On April 28, 2026, Visa and the on-chain infrastructure company WeFi stood on the same platform to announce a partnership described by the media as bridging the "last mile" of on-chain payments: allowing users to spend their self-custodied on-chain assets on this network without changing the operation of Visa's global acceptance network. In simpler terms, the process that originally required transferring crypto assets onto a platform card has been streamlined to "if you have coins in your wallet, you can swipe Visa."
This time, the protagonist is no longer a custodial account that hands over assets to a platform, but the user's own self-custodied wallet—assets remain on-chain, private keys remain in the user's hands, and theoretically, there is no need to "submit" them to any centralized institution to spend these fiat-pegged tokens and other on-chain assets within the Visa acceptance network. The first pilot cities are chosen in Europe and Asia, where regulatory frameworks and payment infrastructure are relatively mature, enabling traditional card networks and on-chain assets to engage so closely for the first time.
The real tension in this story lies in the bridge itself: one side is the traditional payment compliance system centered on anti-money laundering, KYC, and clearing rules, while the other side is the on-chain world guided by self-custody, decentralization, and code. The collaboration between Visa and WeFi is like a pathway drawn between two almost opposing logics—when users are allowed to hold private keys and spend on-chain assets within a regulated network, this seemingly "having your cake and eating it too" arrangement raises questions about who will welcome it and whose sensitive nerves it will touch, becoming the central conflict of this cooperative story.
Visa Bridges the Last Mile of On-Chain Asset Spending
The so-called "last mile" in this partnership is not the distance from bank to merchant, but from the user's string of private keys to the moment of swiping a card at the corner convenience store. The "bridge" referred to by the media connects on-chain assets that were previously confined to browser plugins and cold wallets to the Visa acceptance network, which is already widely deployed among terminals and POS systems, allowing these assets to truly enter everyday consumption scenarios.
In traditional pathways, this segment often breaks down with the user: either leaving assets on-chain, accepting the limitations of not being able to swipe a card; or transferring assets to a custodial account to gain the convenience of swiping the card. Visa and WeFi now attempt to circumvent this binary choice—users can keep their assets in self-custodied wallets, holding their private keys without having to hand them over to any centralized institution in advance, yet spending occurs within Visa's globally covered acceptance network.
For users, on the surface, this still appears to be a normal card payment: merchants only see an incoming transaction from the Visa network and do not need to understand which chain or what type of asset is behind it; the real watershed moment is that the "starting point" of funds stays on-chain, and throughout the process, the question of who controls the private keys remains unchanged. The previous implicit premise that "to spend, you must relinquish some control" is attempted to be broken by this "last mile" bridge.
From WeFi's narrative, it is not aiming to replace Visa or reconstruct an offline accepting network, but instead positions itself as a coordination layer between DeFi and regulated payment infrastructure: connecting on one end with on-chain account systems and payment capabilities that provide experiences similar to bank accounts; and on the other end interfacing with existing compliance payment networks and everyday financial scenarios. Visa, in turn, acts as the other end of this bridge, opening a gap to connect its long-compliant clearing and accepting network to the on-chain world.
This division of labor means the "last mile" is no longer a closed loop exclusively occupied by a single institution, but is managed by WeFi, which organizes the on-chain world into a form comprehensible to regulators, before handing it over to Visa to bring it into supermarket cash registers, online checkout pages, and offline terminals. For users accustomed to self-custody, the significance of this new pathway lies in allowing them to enter the most familiar swiping scene without having to hand over their assets; for the traditional payment system that prioritizes compliance and risk control, it adds a layer of buffer and translation that calls itself a "bridge."
Self-Custody Dreams Meet Compliance Red Lines
When self-custody wallets are connected to a global network like Visa, the first barrier encountered is not the cash register, but the compliance gate marked "KYC / Anti-Money Laundering." For regulatory agencies, Visa is not a neutral "cable," but a key infrastructure operating under strict regulatory frameworks, naturally required to identify trading counterparts, verify fund sources, and report suspicious activities; for self-custody users, the wallet address is just a string, lacking the familiar "relationship manager at the bank." When the two logics collide in the same transaction, conflicts arise: who stands up for this string of addresses, bearing the responsibility to say "I know him"?
The premise of on-chain self-custody is that asset holding and key management are no longer bundled under banks and traditional financial institutions. Users take care of their private keys, bypassing past processes of account opening, due diligence, and account monitoring. In Visa's accustomed world, every card is associated with a regulated institution; whereas in the world WeFi attempts to connect to, an address may have only interacted through on-chain contracts, leaving no record at a bank counter. To integrate the payment requests from the latter into the former's clearing network, Visa must answer two questions: how to complete counterparty identification without "seizing" the self-custody; and once issues arise, who will be responsible?
This is also why the initial pilot selection was made in Europe and Asia. Compared to other regions, these two directions have higher maturity in crypto regulation and payment infrastructure; on one hand, there are enough licensed institutions and payment channels, and on the other, regulators have begun to write rules specifically for on-chain assets. The EU's introduction of frameworks like MiCA for crypto asset regulation has provided policy space for such exploration, defining what constitutes regulated crypto asset services and determining which roles must fulfill which obligations, allowing the "bridge" to have a chance to gain recognition within regulatory bounds rather than being initially viewed as a gray area.
In this environment, WeFi's claimed role as a "coordinating layer" gains practical relevance: on one end are self-custody wallets and the on-chain world, and on the other end are banks, payment institutions, and networks like Visa. Regions with more mature regulations are more likely to accept such an arrangement—as long as responsibilities are clearly delineated: who handles customer due diligence, who verifies on-chain sources of funds, who conducts transaction monitoring, and who is first held accountable in case of issues. In contrast, regions where payment and crypto regulation have yet to take shape find it hard to provide clear answers.
The real challenge lies in the details of risk control and liability delineation. On-chain assets inherently carry a complete "fund trail," but traditional payment networks focus on a different set of metrics: who the cardholder is, who the merchant is, and whether to authorize the release of the funds. When Visa connects to on-chain assets, it must find a balance between these two perspectives: on one hand, conducting reasonably thorough reviews of fund sources to avoid connecting obvious high-risk addresses; on the other hand, it must not treat every self-custody user as a potential suspect, forcing them back into the traditional account opening model, lest the original intention of "self-custodial spending" is entirely erased.
What lurks within is a series of questions that may not have been explicitly written into contracts: if a payment is later determined to involve illegal funds, is Visa, as the network, to bear more responsibility, or is it WeFi as the on-chain coordination layer, or the local accepting institution? How deep must on-chain analysis go to be considered "sufficiently diligent"? Does the transaction terminal only need to ensure local compliance, or must it also be responsible for on-chain transaction history? The first round of pilots in Europe and Asia can essentially be viewed as a live negotiation revolving around these questions—in the realm of acceptable regulation, drawing a pathway for self-custodial dreams that is as uninterrupted by red lines as possible.
The Trust Test from Tether to WeFi
To understand why this collaboration is viewed as a "re-examination of trust," one cannot overlook a person: Reeve Collins.
In an earlier wave of crypto enthusiasm, Reeve Collins co-founded Tether and served as its co-founder and former CEO. Tether quickly grew to become one of the largest fiat-pegged on-chain asset issuers in the world, directly translating the narrative of "1:1 correspondence with money in bank accounts" onto the blockchain. Because of this, it has been scrutinized since its inception: where its reserves are held, whether the assets are sufficient, and how the compliance structure is built—each market fluctuation and each disclosure have been repeatedly dissected by regulators and trading counterparts.
The long-standing disputes regarding Tether's compliance and reserve transparency have shaped a specific context for the entire sector: on one hand, the substantial volume and high frequency of use demonstrate the real demand for such assets in global payments and transactions; on the other hand, the "invisible underlying assets" and "unintelligible compliance model" have remained one of the industry's biggest shadows. Reeve Collins experienced and drove the early expansion of this path, thus bearing the weight of all experiences and questions left by that history.
After leaving Tether, he turned to establish WeFi, positioning the company as a blockchain-based on-chain banking infrastructure focused on fiat-pegged digital assets, shifting the narrative from simple issuance to being a "bridge": one end connects DeFi and self-custody wallets, and the other end connects regulated payments and everyday finance. His publicly stated self-definition is to serve as the coordinating or bridging layer between these two ends—and on April 28, 2026, Visa chose to form a strategic partnership with such a company, integrating this bridge directly into its global acceptance network.
Given the founder's clearly traceable background, the market naturally divides into two voices when interpreting this collaboration.
For some, Reeve Collins' past serves as a form of "battlefield experience": he has witnessed scale, extreme volatility, and how regulation can intervene in a globally circulating on-chain asset. This experience enables WeFi to better anticipate regulatory pain points when designing self-custody payment pathways—for instance, how to allow users to keep private keys, maintain assets on-chain, and be viewed as a "auditable and traceable" payment channel without crossing red lines. Entrusting the effort of the "last mile" to this experienced team in the eyes of supporters is seen as bringing in the most seasoned individuals to navigate the most challenging path.
However, another segment is preoccupied with a different question: will those past questions return to the forefront under a new guise? All discussions around compliance and transparency from the Tether era will not simply vanish because the company’s name changes to WeFi. On the contrary, WeFi's self-proclaimed role as a bridge between DeFi and regulated payments, serving users with self-custody wallets, places it under scrutiny from both sides—regulators and traditional financial institutions sensitive to reserves, risk isolation, and fund flows; and users familiar with on-chain freedom, wary of whether "black box" situations will recur.
Thus, Reeve Collins' background is amplified into a double-edged trust question in this collaboration: the combination of Visa and WeFi is expected to genuinely connect self-custodied assets to daily payment scenarios, but is also alerting to the potential replication of opaque gray areas from the past. The upcoming first round of pilots in Europe and Asia will not only serve as a testing ground for technology and processes but will also be the market observing whether this individual, who once stood in the spotlight of Tether, can deliver a response differing from the past.
Impending Changes for Users and Merchants
For those observing from the sidelines, whether this collaboration is worth the anticipation ultimately hinges on a single question: what will users and merchants each have to give and gain when assets are self-custodied and payments move through the Visa network?
For users, the most immediate change is the "sense of control" combined with "convenience." In the past, within the traditional financial system, the money in accounts, the payment channels, and the risk control rules were almost entirely managed by banks or payment institutions, with individuals being "served" within a custodial framework. In the design by Visa and WeFi, users can hold digital assets through self-custody wallets with private keys in their own hands while still being able to spend these assets directly in the Visa acceptance network—assets remain on-chain, and card swiping occurs at terminals. After the integration of this "last mile," everyday spending no longer means handing over on-chain assets to a centralized custodian.
This combination signifies a psychological shift for many who are used to managing assets on-chain: there is no longer a need to relinquish assets to enter offline stores; no need to return entirely to the old account system to participate in everyday economic life. Self-custody offers not just the technical capability of "being your own bank," but a continuous experience—these assets can operate within decentralized protocols and also transform into a payment at a supermarket cash register through the Visa network.
However, with the custody rights returned to users, the accompanying cost is that responsibility has also returned. In the on-chain self-custody model, losing keys, exposing mnemonic phrases, and making operational errors that send assets to incorrect addresses typically allow no "buffer" of "getting a new card from the bank"; the consequences are closer to irreversible losses. Users must now not only remember their passwords but also be responsible for key backups, device security, and operational habits—from clicking every confirmation button to discerning the authenticity of every "customer service email," the boundaries of security have shifted to individuals.
Furthermore, price volatility becomes a more personal variable. In the past, when assets were held in traditional accounts, many people felt the fluctuations of "net asset value" were disconnected from daily card swipes: they stored relatively stable accounting units and spent the same type. Now, when what can be consumed is a basket of digital assets that may fluctuate with the market, users must weigh for themselves: is buying a cup of coffee with on-chain assets equivalent to selling off a position that might rise or fall tomorrow? If self-custody brings individuals closer to the assets themselves, it also exposes them more directly to price fluctuations.
Merchants see a change from another angle. On the surface, they still collect payments through the Visa network, and the cash register system does not need to learn new technical stacks; however, on the funds source side, an additional channel is added: some funds may come from on-chain assets bridged by WeFi. This means that customers walking into the store no longer need to dismantle the value on-chain into traditional account balances first before spending; merchants face a new group of customers that might have only previously existed in the on-chain world and were relatively distant from offline consumption.
For traditional financial institutions and payment companies, this channel represents both an opportunity and a challenge to their role boundaries. Previously, payments and asset custody were bundled together as their foundational business; under the architecture of self-custody and on-chain payments, the custody component is stripped from the system, remaining in the user’s wallet, while institutions take on a larger role in compliance, clearing, and network connectivity. The source of funds may include on-chain assets, which will compel them to rethink how risk control and operational processes adapt to a funding source not directly under their custody, how to mark, track, and explain this new payment pathway within existing internal systems.
For merchants and these institutions, the new customer base and entry points for traffic are obvious temptations, but they must bear learning costs operationally—how to explain a revenue stream sourced from on-chain assets to the finance team, how to clarify boundary responsibilities with partners, and how to communicate to external parties what kind of bridge the institution has integrated under traditional regulatory frameworks. While Visa and WeFi have built the "last mile," those who will truly traverse it include users holding private keys and those behind the cash registers, in front of the ledgers.
The Next Fork for On-Chain Payments to Reach the Mainstream
When Visa ties its acceptance network to WeFi's on-chain infrastructure, it is not merely a business expansion but essentially nails down a signpost between regulatory payment infrastructure and DeFi: one path leads to familiar practices of automated payroll and custodial accounts, while the other leads to the self-custodied world where users firmly hold their private keys. Over the past few years, Visa's efforts with crypto cards and collaborations with exchange platforms have generally involved building "interfaces" on the periphery of the existing system; this time, it attempts to push the interface inward, connecting the "last mile" to a model that allows users' assets to remain entirely on-chain—this represents a direct loosening of the custodial premise in traditional payment narratives.
The first trial locations chosen in Europe and Asia are certainly not coincidental. There, ongoing regulatory frameworks, including MiCA, are in the works, and mature payment infrastructures are in place, sufficient to accommodate experiments that directly integrate on-chain assets into everyday consumption scenarios. If this bridge can function in these markets, there is potential for replication in more regions and imitation by more clearing networks, banks, and on-chain infrastructure companies—some may choose to serve as a "coordinating layer" like WeFi, while others might simply connect their own on-chain wallets to traditional acquiring systems, transforming the combination of "self-custody + regulated payments" from isolated cases into an industry template.
However, this new road is not yet paved. First, how regulators will define this model—whether as a familiar payment business or as on-chain assets requiring separate scrutiny—will directly determine how far and how quickly it can progress. Secondly, whether users and merchants are truly willing to pay for "self-managed keys" presents another hurdle; accustomed to recovering forgotten passwords through customer service lines, it is not easy for them to accept the rule that a single mis-signature results in definitive loss. More realistically, the information currently available does not provide concrete technical solutions, fee structures, launch timelines, or lists of initial partner merchants or banks, leaving unresolved variables regarding how security boundaries are defined, how on-chain faults are managed, and how transaction fees are allocated.
Visa and WeFi have initially built this bridge, but what will ultimately determine whether this fork becomes a "main road" will be the regulatory feedback temperature, the actual usage frequency by users and merchants in the coming years, as well as whether the yet-unpublished technical and security details can withstand the dual tests of time and attacks. Whether on-chain payments can reach the mainstream does not depend on a single press conference but rather on how this bridge performs under repeated pressure tests in the real world—whether it proves to be merely a temporary sidetrack or an essential path in the future payment system.
Join our community for discussion and mutual growth!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
Disclaimer: This article represents only the personal views of the author and does not represent the position and views of this platform. This article is for information sharing only and does not constitute any investment advice to anyone. Any disputes between users and authors are unrelated to this platform. If the articles or images on the webpage involve infringement, please provide relevant proof of rights and identity documents and send an email to support@aicoin.com. The relevant staff of this platform will conduct an investigation.