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

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

Payments move to the center of the betting product

Paysafe’s finding that 83% of U.S. sports bettors would consider using cryptocurrency for deposits reflects a broader shift in how online gambling companies compete. The wager still depends on pricing, markets and promotions, but the payment experience has become a core part of customer acquisition and retention.

That dynamic has been building as regulated sports betting matures across the U.S. Operators that once focused heavily on sign-up offers and market access now face a more incremental battle over convenience. Bettors increasingly expect fast deposits, rapid withdrawals and familiar checkout options, particularly in mobile environments where friction can prompt customers to switch apps.

Paysafe has been positioning itself for that change. The company recently launched Pay with Crypto for U.S. gambling operators, a product that lets players connect crypto wallets and convert digital assets into U.S. dollars for wagering accounts where permitted. The rollout, supported by MoonPay, did not make crypto a universal payment option overnight. It instead gave operators infrastructure for a market that remains constrained by state-by-state rules.

A regulated answer to offshore demand

The crypto question carries particular weight because digital assets already are common in parts of the gambling ecosystem that sit outside U.S. regulation. Offshore betting sites have long used crypto to offer speed, perceived privacy and cross-border access. For licensed operators, the challenge is whether they can meet consumer demand without weakening anti-money laundering controls, know-your-customer checks or responsible gambling safeguards.

Paysafe President of Global Gaming Zak Cutler has framed crypto adoption as a defensive and competitive necessity for regulated companies. At ICE 2026 in Barcelona, he said operator conversations pointed to a likely shift over the next 12 to 24 months, arguing that regulated brands would need to absorb demand that otherwise could remain with offshore platforms. His comments, detailed in Paysafe’s expectations for greater crypto adoption, put payments in the same category as content and pricing: a product feature that can determine where customers play.

The logic is straightforward. If a bettor holds digital assets and wants to use them without first routing through a bank account, a sportsbook that offers a compliant path could reduce friction. If licensed operators cannot offer that path, bettors may look elsewhere. That creates a policy tension for regulators, which want wagering activity to remain visible, taxable and subject to consumer protections but also have reason to be cautious about new payment rails.

Wyoming provided the early legal opening

The U.S. regulatory map remains uneven. Wyoming became the clearest early mover when Gov. Mark Gordon signed HB 133 in 2021, permitting “digital, crypto, and virtual currencies” as acceptable payment methods for online sports wagering. The law, available through Wyoming’s HB 133 bill record, gave the state a distinctive position in a national market where many regulators have preferred to watch from the sidelines.

Other states have taken narrower approaches. Colorado and Virginia allow cryptocurrency conversion for deposits, while broader acceptance of digital assets as wagering funds remains limited. DraftKings also has signaled plans for crypto-to-cash products in several states, underscoring that operators are testing the boundary between customer demand and regulatory permission.

Wyoming’s status matters because it provides a working example for payment companies and sportsbooks. It also gives researchers a place to measure whether interest turns into usage. Paysafe’s survey found notable crypto deposit use in Colorado and Wyoming, suggesting that demand is not merely theoretical when a legal and technical option exists. Still, early adoption in a small number of jurisdictions does not settle the larger question of whether bigger markets such as New York, Illinois or Pennsylvania will embrace similar rules.

Consumer appetite collides with responsible gambling concerns

High interest in crypto deposits arrives as the industry faces continued scrutiny over gambling harm. Payment speed and ease can improve user experience, but they also can make it easier for customers to lose track of spending. That concern is not limited to crypto. It applies to credit cards, debit cards, digital wallets and instant bank transfers. Digital assets add another layer because balances may be volatile and harder for consumers to mentally separate from investment holdings.

Wyoming again shows the policy trade-off. A recent local study reported that online gamblers in Laramie County face higher risks of depression, anxiety and addiction, with users playing longer and exceeding budgets more often. The findings, covered in a study on igaming risks in Laramie County, also noted reluctance among gamblers to seek help and limited awareness of local resources.

The state receives about $70,000 annually from online sports wagering taxes to address problem gambling, according to that report. That amount illustrates a frequent mismatch in fast-growing betting markets: tax receipts and innovation can arrive faster than treatment networks, education campaigns and research capacity. If crypto payments expand, regulators may demand stronger safeguards around deposit limits, transaction monitoring, cooling-off tools and self-exclusion integration.

Global enforcement issues shape U.S. caution

International experience also informs the U.S. debate. In illegal or gray-market gambling environments, crypto can complicate law enforcement efforts by separating deposits, withdrawals and account identities across different mechanisms. Indonesia’s financial regulator recently reported that online gambling deposits had shifted toward QR payments and crypto even as overall deposit values declined. Authorities said the use of digital assets had made tracing more difficult, as described in Indonesia’s report on QR payments and crypto in online gambling.

The U.S. regulated market is structurally different. Licensed sportsbooks must verify identities, monitor transactions and report suspicious activity. Crypto payment products designed for regulated operators typically convert assets into dollars and route customers through compliance checks. Even so, overseas enforcement problems give U.S. regulators reason to proceed carefully. The central question is not whether crypto can be used in gambling; it already is. The question is whether regulated channels can make that use safer and more transparent than the alternatives.

Seasonal betting volume raises the stakes

The timing of the crypto discussion is important because sports betting demand is highly seasonal. Football remains the main engine of the U.S. market, and research shows many bettors wager consistently throughout the season. Optimove recently found that 77% of NFL bettors plan to wager during the season, while 83% expect to bet on the Super Bowl regardless of the teams involved. Its report on NFL wagering intentions also found that 76% of bettors use mobile or online platforms and that many use multiple sportsbooks each week.

That mobility heightens the value of payments. If customers keep two or more betting apps open, a failed deposit, slow withdrawal or missing preferred payment method can shift volume to a rival. Paysafe’s broader research around major sports events has made a similar point, emphasizing localized payment options and rapid payouts as factors in sportsbook choice.

For operators, crypto is therefore both an opportunity and a risk. It may help capture customers who already hold digital assets and prefer faster digital payment flows. It also may draw regulatory attention if adoption outpaces consumer protections. The strongest case for crypto in U.S. sports betting is not novelty. It is whether licensed operators can offer the speed bettors want while preserving the oversight that distinguishes regulated markets from offshore alternatives.