Why Infini’s Christine Shut Down the U-Card — A Rational Exit From a Broken Model

The Shutdown That Made Sense

I’ll say it straight: Infini’s decision to shut down its U-card business wasn’t a surrender. It was an act of intellectual honesty. As someone who’s built risk models for crypto-native fintechs, I respect that Christine didn’t let ego or nostalgia override data.

The announcement hit like a quiet bomb: no fanfare, just clarity. And within hours, she dropped her rationale on X — not as PR spin, but as a post-mortem from a founder who finally saw the math.

Cost Structures That Burn Through Capital

Let me paint you a picture: every time someone topped up their U-card with USDT at Infini, three invisible costs hit the books — none of which were paid by the user.

First: KYT (Know Your Transaction). To avoid being labeled ‘money laundering facilitators,’ Infini had to run every transaction through Cobo’s risk engine. Not free. Per transaction.

Second: KYC (Know Your Customer). Sumsub charged per verification — even if they failed validation.

Third: Card infrastructure fees. Visa/Mastercard aren’t charity orgs; they charge monthly API fees and 1–1.5% for FX conversion on every purchase.

And here’s the kicker: Infini absorbed all these costs to keep prices low and experience smooth. No extra charges to users = zero margin.

The Myth of Profitability in Crypto Payments

Christine put it best: “We weren’t making money — we were burning cash.”

Most people think U-cards are like digital wallets with fancy branding. But operational complexity? It’s closer to running an exchange with ²⁴⁄₇ customer support and compliance teams on call.

Yet unlike exchanges that earn from trading fees and custody services, U-cards generate no sustainable revenue stream unless you jack up fees — which defeats their whole purpose.

This is where many startups fail: chasing idealism over economics.

Why Big Players Win Where Startups Fail

Coinbase and Bybit still push cards because they’re not trying to make money from them directly — they’re using them as retention tools. A card with BTC rewards keeps users on-platform longer than any newsletter ever could.

But Infini? They had no massive trading volume to back them up. No ecosystem leverage. Just pure card ops with zero income elasticity.

That imbalance was unsustainable long before regulators knocked at the door.

From Centralized Crutches to Decentralized Visionaries?

Here’s where things get interesting: The real reason for shutting down wasn’t just cost — it was alignment with core values.* Christine isn’t backing away from crypto payments; she’s pivoting toward what they should be: Paying with stablecoins directly—no bank bridge needed, nobody middleman, speed > 5 seconds, cost = gas fee only, censorship resistance baked in.

The “iPhone moment” for crypto payments isn’t when you swipe your card at Starbucks—it’s when you simply send USDC to pay your rent or coffee bill without converting anything first.*

The vision is clear: move beyond temporary fixes like legacy card rails and embrace true native solutions—something Infini now calls “crypto-first payment architecture.” The team is already prototyping these ideas under wraps.*

The shift from CeFi-locked gateways back toward decentralized rails isn’t just technical—it’s philosophical.* The mission remains unchanged: make crypto usable in real life, but without surrendering its principles.*

The fact that they chose transparency over silence after losing $1 million in theft last year? That kind of integrity is rare—and priceless.* They paid users back personally,*with company funds,*because reputation is everything in Web3.* It’s not just about surviving—it’s about building trust that lasts beyond trends,* and that mindset will eventually win out.