Alvin Kan, COO of Bitget Wallet – Interview Series

Alvin Kan, Chief Operating Officer of Bitget Wallet, is an experienced technology and Web3 executive with a background spanning blockchain ecosystem development, data analytics, business development, and global operations. He joined Bitget Wallet as COO in November 2023, following two years at Binance, where he served as Head of Ecosystem Growth for BNB Chain. Prior to entering the blockchain industry, Kan spent nearly nine years at LinkedIn, progressing through roles in account management and analytics before becoming Head of Insights for APAC Talent Solutions, where he led the regional insights team and helped co-develop the patented LinkedIn Recruiter Index used by clients globally. He is also a member of the Forbes Business Council.

Bitget Wallet is a self-custodial crypto wallet and everyday finance platform designed to make digital assets practical for saving, sending, spending, earning, and investing. Originally launched as BitKeep in 2018, the platform was rebranded as Bitget Wallet in 2023 after Bitget invested $30 million and acquired a controlling stake. Today, Bitget Wallet says it serves more than 100 million users and supports more than 130 blockchains, combining multi-chain asset management and trading with stablecoin payments, crypto cards operating across Visa and Mastercard networks, QR payments, bank transfers, local fiat on- and off-ramps, earning products, decentralized application access, and exposure to more than one million crypto and tokenized real-world assets. The wallet remains self-custodial, meaning users retain control of their assets and private keys, while its broader strategy is increasingly focused on positioning blockchain infrastructure as an accessible alternative for everyday global financial activity.

Your career has taken you from nearly nine years at LinkedIn, including leading insights across APAC, to ecosystem growth at BNB Chain and now COO of Bitget Wallet. What convinced you that crypto wallets could evolve beyond trading tools into everyday financial products, and how have your experiences in data, growth, and traditional technology shaped your approach?

I became convinced gradually by watching how user behavior changed. Trading may bring someone into crypto, but holding value, receiving income, sending money and paying for daily expenses are the activities that bring them back regularly. Once stablecoins became sufficiently liquid and could connect with cards, QR codes and bank transfers, the wallet had a much broader role to play.

My years at LinkedIn taught me to look beyond headline growth. APAC contains markets with very different income levels, regulations and digital habits, so a global user number only tells you so much. Frequency, retention and the reason people return to a product are usually more revealing.

At BNB Chain, I saw the other side of the equation: how open infrastructure grows through an ecosystem. A wallet cannot build every blockchain, liquidity source or payment network itself. Its role is to connect those systems and make them usable from one place.

We apply both lessons at Bitget Wallet. We study what people are actually trying to do, then design around that outcome. Someone who wants to pay a merchant should not have to think about bridging, gas tokens or settlement routes. The product should handle that complexity.

If a user can receive income in stablecoins, keep a dollar-denominated balance, send money to family and pay for dinner from the same app, the wallet has already moved well beyond its original role as a trading tool.

Bitget Wallet now serves more than 100 million users. What changes operationally when a crypto wallet reaches that scale, particularly around security, customer support, infrastructure reliability, compliance, and risk management?

Scale changes the consequences of every operational decision. A failure that affects 0.1% of users is no longer an edge case. It can affect tens of thousands of people across different languages, networks and regulatory environments.

Security has to work in layers. That includes hardware-backed key protection, independent audits, real-time risk monitoring and detection around suspicious contracts and approvals. The threat model also evolves. Many attacks now target users through impersonation, phishing and misleading transaction requests, so protecting the interface is as important as securing the underlying code.

Reliability becomes more complex because a global wallet depends on many external components: blockchains, RPC providers, liquidity venues, stablecoin issuers, card programs, banking partners and local payment rails. These systems have different operating hours and failure modes. We need monitoring, redundancy and clear fallback processes across the full transaction journey.

Customer support is also part of risk detection. Several similar reports from one market may point to a new scam campaign, a payment-route disruption or a broader network issue. The ability to identify those patterns quickly becomes essential.

Compliance has to reflect the service and the market. Self-custody, card access, fiat conversion and other financial products can each trigger different requirements. We therefore combine market-specific controls with ongoing assessment of issuer, liquidity, blockchain, counterparty and operational risks.

Our $300 million protection fund provides an additional safeguard for qualifying losses caused by platform-originating incidents. Its role is specific, so it sits alongside preventive security and clear user education rather than replacing them.

You have spoken about wallets earning the same everyday trust traditionally associated with bank accounts. What does a crypto wallet need to provide before consumers are genuinely comfortable treating it as their primary financial interface?

The experience has to become predictable. Users need an accurate balance, a clear total cost, a realistic settlement time and an understandable explanation of what they are approving. Increasingly, what people actually want is an onchain financial account — a stable, spendable balance they can trust regardless of what is happening to their local currency.

That sounds basic, but a wallet may be coordinating a blockchain transaction, asset conversion and local payment rail in the background. The user should still see one coherent transaction. If something is delayed, the status and next step should be clear.

Access matters as much as the interface. A digital balance has limited everyday value if the user cannot spend it locally, send it to a bank account or convert it at a reasonable cost. Cards, QR payments, transfers and reliable on- and off-ramps connect the wallet to the financial life people already have.

Self-custody also requires a clear support and recovery path. Users need to understand which actions can be recovered, which are final and what protection applies in different situations. If a rent payment fails late at night, the user is not thinking about which network processed it. They want to know where the money is and what they should do next.

Stablecoins are increasingly becoming a bridge between crypto infrastructure and everyday payments. How important are they to Bitget Wallet’s strategy, and do you expect stablecoins to become a mainstream alternative to traditional bank deposits for payments and savings?

Stablecoins are central to our payments strategy because they give users and merchants a familiar unit of account. A dollar-denominated balance is easier to understand and use for everyday transactions than an asset whose value may move significantly during the day. In practice, this is what lets us offer something close to a dollar account to users who may never have had reliable access to one.

Our Onchain Payments Matrix has processed more than $177 billion in cumulative stablecoin volume. It connects onchain liquidity with stablecoin issuers, cards, QR networks, bank transfers and local fiat channels. The user chooses a familiar payment method while stablecoins provide the settlement liquidity behind it.

For payments and cross-border transfers, I expect stablecoins to become increasingly mainstream. They can move globally, operate continuously and reduce the number of intermediaries involved in many transactions.

We are also seeing savings behavior. In Latin America and South Asia, some users convert local currency into stablecoins and keep the balance rather than immediately spending it. For someone who has limited access to a dollar account or lives with persistent currency volatility, that can be useful.

The comparison with bank deposits still requires care. Stablecoins carry issuer, reserve, redemption and jurisdictional risks. They do not automatically include deposit insurance or the full set of protections attached to a regulated bank account.

In some markets, stablecoins may become an important savings instrument. Elsewhere, they are more likely to sit alongside bank deposits as a liquid tool for international payments, digital commerce and access to dollar-denominated value.

Bitget Wallet has issued more than 150,000 cards across 50 markets, while card spending reportedly grew 191% during the first half of 2026. What are you learning from how people use these cards, and which behaviors suggest crypto is moving from investment activity toward routine spending?

The clearest signal is frequency. Globally, our card users now average 10 payments per month, with an average transaction size of $28. Among active cardholders in the United States, Europe and Asia, usage rises to between 10 and 14 times a month. That is close to the frequency associated with everyday debit card use.

Emerging markets are moving even faster, with card spending growing 416% over the same period. We have also reached a point where daily payment users outnumber traders on the platform.

A $28 transaction is very different from a large, occasional conversion out of crypto. It is consistent with the size of ordinary consumer purchases. When the same user returns several times during the month, payment is becoming a habit.

Cards work because they allow stablecoin balances to reach merchant infrastructure that already exists. A user can fund the card from digital assets, tap it at a familiar checkout and continue with their day. The merchant does not need to understand crypto or change its payment system.

This behavior also changes our product priorities. Payment users care about approval rates, conversion speed, transparent costs and whether the card works consistently across the places they visit. Those operational details matter more to them than what the market is doing that day.

If wallets increasingly capture small, frequent transactions traditionally handled by banks and card networks, where do you see the greatest competitive impact on banks, card issuers, and fintech companies?

Cross-border payments and foreign exchange will feel the earliest pressure. Consumers still encounter high costs, delays and limited operating hours when money moves between countries. A wallet can hold value in stablecoins and route it into a card, QR payment or local bank transfer without requiring the user to manage several financial accounts.

The customer relationship may also change. If people receive funds, keep a balance, invest and pay through a wallet, that is where they will make more of their financial decisions. Banks can continue supplying regulated accounts, settlement and liquidity, even if the consumer interacts with them less directly.

Card networks have a more mixed position. QR and account-to-account payments may compete with cards in some transactions, but Visa and Mastercard also give stablecoin-funded wallets access to existing global merchant acceptance. Our own card programs show that these networks can be important distribution partners for onchain money.

Fintech companies will face pressure to provide the same geographic reach and asset flexibility. A strong domestic product may still require separate services when the user travels, receives international income or wants to hold another currency.

The central competitive question is who can route value most efficiently while maintaining the user’s trust. The underlying transaction may involve several providers, even when the consumer experiences it as one payment.

The regulatory environment for wallets, stablecoins, and digital assets differs significantly across the United States, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. How do those differences influence what products you can offer and how quickly the wallet model can scale in each market?

In the United States, the GENIUS Act has provided a federal framework for payment stablecoin issuers, including requirements around reserves, redemption and anti-money-laundering controls. That gives payment companies greater certainty about the assets moving through the system. Wallet, custody and money-transmission requirements still depend on the function being offered and can involve both federal and state rules.

Europe provides a more harmonized framework through MiCA. The ability to operate within a clearer regional structure supports scale, although the organizational, governance, disclosure and operational requirements are detailed. Companies need to design products and compliance processes together from the outset.

Asia-Pacific has to be approached market by market. Singapore regulates digital payment token activities through its payments framework, while Hong Kong has established a licensing regime for fiat-referenced stablecoin issuers. Other jurisdictions apply different rules to fiat conversion, card issuance, marketing and access to domestic payment networks.

Local infrastructure matters alongside regulation. Connecting to a national QR network or banking system generally requires local partners and operational knowledge, even where the onchain portion of the product is globally available.

For Bitget Wallet, this leads to a modular structure. The self-custodial wallet remains at the core, while payment and fiat services are enabled through the appropriate licensed entities and partners in each market. The pace of expansion depends on both regulatory permission and the availability of reliable local rails.

Greater user control can also mean greater responsibility. How do you balance making crypto simple enough for mainstream consumers with protecting users from custody mistakes, scams, fraud, and irreversible transactions?

The wallet should intervene before the user signs something dangerous. It can identify suspicious contracts, unusual approvals, known scam addresses and transaction requests that do not match what appears on the screen. The warning needs to explain the actual risk in plain language.

The amount of friction should reflect the transaction. Paying a known recipient should be quick. Giving a newly deployed contract unlimited permission to move tokens should require a much more deliberate confirmation.

Key management is another part of the experience. Hardware-backed protection and clear recovery options can reduce the chance of loss, but users still need an honest explanation of self-custody. Some transactions are final, and some lost credentials cannot be restored in the same way as a forgotten banking password.

Our protection fund applies to qualifying losses connected to platform-originating incidents. It does not function as universal reimbursement for scams, lost recovery credentials or every transaction authorized by a user. Clear boundaries help users make better decisions about how they store and use their assets.

Over time, spending limits, approval settings and trusted-recipient controls can make self-custody more manageable. A routine payment can remain simple while a high-risk action receives the additional attention it deserves.

Vietnam has reportedly seen QR payment volume through Bitget Wallet increase fourfold in six months. Do you expect emerging markets to adopt wallet-based financial infrastructure faster than developed economies with established banking systems, and what factors are driving that difference?

The lead will vary by use case. For everyday payments, dollar access and cross-border transfers, many emerging markets are already moving faster because the improvement over existing options is easier to see.

In Vietnam, cumulative QR payment volume through Bitget Wallet increased fourfold in six months. Average monthly spending per user also rose for six consecutive months. Across our network, nearly half of new payment users during that period entered through QR payments in emerging markets.

Nigeria shows a similar pattern through a different rail. Bank-transfer spending increased by more than 80% in six months, while the number of payments rose by more than 60%. That suggests users are returning to the product for repeated transactions.

These markets often combine strong mobile-payment habits with a practical need for stable-value assets or easier cross-border movement. The product fits into behavior that already exists. Vietnamese users are accustomed to scanning QR codes, while Nigerian users regularly transfer money to bank accounts. The wallet does not ask them to adopt an unfamiliar checkout process.

Developed markets have reliable banking and card systems, so adoption may initially concentrate around travel, international commerce, digital-asset spending and investment access. The relative benefit is different.

If crypto wallets eventually provide payments, savings, investing, cards, lending, and cross-border transfers through one interface, where does a wallet end and a bank begin? What operational, regulatory, or economic limitations could prevent wallets from fully replacing traditional bank accounts?

A bank is ultimately a regulated balance sheet and a set of legal obligations. Banks accept deposits, extend credit, manage liquidity and maturity risk, and operate within frameworks that may include capital requirements, supervision and deposit insurance.

A self-custodial wallet has a different role. It allows users to control their assets and access payment rails, stablecoin issuers, investment products, lending protocols and regulated financial partners. Those services may appear in one application, but the obligations behind them remain distributed across several providers.

Assetback is a recent example of how these functions can come together. Where available, eligible Bitget Wallet Card users can direct cashback into Bitcoin, tokenized gold or tokenized stocks and ETFs. The user sees a connection between routine spending and asset accumulation. Behind that experience, payment processing, asset issuance, settlement and regulatory responsibilities still involve different systems and entities.

There are also functions that a wallet does not inherently provide. These include insured deposits, unsecured consumer credit, central-bank liquidity and universal dispute resolution. Blockchain transactions may be final, while consumers are accustomed to chargebacks and institutional account recovery. Wallets also depend on stablecoin issuers, blockchains, liquidity providers and local payment partners.

Regulation will determine how closely these services can be combined. Once a provider begins holding customer funds, promising returns or intermediating credit, it may assume responsibilities associated with a regulated financial institution.

I expect many users to experience the account as their dollar account — the place they keep value, get paid and spend day to day — even while banks, stablecoin issuers, card networks and investment providers continue operating underneath. The boundary may become less visible in the app, but it will remain important operationally, economically and legally.

Thank you for the great interview. Readers who are interested in learning more about the different wallet options that are available should visit Bitget Wallet.