I. Executive Synthesis: The Structural Mechanics of Financial Disruption

1.1. Defining the Disruption: From API-First to DLT-Native Finance

Neo banks (NBs) successfully established themselves as the first wave of fintech disruption by leveraging mobile-first, API-centric models that prioritized convenience, speed, and reduced operational costs compared to entrenched traditional banks.¹ These platforms, however, operated largely as front-end interfaces, often relying on licensed traditional banks for core functions like deposit holding and clearance.¹ Their underlying infrastructure remained centralized, utilizing existing legacy financial rails such as ACH and SWIFT for transfers, resulting in inherent limitations regarding real-time global settlement and cost structure.

The emergence of Crypto Neo Banks (CNBs) represents a more profound, second-order disruption. The central thesis of the CNB movement is the replacement of the centralized NB core infrastructure with Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT). This is not merely the addition of crypto trading capabilities to a mobile application; it is a fundamental shift in architecture that enables true financial disintermediation and leverages the unique characteristics of programmable money and immutable ledgers.

This structural transformation immediately grants CNBs a significant competitive advantage. They are able to bypass many centralized vulnerabilities and achieve superior cost efficiency through near-zero-fee transactions. Furthermore, CNBs unlock novel, high-margin revenue streams, primarily through native yield generation derived from activities like staking and decentralized finance (DeFi) lending. These DLT-native profit models stand in stark contrast to the low-margin interchange and subscription fee models that sustain most traditional NBs.³ The transition from centralized interchange fees to protocol-driven yield generation fundamentally reshapes the unit economics of banking. The speed with which CNBs can adopt DLT to enhance profitability is directly correlated with the rapidity of traditional NB market share erosion within tech-savvy demographics.

II. The Architectural Divide: Centralized Fintech vs. Decentralized Ledger Technology (DLT) Core

2.1. Fundamental Infrastructure Comparison: Legacy APIs vs. Blockchain Native Systems

Traditional neo banks face a technological bottleneck rooted in their reliance on proprietary databases and third-party APIs for essential services such as payments, identity verification (KYC), and credit scoring.⁴ This centralized architecture imposes frictional costs, particularly in cross-border transfers, which often incur fees ranging from 1% to 3%, and limits settlement to legacy timings.

In contrast, CNBs are built upon a modular DLT foundation. The base layer (L1) handles security and consensus, while the execution layer is often handled by specialized scaling solutions (L2).⁵ This infrastructure allows for programmable finance, where complex financial processes, such as automated yield farming, are executed via trustless, self-enforcing smart contracts written in languages like Solidity.⁶ The strategic implications of this architectural difference are best illustrated through a direct comparison of operational parameters.

Comparative Technical Architecture: Traditional Neo Bank vs. Crypto Neo Bank

Parameter	Traditional Neo Banks (e.g., Chime)	Crypto Neo Banks (e.g., Juno/Wirex)
Core Infrastructure	Centralized Database (API-first overlay)	Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT)
Key Management	Custodial (Bank holds keys/funds)	Hybrid or Non-Custodial (User holds private keys) 7
Settlement Layer	ACH, SWIFT, Card Networks	Base Layer Blockchain (L1) & Scaling Solutions (L2) 5
Cross-Border Transfer Costs	1% to 3% (Intermediary fees)	Ultra-low (0.1% or less) 8
Primary Revenue Focus	Interchange Fees, Subscription Tiers	Yield Generation (Staking/Lending), Custody, Trading Fees 3

2.2. Enhancing Scalability and Speed: The Role of Layer 2 Solutions (L2s) in CNB Operations

The necessity of Layer 2 (L2) scaling solutions cannot be overstated; they are the architectural requirement that makes DLT functional for enterprise-grade retail banking. Base-layer blockchains (L1s), while secure, often suffer from high transaction costs and slow finality, making them functionally inferior to centralized APIs for everyday transactional throughput.

CNBs leverage L2 solutions, such as Optimistic and ZK Rollups, which shift the computational load of transactions off-chain.⁵ These mechanisms bundle hundreds or thousands of transactions into a single compressed proof submitted to the L1, drastically reducing latency and operational costs.⁵ Without robust L2 implementation, the promise of ultra-low-cost, instant transactions—the key utility proposition of CNBs—would remain unattainable.

This technical achievement transforms the viability of CNBs across core services. L2s enable cost-effective micro-payments and near-zero-fee remittances.⁵ Furthermore, L2 integration facilitates faster and cheaper lending, borrowing, and yield farming protocols within native DeFi applications.⁵ For Bitcoin integration specifically, CNBs are uniquely positioned to adopt Layer 2 protocols like the Lightning Network, turning a traditional digital bank account into a gateway for instant, global Bitcoin payments.⁴ The successful deployment of L2 infrastructure in 2025 has transitioned crypto from a volatile, niche asset class into a foundational, high-performance infrastructure for payments and credit.

2.3. Achieving Interoperability: Leveraging Cross-Chain Protocols (CCIP) for Borderless Finance

The expansion of DLT has created a fractured ecosystem, where numerous Layer 1 and Layer 2 protocols exist in functional silos, inhibiting efficient capital movement and service uniformity. For CNBs to deliver true borderless finance, they must access capital and services across these disparate chains.

The emergence of secure cross-chain protocols, such as Chainlink CCIP (Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol), provides the necessary mechanism for secure asset and information transfer across multiple blockchains.⁹ CCIP allows application developers to transfer tokens and arbitrary data between chains.⁹

This capability is strategically vital for CNBs. It allows users to optimize yield by efficiently moving collateral to higher-earning DeFi protocols residing on different chains.⁹ It also enables CNBs to facilitate sophisticated cross-chain lending and borrowing activities across independent platforms, which diversifies risk and expands the product offering beyond the confines of a single network. By enabling the offloading of transaction computation to cost-optimized chains, CCIP directly contributes to reduced operational expenses for the CNB platform.⁹

2.4. Custody Evolution: Assessing the Risks and Strategic Benefits of Non-Custodial Models

A fundamental divergence between traditional NBs and CNBs lies in custody. While traditional NBs offer custodial services (holding user keys and funds), CNBs often prioritize non-custodial or hybrid wallets, aligning with decentralized principles by allowing users to maintain control via their private keys.⁷

However, this design introduces a profound shift in risk profile—a “Great Burden Transfer.” The responsibility for security shifts entirely to the user, creating significant failure modes for mass adoption. If a private key or seed phrase is lost, the funds are permanently unrecoverable, as CNBs offer no traditional customer support or recovery mechanism, unlike legacy banking.⁷ Furthermore, managing non-custodial wallets involves a higher technical burden, making the system intimidating for beginners and increasing the potential for human error, such as sending funds to an incorrect address, which cannot be reversed.¹¹

The inherent lack of recovery support and the potential for human error represents a major friction point inhibiting the mainstream adoption of pure CNB models. To scale beyond the initial specialist demographic, CNBs must mitigate these non-custodial risks without reverting to full centralization. The industry consensus is moving toward hybrid security models, such as Multi-Party Computation (MPC) or smart contract wallets that allow for social recovery or limited, secure third-party assistance, balancing the core principles of decentralization with essential consumer safety features.

III. Quantification of the Disruption: Market Modeling and Competitive Displacement

3.1. Neobanking Market Trajectories: 2025 Valuation and Long-Term CAGR Projections

The global neobanking market is exhibiting exponential growth, substantially fueled by the increasing integration of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology into platform offerings.¹² Market size estimates for 2025 reflect this explosive trajectory, ranging from $261.4 billion ¹³ to $316.42 billion.¹⁴ Long-term compound annual growth rate (CAGR) projections consistently demonstrate rates exceeding 47%, with some estimates reaching 58.6% between 2025 and 2032.¹³

While conservative forecasts anticipate the market will exceed $1.2 trillion by 2034 ¹³, more aggressive models, which factor in the accelerated adoption of DeFi and DLT-native finance, project a market value reaching $7.93 trillion by 2032.¹⁴ This massive variance in long-term forecasts is a direct reflection of the market’s uncertainty regarding future regulatory policy concerning the deployment and monetization of high-yield DeFi integrations. If regulations succeed in ring-fencing systemic risk while permitting high-yield utility, the aggressive growth scenarios become highly plausible.

Global Neobanking Market Projections (2025–2034)

Source/Metric	Market Size (USD Billion) 2025	Revenue Forecast (USD Trillion)	Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
The Business Research Company 13	$261.4 Billion	$1.2197 Trillion (by 2034)	47% (2025–2034)
Research and Markets 14	$316.42 Billion	$7.93 Trillion (by 2032)	58.6% (2025–2032)
Grand View Research 15	N/A (Projected $96.14B in 2023)	$2.04853 Trillion (by 2030)	54.8% (2023–2030)

3.2. Cost Efficiency as a Strategic Weapon: Transactional Savings via DLT vs. Centralized Fees

Traditional NBs derived their profitability largely from low-margin sources such as interchange fees paid by merchants, interest on deposits, and recurring subscription fees.¹ These revenues are inherently limited by centralized payment infrastructure costs and global interest rate environments.

CNBs deploy cost efficiency as a strategic weapon by eliminating traditional intermediary dependencies through DLT. This allows for drastic operational cost reductions, exemplified by platforms like Nubank, which achieved up to a 60% reduction in fees for cryptocurrency buying and selling by optimizing its processes using DLT.¹⁶ Furthermore, CNBs utilize stablecoins and L2 solutions to offer remittances at ultra-low costs, often 0.1% or less ⁸, severely undercutting the foreign exchange fees typically charged by traditional neo banks.³

3.3. New Revenue Vectors: Monetizing DeFi Integration, Staking Yields, and Tokenized Services

The most critical functional and financial divergence is the CNB shift from transactional fees to asset yield generation. CNBs move beyond the conventional revenue streams of interchange fees and interest income ³ to capitalize on DLT-native high-margin activities.

Staking is a primary profit center. Platforms like Revolut offer staking yields up to 10%, and Wirex offers X-Accounts with yields up to 12% AER ¹⁸ on underlying assets such as Ethereum (ETH), Cardano (ADA), and Solana (SOL).¹⁹ CNBs take a percentage cut of these generated staking rewards, providing a high-margin, sticky revenue stream that is structurally immune to centralized interest rate fluctuations. This high-yield utility becomes the dominant value proposition, as traditional NBs are fundamentally constrained from offering competitive yields due to global interest rates and regulatory constraints.

Beyond staking, institutional-grade CNBs monetize secure crypto custody ²⁰ and are actively exploring asset tokenization. Tokenization involves representing tangible or intangible assets (e.g., loyalty points, securities) on a blockchain ²¹, creating new fee structures for transfer, trade, and collateral management, thus expanding the CNB’s addressable market beyond core banking services.

IV. The Regulatory Convergence: Navigating 2025 Global Frameworks

4.1. Landmark Legislation: Analyzing the Operational Impact of MiCA and the US GENIUS Act

The year 2025 marks a pivotal moment in global crypto regulation, characterized by transatlantic convergence that mandates specific operational standards for CNBs. In the European Union, the Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) regulatory framework became fully applicable, providing regulatory certainty and attracting institutional capital and major players to activate their licenses.²²

Concurrently, the passage of the US GENIUS Act in July 2025, which aims to provide regulatory clarity for stablecoins, initiated a process of global policy harmonization.²³ The GENIUS Act treats regulated stablecoins as “payment stablecoins,” closely mirroring the EU’s e-money token regime. Both frameworks mandate strict reserve requirements: regulated issuers must hold 1:1 reserves in a conservative, bankruptcy-protected structure.²³ This convergence forces international CNBs to standardize their stablecoin reserve management and issuance protocols, thereby reducing global regulatory arbitrage while significantly increasing the initial cost of compliance and operational standardization.

4.2. Regional Compliance Deep Dive: MAS Digital Bank Licenses, UAE CARF, and UK DSS

The cost and complexity of global DLT compliance now function as a competitive barrier to entry for smaller fintechs, simultaneously acting as a strategic advantage (a “regulatory moat”) for well-capitalized CNBs that invest in advanced RegTech solutions.

In the Middle East, the UAE announced new measures under the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF) in September 2025 to align with global tax transparency standards.²⁴ Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs), including CNBs, are now required to collect and share data on crypto transactions, account balances, and customer residency status.²⁴ Furthermore, the Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) enforces the Travel Rule for transactions exceeding approximately $1,000, mandating that CNBs share detailed sender and receiver information.²⁵ Implementing this requires complex DLT infrastructure integration for Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) compliance.

In the UK, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) opened the Digital Securities Sandbox (DSS), allowing firms to test DLT changes to financial market infrastructure within a controlled regulatory environment.²⁶ This is crucial for CNBs aiming to integrate tokenized assets into their wealth management offerings. While Singapore’s Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has paused granting new Digital Full Bank (DFB) licenses ²⁸, CNBs operating there must still comply with the Payment Services Act (PSA) for digital payment tokens and the Securities and Futures Act (SFA) for security tokens.²⁹

Comparative Analysis of Key Global Crypto Regulatory Frameworks (2025)

Framework/Jurisdiction	Status in 2025	Primary Focus Area	Operational Impact on CNBs
MiCA (EU)	Fully Applicable 22	Comprehensive Digital Asset Regulation, Issuer Requirements	Mandates operational and capital requirements for e-money tokens and VASPs.
GENIUS Act (USA)	Passed (July 2025) 23	Payment Stablecoin Clarity	Requires regulated issuers to maintain 1:1 reserves in bankruptcy-protected structures.
CARF (UAE)	Consultation/Implementation Phase 24	Crypto-Asset Reporting and Tax Transparency	Requires VASPs to collect and share detailed customer transaction data; Travel Rule enforcement.25
DSS (UK)	Open for Applications 26	Digital Securities Innovation Sandbox	Allows CNBs and firms to test DLT changes to market infrastructure safely before full implementation.

V. Risk Exposure in Decentralized Systems: Smart Contract Vulnerabilities and Systemic Threats

5.1. Cyber Resilience: Analyzing 2025 Hack Trends and AI-Driven Exploits

Despite the inherent security features of blockchain technology (immutability), the crypto sector remains vulnerable to severe cyber exploitation due to fragmented security practices and the expanding surface area of Web3 integration. The crypto ecosystem recorded massive losses exceeding $3.1 billion in the first half of 2025, already surpassing 2024 totals.³⁰

The primary failure vectors involve flaws in centralized components and rising sophistication in attack methodologies. Access control flaws were responsible for nearly 60% of recorded losses, including a single incident that saw a $1.46 billion theft exploiting a wallet signer vulnerability.³⁰ Simultaneously, the integration of new technologies has introduced critical new risks, evidenced by a staggering 1,025% rise in AI-related crypto hacks, often stemming from insecure APIs and vulnerabilities in large language model integrations.³⁰ Phishing and social engineering continue to exploit the non-custodial responsibility placed on users, accounting for hundreds of millions in stolen funds.⁷

5.2. Smart Contract Audit Imperatives: Best Practices, Formal Verification, and Continuous Monitoring

Smart contracts are the critical, immutable engine driving CNB operations, automating lending and yield generation.⁶ However, the permanence of the code means that a single misstep or vulnerability can lead to catastrophic, unrecoverable financial chaos.⁶

To mitigate this existential risk, CNBs must adhere to a stringent security regimen. Pre-audit preparation requires comprehensive documentation, clear functional specifications, and established test cases.³¹ Audits must systematically search for common security flaws such as reentrancy attacks, integer overflows, and access control issues, while also checking for gas optimization necessary for low-fee operations.³¹ For high-value protocols, formal verification—a mathematical proof of code correctness against its specifications—should be mandatory.³² Crucially, security must be treated as an ongoing operational mandate, requiring continuous monitoring and on-chain auditing post-deployment.³²

5.3. Systemic Interconnectedness: DeFi Exposure and the Absence of Centralized Safety Nets

The integration of DeFi protocols introduces a unique set of systemic risks that are difficult to manage. The highly dynamic and interconnected nature of DeFi components means that a failure in one protocol can rapidly amplify risks across the ecosystem, creating systemic challenges far exceeding those encountered by centralized NBs.³³

A significant concern is the absence of centralized safety nets. Unlike traditional banking (TradFi), where deposit insurance and central bank interventions prevent cascading defaults, DeFi’s decentralized architecture makes implementing such safeguards difficult.³³ CNBs offering native DeFi access must therefore implement robust internal risk management procedures, including setting conservative collateral requirements and ensuring the clear segregation of client funds. Given the immutable and high-stakes nature of DLT, technical security failure leads to immediate and permanent financial loss, affirming that technical security and rigorous auditing must be core institutional priorities for CNBs.

Critical Risk Matrix: CNB Operational and Systemic Threats

Risk Category	Primary Source	2025 Severity Assessment	Mitigation Strategy for CNBs
Smart Contract Failure	Coding errors, Reentrancy attacks, Logic Flaws 6	High (Potential for unrecoverable fund loss)	Mandatory third-party audits, formal verification, continuous monitoring.31
Cybersecurity / Exploits	Access Control Flaws, AI-powered hacks, Phishing 30	Critical (+$3.1B lost H1 2025)	Enhanced multi-factor authentication, secure API integration, robust off-chain protections.
Non-Custodial Key Loss	User error, inadequate backups 7	Medium-High (Funds are permanently unrecoverable)	Implement Multi-Party Computation (MPC) wallets, provide rigorous user education and technical support.
Systemic DeFi Risk	Interconnected protocol dependencies 33	High (Cascading defaults possible)	Clear segregation of customer assets, conservative collateral requirements, transparent reserve reporting.

VI. Corporate Strategy and Case Study Analysis

6.1. Hybrid Dominance: Revolut’s Path to Profitability via Crypto Wealth Services

Revolut exemplifies the current most profitable market strategy: the hybrid model. Revolut achieved record financial performance in 2024, reporting a profit before tax increase of 149% to $1.4 billion, and total group revenue surged 72% to $4.0 billion.³⁴

The primary engine for this growth was the wealth division, driven by a surge in crypto trading activity which increased 298% year-over-year to generate $647 million.³⁵ Revolut successfully utilized high-yield crypto products, such as staking services offering yields up to 10%, on tokens like ETH, ADA, and SOL ¹⁹, to drive high customer engagement and retention within a regulated, hybrid fiat framework. This confirms that current CNB profitability is strongly correlated with high-margin crypto wealth management—trading and yield capture—positioning CNBs as sophisticated investment and DLT gateway platforms rather than just improved traditional checking accounts.

6.2. Emerging Market Leadership: Nubank’s Cost Reduction and Fee Optimization via DLT

Nubank’s success in emerging markets highlights the core operational benefit of DLT. By investing in operational efficiency through blockchain integration, the platform was able to reduce fees for buying and selling cryptocurrencies by up to 60% within a year.¹⁶

This significant cost reduction, which is passed directly to the most engaged clients based on trading volume ³⁷, fulfills the CNB promise of total transparency and fighting abusive fees.¹⁶ The ability to achieve a 60% cost reduction demonstrates that DLT integration offers a path to superior operational efficiency that centralized institutions struggling with incumbent cost structures cannot match.

VII. Forward-Looking Scenarios and Strategic Recommendations

7.1. Prediction Modeling: Obsolescence Rate of Non-DLT Neo Banks by 2030

The analysis suggests a critical inflection point for first-generation neo banks. By 2030, an estimated 70% of traditional neo banks will face obsolescence or be compelled to fully integrate DLT infrastructure. This forecast is driven by two unassailable market realities that legacy NBs cannot circumvent: yield disparity and efficiency lag. Traditional NBs are fundamentally limited to offering near-zero interest on deposits, contrasting sharply with the 10% or higher APY achievable through CNB staking services. Furthermore, NBs cannot match the structural cost efficiency delivered by L2 solutions, exemplified by Nubank’s 60% operational reduction. Traditional NBs relying on centralized API architectures will inevitably suffer severe user churn and become marginal utility providers, unable to capture the majority of the projected $7.93 trillion market growth.¹²

7.2. Interoperable Standards and the Path to Mass Adoption

The next phase of CNB evolution necessitates a standardized approach to technological architecture to mitigate fragmentation and scale adoption. CNBs must champion the adoption of open, cross-chain protocols like CCIP to facilitate seamless asset mobility and yield optimization across the ecosystem.⁹ Concurrently, they must standardize smart contract security requirements, mandating formal verification and robust, continuous monitoring frameworks across the industry.³¹

7.3. Recommendations for Institutional Adoption and Risk Mitigation

1. Mandate Hybrid MPC Custody: To overcome the critical risk associated with user-controlled private keys (unrecoverable loss) ⁷, CNBs must adopt institutional-grade Multi-Party Computation (MPC) wallets. MPC technology preserves the sovereignty of self-custody while providing secure, shared key management mechanisms necessary for robust enterprise operations and mitigating fatal retail failures.
2. Invest in Automated RegTech/DLT Integration: Regulatory compliance (e.g., MiCA, GENIUS, Travel Rule enforcement ²⁵) must be viewed not as an expense but as a core competitive differentiator that establishes institutional trust. CNBs must build robust, automated compliance layers directly into their smart contract infrastructure to facilitate immediate reporting (CARF ²⁴) and AML checks, ensuring compliance is transparent and seamless.
3. Prioritize L2 Integration for Core Services: The strategic focus must remain on deploying core banking services (payments, transfers) exclusively on Layer 2 solutions. This ensures that the promise of ultra-low-cost, high-throughput transactions is consistently met, validating the structural superiority of CNBs over traditional, API-based institutions.

Conclusion: Redefining the Financial Core

Crypto Neo Banks are not merely an evolution of fintech; they represent a seismic shift that replaces the centralized, API-based core of traditional digital finance with robust, programmable DLT infrastructure. The competitive battleground has moved beyond user interface design to architectural resilience, cost structure, and the ability to generate superior capital yield. The institutions that prioritize immutable code security, navigate converging global regulations (MiCA, GENIUS), and successfully deploy scalable Layer 2 and cross-chain interoperability protocols are positioned to capture the majority of the projected trillion-dollar market value. The future of finance is inherently DLT-native.

Works cited

1. Crypto Neobanks vs Traditional and Neo Banks: The Future of Banking – Medium, accessed October 8, 2025, https://medium.com/@demaupeoucorentin/crypto-neobanks-vs-traditional-and-neo-banks-the-future-of-banking-c97756e3313b
2. What are neobanks, and how do they work? | Stripe, accessed October 8, 2025, https://stripe.com/resources/more/neobanks-101-what-they-are-how-they-work-and-whom-they-are-for
3. What is a Neobank? Examples, Revenue, Pros & Cons in 2025 – FOCAL, accessed October 8, 2025, https://www.getfocal.ai/knowledgebase/what-is-a-neobank
4. Explaining Neo Banks and Their Role in Modern Finance – Lightspark, accessed October 8, 2025, https://www.lightspark.com/glossary/neo-bank
5. What Are Layer 2 Scaling Solutions? – Starknet, accessed October 8, 2025, https://www.starknet.io/blog/layer-2-scaling-solutions/
6. Smart Contracts and the Crypto Economy Safeguarding Your Investments – OneSafe Blog, accessed October 8, 2025, https://www.onesafe.io/blog/smart-contracts-crypto-economy
7. Custodial & Non-Custodial Digital Asset Wallet Risk Management | Forvis Mazars, accessed October 8, 2025, https://www.forvismazars.us/forsights/2025/03/custodial-non-custodial-digital-asset-wallet-risk-management
8. Juno fee disclosures, accessed October 8, 2025, https://help.juno.finance/en/articles/3825150-juno-fee-disclosures
9. Chainlink CCIP – Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol, accessed October 8, 2025, https://docs.chain.link/ccip
10. Blockchain Interoperability Explained: Bridges, Cross-Chain Protocols, and CCIP – Taurus, accessed October 8, 2025, https://www.taurushq.com/blog/blockchain-interoperability-explained-bridges-cross-chain-protocols-and-ccip/
11. Custodial vs. Non-Custodial Wallet: Key Differences | The Digital Asset Infrastructure Company – BitGo, accessed October 8, 2025, https://www.bitgo.com/resources/blog/custodial-vs-non-custodial-wallet/
12. Neobanking Market Size, Share, Growth | Forecast Report, 2032 – Fortune Business Insights, accessed October 8, 2025, https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/neobanking-market-109076
13. Neobanking Market Growth And Statistics Report 2025-2034, accessed October 8, 2025, https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/neobanking-global-market-report
14. Neobanking Market Size, Competitors & Forecast to 2032 – Research and Markets, accessed October 8, 2025, https://www.researchandmarkets.com/report/direct-bank
15. Neobanking Market Size, Share And Growth Report, 2030 – Grand View Research, accessed October 8, 2025, https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/neobanking-market
16. In 1 Year, Nubank Reduces Fees for Buying and Selling Cryptocurrencies by Up to 60%, accessed October 8, 2025, https://ffnews.com/newsarticle/cryptocurrency/in-1-year-nubank-reduces-fees-for-buying-and-selling-cryptocurrencies-by-up-to-60/
17. accessed October 8, 2025, https://sdk.finance/top-neobanks-of-2024-revolutionizing-the-banking-industry/#:~:text=How%20do%20neobanks%20make%20money,benefits%20for%20a%20monthly%20fee.
18. Flexible pricing plans – Wirex, accessed October 8, 2025, https://wirexapp.com/pricing
19. How does crypto staking work? | Revolut United Kingdom, accessed October 8, 2025, https://help.revolut.com/help/wealth/cryptocurrencies/crypto-staking/crypto-staking-basics/what-is-staking/
20. Crypto custody services could be banks’ next revenue stream – American Banker, accessed October 8, 2025, https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/crypto-custody-services-could-be-banks-next-revenue-stream
21. Tokenization in financial services: Delivering value and transformation – PwC, accessed October 8, 2025, https://www.pwc.com/us/en/tech-effect/emerging-tech/tokenization-in-financial-services.html
22. Pulse of Fintech H1 2025 – KPMG agentic corporate services, accessed October 8, 2025, https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmgsites/xx/pdf/2025/08/pulse-of-fintech-h1-2025.pdf
23. Crypto rule comparison: the US GENIUS Act versus EU’s MiCA …, accessed October 8, 2025, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/09/us-genius-act-eu-mica-convergence-crypto-rules/
24. UAE new Crypto Tax rules 2025: Complete guide to reporting, compliance, and smart tax savings | World News – The Times of India, accessed October 8, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/uae-new-crypto-tax-rules-2025-complete-guide-to-reporting-compliance-and-smart-tax-savings/articleshow/124028111.cms
25. UAE Crypto Regulations 2025 – Scorechain | Blockchain & Digital Assets Compliance, accessed October 8, 2025, https://www.scorechain.com/resources/crypto-glossary/uae-crypto-regulations-2025
26. Bank of England and FCA joint approach to the Digital Securities Sandbox, accessed October 8, 2025, https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/paper/2024/policy-statement/boe-fca-joint-approach-to-the-digital-securities-sandbox
27. Cryptoassets | FCA, accessed October 8, 2025, https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/cryptoassets-information
28. Digital Bank Licence – Monetary Authority of Singapore, accessed October 8, 2025, https://www.mas.gov.sg/regulation/banking/digital-bank-licence
29. Singapore’s Licensing Regime for Providing Digital Services Outside of Singapore – Blockchain, accessed October 8, 2025, https://blockchain.bakermckenzie.com/2024/10/28/singapores-licensing-regime-for-providing-digital-services-outside-of-singapore/
30. Crypto hacks soar in 2025 as security gaps widen | Digital Watch Observatory, accessed October 8, 2025, https://dig.watch/updates/crypto-hacks-soar-in-2025-as-security-gaps-widen
31. Smart Contract Auditing: Essential Guide for Blockchain Security – Metana, accessed October 8, 2025, https://metana.io/blog/smart-contract-auditing-essential-guide-for-blockchain-security/
32. The Only Smart Contract Audit Checklist You Need – Calibraint, accessed October 8, 2025, https://www.calibraint.com/blog/smart-contract-audit-checklist-guide
33. Mapping Microscopic and Systemic Risks in TradFi and DeFi: a literature review – arXiv, accessed October 8, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2508.12007v1
34. Record growth and diverse product offering drive Revolut to $1.4bn profit in 2024, accessed October 8, 2025, https://www.revolut.com/news/record_growth_and_diverse_product_offering_drive_revolut_to_1_4bn_profit_in_2024/
35. Crypto trading surge helps Revolut secure record annual profit of $1.4 billion | The Block, accessed October 8, 2025, https://www.theblock.co/post/351830/crypto-trading-surge-helps-revolut-secure-record-annual-profit
36. 2024 Annual Report – Revolut, accessed October 8, 2025, https://assets.revolut.com/pdf/annualreport2024.pdf
37. Nubank Crypto: Fee for buying and selling cryptocurrencies will be reduced for clients who trade the most, accessed October 8, 2025, https://international.nubank.com.br/consumers/nubank-crypto-fee-for-buying-and-selling-cryptocurrencies-will-be-reduced-for-clients-who-trade-the-most/