Fun CEO: Crypto payments could leave on-ramps and bridges behind
Crypto payments may eventually work without separate on-ramps or bridges, according to Fun CEO Alex Fine. My read: if he is right, users will barely notice the machinery behind blockchain transactions. Investors may also have to rethink how they value crypto infrastructure companies.
Fun builds backend systems connecting traditional payments with blockchain networks. Fine believes standalone on-ramp and bridge websites are becoming obsolete as newer crypto apps process payments inside the product. The user gets a deposit screen. That’s it. The app handles the blockchain details underneath. And Fun has evidence behind its case: it manages every deposit and withdrawal on Polymarket, plus deposits into Aave’s largest vaults. The company processes more than $3 billion a month and has raised over $75 million.
The appeal is obvious. “Nobody wants to use a bridge for the purpose of using a bridge,” Fine said. “They want to use an application.” He’s right about that much. People want to place a bet or buy a token. They might make a deposit. Few want a crash course in wrapped assets and network fees before they can begin. Why would they? The infrastructure is supposed to serve the product, not become the product.
If moving money among bank accounts, stablecoins, and blockchains becomes as easy as sending cash through Venmo, one of crypto’s more irritating barriers disappears. More money could then reach decentralized finance protocols such as Aave, which already uses Fun’s systems. Extra deposits could raise total value locked. Most bullish arguments stop there. That’s only half right: higher TVL does not automatically push up AAVE or any other token. Markets do not behave that neatly. Still, a decentralized exchange or lending app resembling an ordinary checkout page is more likely to retain users than one sending them bouncing among unfamiliar websites.
Fine is blunt about the danger to existing providers: “The age of on-ramps will be completely dead and the age of external bridging sites will be dead.” I’ll be honest: “completely dead” sounds too absolute. Standalone services can survive if they solve a problem embedded tools cannot. But the business risk is genuine. Companies earning most of their money by converting cash into crypto or moving assets between chains will need to give customers another reason to return.
Investors may start favoring payment providers embedded in apps over standalone bridge and on-ramp businesses. Fun is the obvious example. The apps using its technology could benefit too. Companies and protocols still relying on separate onboarding services deserve scrutiny. If an exchange’s main advantage is its fiat gateway, that edge may fade once rival apps provide the same service in the background. Its stock or token could take a hit. Does painless funding guarantee upside? No. Apps may draw more users, but heavier activity still does not promise token gains.
Fine’s comparison with Web2 gets to the practical problem. Consumers swipe a credit card without wondering which processor routes the transaction. Crypto asks them to think about networks and bridges. Then come fees and payment methods. “In Web2, payments are highly fungible,” Fine said. “In Web3, they’re much more complex because every payment method behaves differently. Teams keep rebuilding the same infrastructure over and over again instead of building unified optimized funding flows.”
Developers lose time rebuilding that infrastructure, while users face more points where a transaction can fail. If Fun handles the mess behind the scenes, prediction markets like Polymarket and Kalshi could become easier to use. Tokenized equity platforms could see the same benefit. My take: easier deposits probably bring more capital into crypto, but claims that valuations will rise “across the board” deserve a large pinch of salt. Better payment plumbing helps. It cannot save a product nobody wants.
What this means
Fine is describing the end of crypto’s familiar obstacle course: on-ramps and wallets, followed by bridges and confirmation screens. Payments happen inside the app. Most technical work stays out of sight. It is less flashy than launching a new token, but I think it matters more to ordinary users. Nobody wants to open three tabs just to move $50.
The investment argument is murkier. Businesses providing only on-ramps or bridges could lose customers as those services become standard app features. Payment API providers such as Fun may pick up business. So could apps that make account funding quick and clear. Counter to the usual growth narrative, however, convenience alone is not an investment thesis. Investors can follow user activity and TVL at DeFi protocols adopting these systems, including Aave. Growth in those figures may support assets such as AAVE, but it demonstrates usage—not an inevitable increase in price.
Adoption speed matters too. Blockchain connection announcements from major fintech companies and banks would strengthen Fine’s case. Earnings reports from publicly traded crypto companies for the third and fourth quarters of 2024 may also show whether simpler onboarding reduced customer drop-off or lowered acquisition costs. To my eye, those results are more useful than another polished announcement about “seamless” payments.
Transaction volumes and user numbers at Polymarket and Kalshi offer another test. If deposits become easier while activity remains flat, payment friction probably was not the main problem. Simple enough. Partnerships between traditional payment processors and crypto infrastructure companies are also worth following. What should investors actually ask? Whether more people are finishing transactions they once abandoned.