What Makes Nonusers Willing to Try Crypto Payments?

Crypto Payment Adoption Starts With Trust at Checkout

A shopper reaches checkout, sees a cryptocurrency payment option, and hesitates. The network might be fast and the transaction inexpensive. Neither feature answers the questions that matter in that moment: What am I approving? What happens if something goes wrong? Who can help?

That gap between technical capability and consumer confidence offers a useful lens for understanding crypto payments. Building better infrastructure creates the possibility of adoption. Making its safeguards understandable gives people a reason to try it.

A new study by Ahmed Geebren in Financial Innovation examines this issue through a survey of 402 UK cryptocurrency nonusers.¹ Initial trust significantly predicted willingness to use cryptocurrency for transactions. The commercial implication is worth exploring: payment companies may need to compete on how clearly they explain and deliver protection, alongside speed and cost.

What the Crypto Adoption Study Found

The model explained 52% of variation in willingness to use. Transparency, anonymity, ease of use, security, privacy, and knowledge significantly predicted initial trust. Perceived risk had no statistically significant direct relationship with willingness to use.

These are associations from self-reported intentions, not proof of causation or future spending. Convenience sampling also limits generalization. The risk result does not establish that financial losses, fraud, or volatility cease to matter.

Why Trust Must Survive the Entire Payment

For a payment provider, a useful way to apply these findings is to separate confidence into three practical questions. Can the customer understand the approval? Can the merchant fulfill the order? Can both parties resolve an exception?

Consider a hypothetical purchase of a jacket. A blockchain successfully records the transfer, but the jacket has sold out. The network has performed correctly while the commercial transaction has failed. Someone still needs to identify the order, arrange repayment, communicate the timeline, and reconcile the accounts.

This is why the distinction between wallet transfers and merchant settlement matters. Blockchain confirmation is one step within a larger process. A polished checkout cannot compensate indefinitely for confusing refunds or unreliable payouts.

The opportunity is to make that larger process predictable. A customer should see the amount, currency, recipient, and applicable charges before approving. Afterwards, the receipt should connect the payment to the purchase and explain how to seek help. These are proposed design priorities, rather than interventions tested by the study.

Crypto Refunds Are a Product Design Challenge

Actual infrastructure is moving toward these commercial requirements. Shopify and Coinbase described their Commerce Payments Protocol in June 2025, including authorization, capture, cancellation of uncaptured payments, and refunds. Its escrow architecture allows funds to be reserved before being released to a merchant.

That separates permission to pay from completion of the payment. It can accommodate situations such as an order being canceled or goods being shipped in stages. The protocol also provides a route for a payer to reclaim uncaptured funds after an authorization expires.

Those capabilities illustrate how payment software can handle uncertainty around a purchase. They should not be confused with an automatic right to recover every disputed payment. A refund operation and a card-style chargeback are different mechanisms, with different responsibilities.

For consumers, the distinction needs plain language. For businesses, it requires operational ownership. If a payment fails between a wallet and an order system, a support agent should have enough information to diagnose it without asking the customer to understand blockchain internals.

Stablecoins Change the Trust Questions

Stablecoins designed to track a currency can reduce the price uncertainty associated with spending a volatile asset. They also change what users need to evaluate: the issuer, reserve backing, redemption arrangements, and the provider handling conversion.

A digital dollar balance therefore deserves a different explanation from a speculative cryptocurrency holding. Even when a token targets one dollar, customers still need to understand what asset they hold and how they can exchange it. Foreign exchange exposure also remains relevant when a purchase or household budget is denominated in another currency.

The broader study should not be treated as a test of any particular stablecoin. Applying its trust theme to stablecoin checkout is an editorial inference. That inference is useful because consumer confidence must extend across both the payment interface and the arrangements supporting the token.

Providers can make that responsibility concrete:

• Show the final amount and supported network before approval.
• Explain refund eligibility, timing, and the responsible provider.
• Offer clear support and transaction records after payment.

Security Should Be Visible Without Adding Friction

Security creates a difficult product tradeoff. Too little explanation leaves customers uncertain. Too many technical warnings can make an ordinary purchase feel like a hazardous operation.

A better approach is to place information where it supports a decision. An approval screen can explain the spending permission being granted. A refund page can explain the destination and expected processing steps. Security becomes useful context rather than a wall of terminology.

Behind that interface, risk screening must also work. Recent Securities.io coverage of stablecoin payment risk intelligence provides background on efforts to integrate blockchain signals with existing financial risk workflows. Such tools address a different layer from customer education, but both belong in a functioning payment service.

The meaningful test is whether the complete system produces fewer mistakes and more successful purchases. Providers could measure abandoned approvals, failed transactions, support requests, refund completion times, and repeat usage. Those operational measures would help determine whether improved confidence translates into durable behavior.

Coinbase Connects Crypto Infrastructure With Commerce

For investors interested in companies building this infrastructure, Coinbase offers a relevant example. Its work with Shopify connects USDC payments on Base with established merchant workflows, bringing the adoption discussion into an operating commerce environment.

The distribution strategy has continued beyond that launch. In June 2026, Checkout.com announced stablecoin acceptance powered by Coinbase Payments for eligible enterprise merchants. The announcement demonstrates another integration route; it does not establish how many shoppers will use the option.

For Coinbase, the potential opportunity is to supply infrastructure that other businesses embed into their payment services. For investors, the next questions concern economics: how much activity becomes recurring commerce, what revenue Coinbase retains, and how much servicing and compliance cost that activity requires.

Merchant availability alone cannot answer those questions. A payment option may be widely displayed yet rarely selected. Investors should distinguish distribution announcements from evidence of repeat spending and profitable usage. Coinbase also represents exposure to a wider crypto business, rather than a pure investment in checkout adoption.

Latest Coinbase (COIN) News and Developments

From First Payment to Repeat Adoption

The next useful advance in crypto payments may be making an unfamiliar system feel predictable through ordinary purchases. Clear approvals, reliable fulfillment, understandable refunds, and responsive support give customers evidence they can assess through experience.

A first payment tests whether someone is willing to try. A second payment tests whether the service earned their confidence. Companies that close that gap have a more credible path toward lasting adoption than those relying on transaction speed alone.

References:

¹ Geebren, A. (2026). Cryptocurrency and initial trust formation: An empirical investigation into the dynamics of willingness to use in financial transactions. Financial Innovation, 12, Article 164. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-026-00926-9