance problems. The next phase of adoption will hinge on whether the industry can make crypto look less like a regulatory gamble and more like a controlled payment upgrade.