One of the top credit card providers, MasterCard, has ended its ties with Binance and joined its main rival Visa in doing so.
This change reflects an increasing reluctance on the part of traditional banking institutions to work with Binance. The business is under intense regulatory scrutiny and is dealing with general concerns about financial compliance in the bitcoin sector.
Due to MasterCard’s decision, cards bearing the Binance brand will no longer be issued in Latin America and the Middle East. Customers could buy things with their cryptocurrency using these cards. This update was announced by Binance on Twitter.
According to a tweet from Binance Customer Support, “The product, like most debit cards, has been used by the company’s users to pay for basic daily expenses, but in this case, the cards are funded with crypto assets.”
Less than 1% of our consumers in the aforementioned markets are affected, which is a very small percentage of all users. Users of this product will have access to the card until September 21, 2023, after which it will no longer be usable.
Global Binance accounts are not impacted. Users can also transfer and receive cryptocurrency using Binance Pay, a contactless, global, and secure cryptocurrency payment system created by Binance, the business said.
However, Visa has also taken action to distance itself from Binance. throughout July 2023, the business will stop issuing new co-branded cards with Binance throughout Europe as part of a termination of their card agreement.
Regulatory agencies like the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are currently taking a strong stance against Binance.
According to 13 complaints filed by the SEC against Binance and its CEO, Changpeng Zhao, the company mixed billions of dollars in customer assets with its own, a practise similar to that which was said to have occurred at the now bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange FTX.
The SEC recently received a protective order request from Binance, which disputes the claims, claiming that the regulator’s information requests were “over broad” and “unduly burdensome.”