An era has quietly come to an end.

Wallets, as standalone products, seem to have reached their twilight. Struggling with profitability, they are increasingly being acquired or integrated by centralized exchanges (CEXs) or traditional fintech giants, becoming mere components of larger ecosystems—such as stablecoin payments—rather than the focal point of industry development.

For entrepreneurs in the space, persistence has become a virtue in itself. The goal? Survive long enough to be acquired by Stripe or strike a partnership with MoonPay. Before that, the mantra is simple: do whatever it takes to stay afloat.

The fusion of wallets and decentralized exchanges (DEXs) is exemplified by Hyperliquid and Phantom’s strategic alignment. Meanwhile, CEXs like Kraken have followed Coinbase’s lead in launching wallet products, while offshore exchanges OKX and Binance engage in a fierce rivalry in the wallet space. Even Uniswap and 1inch have rolled out their own standalone wallet apps.

The trend is clear: crypto wallets, once hailed as revolutionary products with innovations like Account Abstraction (AA) and Multi-Party Computation (MPC), have now been reduced to a mandatory product line for major players—akin to enterprise SaaS tools like Feishu, DingTalk, and WeCom. They are no longer profit centers but necessary infrastructure.

Take Particle Network, for instance. Originally a wallet service provider for GameFi, it operated on a pay-per-usage model and struggled to issue its own token. Only by pivoting to a meme-trading tool, UniversalX, did it finally achieve tokenization.

Pure wallet products like MetaMask are struggling—not necessarily due to declining revenue or daily active users (DAU), but because they’ve lost the market’s imagination and attention. Much like OpenSea, they’re entering the twilight of their lifecycle.

This decline has even dragged down projects like Linea, an Ethereum Layer 2 (L2) solution that arrived too late, missing the L2 boom entirely. Once positioned as a potential rival to Base, it has now faded into obscurity.

In contrast, Stripe’s acquisition of Privy—a wallet-as-a-service (SaaS) provider—signals a shift toward stablecoin integration. While other fintech firms aim to become the "Stripe of Web3" with USDT + API solutions, Stripe is focused on deeper stablecoin adoption.

Stripe’s evolution can be summarized in three phases:

1. Stripe 1.0: API

2. Stripe 2.0: Stablecoin + API

3. Stripe 3.0: Stablecoin + Wallet + API

Most competitors are still stuck at 2.0. To truly onboard enterprises into stablecoin payments, simply offering API-based fiat conversions isn’t enough. Businesses must natively manage and use stablecoins—a vision Stripe is aggressively pursuing.

Before the stablecoin wave, wallets thrived as tools for on-chain speculation. The first Dogecoin meme surge, fueled by Elon Musk, propelled wallets like BitKeep, while MetaMask aligned with Ethereum’s on-chain ideals.

In the era when Vitalik Buterin was still revered as "V God," every EIP/ERC update revolved around improving gas efficiency, wallet usability, and transaction flow. Innovations like AA wallets, MPC wallets, ZK-Rollups, and Optimistic Rollups were the darlings of the industry.

But the era of Doge memes and "degen trading" has passed. With the resurgence of meme coins on Solana, MetaMask has struggled to keep up. On-chain trading tools, rather than traditional DEXs, now dominate, leaving wallets with built-in DEX features in an awkward position.

Wallets have also ventured into asset management, but missteps like Fireblocks’ issues with Bybit highlight the challenges. Increasingly, wallet developers see acquisition by CEXs as their only viable exit.

Reluctantly, CEXs have come to accept that wallets are the future—but wallets themselves can’t articulate a profitable business model.

Bitget’s acquisition and rebranding of BitKeep into Bitget Wallet exemplifies this shift. Unlike Binance’s dual-brand approach (Trust Wallet + Binance Wallet), Bitget maintains independent operations while issuing its own token, BGB. Similarly, OKX Wallet operates as a non-revenue-generating "mother product"—a strategic hedge rather than a core business.

In 2024, OKX poured resources into wallet development, not out of ideological commitment to decentralization but because wallets offer more flexibility than compliance or IPO preparations.

By 2025, Binance cracked the code on wallet-CEX synergy:

• Using liquidity as bait to attract projects.

• Locking in retail users with points and incentives.

• Redistributing exchange liquidity through retail participation.

In an era of declining CEX trading volumes, this strategy—simple yet effective—has proven to be the best solution for low-liquidity conditions.

The distinction between wallets and trading platforms is fading. CEXs no longer see wallets as growth drivers but as contingency plans—a last-resort option, much like exchange-owned blockchains and L2 solutions, most of which will eventually be scrapped.

Meanwhile, CEXs are shifting focus to Perpetual DEXs (Perp DEXs). Projects like Aster (backed by YZi Labs) and Byreal (developed by ByBit on Solana) highlight this pivot. The reason? Hyperliquid (HL), a fully on-chain perpetual exchange, has become the source of anxiety for all CEXs.

Key trends driving this shift:

• Diversified assets: Integration of high-quality U.S. equities into crypto trading.

• Market-driven DEXs: CEXs are becoming more bureaucratic, making new product development more reliable than improvements.

• New user demographics: Despite the stablecoin wave, most new users still enter crypto via exchanges.

Wallets, one of crypto’s earliest product categories, emerged alongside Bitcoin mining hardware, embodying the decentralized ethos of the early days—when Mt. Gox was seen as a temporary intermediary rather than a permanent fixture.

Yet, against all expectations, CEXs have become the industry’s dominant infrastructure, swallowing up idealists like Sauron’s Eye. Only with the rise of Hyperliquid has a truly on-chain alternative emerged.

Now, wallets have been sacrificed. Beyond Bitcoin holders who still rely on them, hardware wallets, wallet apps, and wallet service providers are no longer central to the industry’s evolution.

An era has quietly ended.

This article reflects the shifting dynamics of the crypto industry, where centralized exchanges have eclipsed wallets as the primary gateway for users. The future may lie in hybrid models, but for now, wallets are no longer the heroes of the narrative.

An era has quietly come to an end.

Wallets, as standalone products, seem to have reached their twilight. Struggling with profitability, they are increasingly being acquired or integrated by centralized exchanges (CEXs) or traditional fintech giants, becoming mere components of larger ecosystems—such as stablecoin payments—rather than the focal point of industry development.

For entrepreneurs in the space, persistence has become a virtue in itself. The goal? Survive long enough to be acquired by Stripe or strike a partnership with MoonPay. Before that, the mantra is simple: do whatever it takes to stay afloat.

The fusion of wallets and decentralized exchanges (DEXs) is exemplified by Hyperliquid and Phantom’s strategic alignment. Meanwhile, CEXs like Kraken have followed Coinbase’s lead in launching wallet products, while offshore exchanges OKX and Binance engage in a fierce rivalry in the wallet space. Even Uniswap and 1inch have rolled out their own standalone wallet apps.

The trend is clear: crypto wallets, once hailed as revolutionary products with innovations like Account Abstraction (AA) and Multi-Party Computation (MPC), have now been reduced to a mandatory product line for major players—akin to enterprise SaaS tools like Feishu, DingTalk, and WeCom. They are no longer profit centers but necessary infrastructure.

Take Particle Network, for instance. Originally a wallet service provider for GameFi, it operated on a pay-per-usage model and struggled to issue its own token. Only by pivoting to a meme-trading tool, UniversalX, did it finally achieve tokenization.

Pure wallet products like MetaMask are struggling—not necessarily due to declining revenue or daily active users (DAU), but because they’ve lost the market’s imagination and attention. Much like OpenSea, they’re entering the twilight of their lifecycle.

This decline has even dragged down projects like Linea, an Ethereum Layer 2 (L2) solution that arrived too late, missing the L2 boom entirely. Once positioned as a potential rival to Base, it has now faded into obscurity.

In contrast, Stripe’s acquisition of Privy—a wallet-as-a-service (SaaS) provider—signals a shift toward stablecoin integration. While other fintech firms aim to become the "Stripe of Web3" with USDT + API solutions, Stripe is focused on deeper stablecoin adoption.

Stripe’s evolution can be summarized in three phases:

1. Stripe 1.0: API

2. Stripe 2.0: Stablecoin + API

3. Stripe 3.0: Stablecoin + Wallet + API

Most competitors are still stuck at 2.0. To truly onboard enterprises into stablecoin payments, simply offering API-based fiat conversions isn’t enough. Businesses must natively manage and use stablecoins—a vision Stripe is aggressively pursuing.

Before the stablecoin wave, wallets thrived as tools for on-chain speculation. The first Dogecoin meme surge, fueled by Elon Musk, propelled wallets like BitKeep, while MetaMask aligned with Ethereum’s on-chain ideals.

In the era when Vitalik Buterin was still revered as "V God," every EIP/ERC update revolved around improving gas efficiency, wallet usability, and transaction flow. Innovations like AA wallets, MPC wallets, ZK-Rollups, and Optimistic Rollups were the darlings of the industry.

But the era of Doge memes and "degen trading" has passed. With the resurgence of meme coins on Solana, MetaMask has struggled to keep up. On-chain trading tools, rather than traditional DEXs, now dominate, leaving wallets with built-in DEX features in an awkward position.

Wallets have also ventured into asset management, but missteps like Fireblocks’ issues with Bybit highlight the challenges. Increasingly, wallet developers see acquisition by CEXs as their only viable exit.

Reluctantly, CEXs have come to accept that wallets are the future—but wallets themselves can’t articulate a profitable business model.

Bitget’s acquisition and rebranding of BitKeep into Bitget Wallet exemplifies this shift. Unlike Binance’s dual-brand approach (Trust Wallet + Binance Wallet), Bitget maintains independent operations while issuing its own token, BGB. Similarly, OKX Wallet operates as a non-revenue-generating "mother product"—a strategic hedge rather than a core business.

In 2024, OKX poured resources into wallet development, not out of ideological commitment to decentralization but because wallets offer more flexibility than compliance or IPO preparations.

By 2025, Binance cracked the code on wallet-CEX synergy:

• Using liquidity as bait to attract projects.

• Locking in retail users with points and incentives.

• Redistributing exchange liquidity through retail participation.

In an era of declining CEX trading volumes, this strategy—simple yet effective—has proven to be the best solution for low-liquidity conditions.

The distinction between wallets and trading platforms is fading. CEXs no longer see wallets as growth drivers but as contingency plans—a last-resort option, much like exchange-owned blockchains and L2 solutions, most of which will eventually be scrapped.

Meanwhile, CEXs are shifting focus to Perpetual DEXs (Perp DEXs). Projects like Aster (backed by YZi Labs) and Byreal (developed by ByBit on Solana) highlight this pivot. The reason? Hyperliquid (HL), a fully on-chain perpetual exchange, has become the source of anxiety for all CEXs.

Key trends driving this shift:

• Diversified assets: Integration of high-quality U.S. equities into crypto trading.

• Market-driven DEXs: CEXs are becoming more bureaucratic, making new product development more reliable than improvements.

• New user demographics: Despite the stablecoin wave, most new users still enter crypto via exchanges.

Wallets, one of crypto’s earliest product categories, emerged alongside Bitcoin mining hardware, embodying the decentralized ethos of the early days—when Mt. Gox was seen as a temporary intermediary rather than a permanent fixture.

Yet, against all expectations, CEXs have become the industry’s dominant infrastructure, swallowing up idealists like Sauron’s Eye. Only with the rise of Hyperliquid has a truly on-chain alternative emerged.

Now, wallets have been sacrificed. Beyond Bitcoin holders who still rely on them, hardware wallets, wallet apps, and wallet service providers are no longer central to the industry’s evolution.

An era has quietly ended.

This article reflects the shifting dynamics of the crypto industry, where centralized exchanges have eclipsed wallets as the primary gateway for users. The future may lie in hybrid models, but for now, wallets are no longer the heroes of the narrative.