Managing Risk in Crypto-funded Card Programs: Blockchain Intelligence for Sponsor Bank and Issuer Oversight

Key takeaways

• Regulatory accountability remains with the sponsor bank or card issuer in Banking-as-a-Service (BaaS) models — even when fintech partners execute frontline financial crime controls.
• Crypto-funded card programs introduce upstream risk that sits outside traditional bank monitoring systems, where funding originates on-chain before fiat conversion.
• Blockchain intelligence provides independent, real-time visibility into upstream crypto activity, extending oversight capabilities beyond fiat transaction monitoring.
• Continuous, program-level signals enable earlier detection of control weaknesses, allowing sponsor banks and issuers to intervene before exposure becomes material.
• For fintech partners, blockchain intelligence supports transparency and demonstrates control effectiveness, helping preserve sponsor bank relationships and regulatory confidence.

{{horizontal-line}}

Sponsor bank and card issuer relationships with fintech partners represent a core model within Banking-as-a-Service (BaaS). In these arrangements, a regulated institution provides the license, access to payment rails, and operational infrastructure required to issue cards and maintain accounts. The fintech partner designs the product, manages the customer experience, and typically operates frontline financial crime workflows — onboarding, Know Your Customer (KYC), transaction monitoring, and investigations. The sponsor bank or issuer provides white-labled services to the fintech’s end users. 

While the fintech executes frontline financial crime controls, the regulatory accountability sits with the sponsor bank or card issuers. Regulators and card networks assess compliance outcomes at the issuing institution level. Even where a fintech partner owns day-to-day control execution, the issuing institution is responsible for the effectiveness of those controls and the risk outcomes that follow. This allocation of responsibility shapes how sponsor banks and issuers structure third-party oversight across BaaS relationships.

Sponsor banks and issuers must demonstrate they can: 

• Assess the eligibility and risk profile of fintech partners
• Design and implement appropriate third-party oversight frameworks
• Demonstrate evidence oversight and control effectiveness to their regulators
• Respond effectively in scenarios where a partner fails to meet expectations or obligations

These principles apply across all BaaS programs. However, card programs that enable crypto funding introduce an additional risk dimension that traditional oversight models may not fully capture. With appropriate tooling, the transparency of public blockchains can strengthen — rather than weaken — sponsor bank and issuer oversight frameworks.

How oversight relationships work in practice

Most card programs operated by fintech partners are structured as outsourcing arrangements. Sponsor banks and issuers are typically at least one degree removed from the end customer. In some models, multiple intermediaries sit between the issuing institution and the user, adding further complexity to oversight.

The fintech partner controls activities like marketing, onboarding flows, customer support, and product design. It also executes the financial crime controls closest to the customer — including onboarding (KYC), customer and payment screening, and transaction monitoring.

Sponsor banks and issuers conduct oversight of their partners to ensure financial crime risks are managed in line with regulatory expectations. This model is comparable to the outsourcing of financial crime controls by local subsidiaries to group entities — a structure common across both traditional finance and crypto-native institutions.

The oversight framework typically involves:

• Partner due diligence at onboarding and at periodic intervals, 
• Contractual obligations for metric and risk reporting
• Audit rights and periodic control testing for design effectiveness
• Escalation and remediation mechanisms 

These components are deployed to ensure that the fintech partners and/or card programs are meeting the sponsor bank or issuer’s expectations. This oversight model reflects the reality that banks cannot delegate regulatory accountability.The risks of these outsourcing arrangements, be those “intra-group” or external, are apparent in the recent Coinbase enforcement action.

There are two limiting factors within these oversight models:

• Oversight evidence is often document-based (e.g., paper-based assurances)
• Oversight activities are conducted periodically, with review frequency determined by the partner’s risk profile

This oversight model is effective for assessing whether policies exist, whether procedures align with local regulatory requirements, and whether controls can be demonstrated through sample testing or on-site reviews. It is less effective at providing continuous assurance that a fintech partner’s real-world risk exposure aligns with its documented control framework — particularly when material risk indicators sit outside the sponsor bank’s internal monitoring environment.

Increased risk surface in crypto-funded programs

Crypto-funded card programs introduce an additional layer of complexity. In these models, customers fund accounts using crypto, make a crypto transfer from an external wallet to a newly opened account, and then convert into fiat for card spend or account usage. 

In this model, much of the initial risk context exists onchain. The provenance of funds, exposure to high-risk services, and interactions with illicit infrastructure occur before fiat conversion. Yet sponsor banks and issuers typically see only the fiat transaction leg processed through their systems.

On-chain flows may be conducted: 

• Under the license of a Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP) partnered with the fintech
• Under the fintech’s own license, while the sponsor bank processes the fiat activity

In both scenarios, without blockchain intelligence and monitoring, the sponsor bank or issuer relies only on the information the fintech provides combined with their own transaction monitoring data for the fiat leg of any flows they’re directly processing.  

This creates two structural challenges. First, effective oversight is dependent on the accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of partner-provided information. Second, interventions often occur late — after programs have scaled, after risk has accumulated, or after supervisory scrutiny has begun — resulting in exposure.

The result can be reactive and blunt remediation measures: volume caps, account growth restrictions, extensive remediation programs, or, in severe cases, termination of the relationship. These outcomes carry financial, operational, and reputational cost — and may not fully mitigate supervisory risk even after the partner relationship ends.

Blockchain intelligence for sponsor bank and issuer oversight

Blockchain intelligence allows sponsor banks and issuers to observe — and assess — upstream crypto activity funding card transactions. It does not replace existing controls or oversight processes. Rather, it extends visibility beyond the sponsor bank’s or issuer’s fiat perimeter. 

By incorporating blockchain intelligence into oversight programs, sponsor banks can:

• Monitor exposure to sanctioned entities, illicit services, and high-risk typologies before fiat conversion
• Compare observed on-chain exposure against partner narratives
• Identify concentrated or emerging risk patterns at the program level
• Document timely, data-driven engagement and remediation decisions

This shifts oversight from periodic validation reliant on partner narratives to independent, real-time behavior monitoring.

A practical example

Consider a scenario in which a fintech partner repeatedly receives crypto deposits associated with services linked to a sanctioned jurisdiction. Even before specific end-user investigations occur, this pattern may indicate weaknesses in geofencing, onboarding, or screening controls.

Blockchain intelligence provides an actionable signal, enabling the sponsor bank or issuer to:

• Engage the partner early
• Request targeted remediation
• Escalate where necessary
• Document a defensible oversight response

Moving from attestation to observable behavior

Traditional oversight relies heavily on attestations, documentation, and sample-based validation. Blockchain intelligence adds an independent layer of observable behavior that enables earlier risk detection and more precise intervention. 

For sponsor banks and issuers, this delivers:

• Earlier identification of concentrated exposure to sanctioned entities, illicit services, and high-risk typologies upstream of fiat conversion
• Independent validation of partner controls by comparing observed exposure to partner claims
• More effective and proportionate escalation and remediation discussions
• Stronger audit trails for oversight decisions, including why caps, restrictions, or termination were initiated

For crypto-funded card programs, the same transparency offers an opportunity. Programs that demonstrate measurable, controlled exposure to on-chain risk can demonstrate control effectiveness to sponsor banks and regulators. In crypto-enabled BaaS models, transparency is not a vulnerability. Properly leveraged, it is a control advantage.

{{horizontal-line}}

Frequently asked questions (FAQs)

1.What is a sponsor bank in a Banking-as-a-Service (BaaS) model?

A sponsor bank is a regulated financial institution that provides the license, access to payment rails, and operational infrastructure needed to issue cards and maintain accounts. While fintech partners design the customer experience and often operate frontline financial crime controls, regulatory accountability for compliance outcomes remains with the sponsor bank.

2. Why do crypto-funded card programs create risk for sponsor banks?

In crypto-funded card programs, customer funds originate in cryptocurrency before being converted to fiat for card spend. Much of the initial risk context — including the provenance of funds and potential exposure to sanctioned entities or illicit services — exists on-chain. Without blockchain intelligence, this activity may fall outside the sponsor bank’s existing monitoring environment.

3. Can sponsor banks delegate financial crime accountability to fintech partners?

No. Sponsor banks cannot delegate regulatory accountability, even if fintech partners manage onboarding, KYC, screening, and transaction monitoring. Regulators assess compliance outcomes at the issuing institution and fintech level. This shapes how oversight frameworks must be designed and evidenced.

4. How does blockchain intelligence improve sponsor bank oversight?

Blockchain intelligence provides independent visibility into upstream crypto activity funding card programs. It allows sponsor banks and issuers to:

• Detect exposure to sanctioned entities or illicit services before fiat conversion
• Validate whether partner controls function as described
• Identify emerging risk concentrations in real time
• Support earlier and more targeted remediation

5. How can fintech partners benefit from blockchain intelligence?

For fintech partners operating crypto-funded programs, blockchain intelligence:

• Demonstrates proactive risk management
• Supports transparency with sponsor banks
• Reduces the likelihood of blunt remediation measures (e.g. caps, restrictions, termination)
• Strengthens long-term program scalability

‍