Technology Stack Required to Launch a Crypto-Friendly Neobank

Crypto-friendly neobanks are being built under a level of regulatory and technical scrutiny that traditional digital banks never faced. Licensing regimes, real-time oversight expectations, MiCA, and DORA have pushed technology architecture from an implementation detail to a licensing prerequisite. At the same time, crypto use cases cut across ledgers, blockchains, compliance systems, and customer channels in ways that established banking patterns do not cover.

This article provides a structured breakdown of the technology stack required to operate in this environment, highlighting where early decisions create irreversible constraints and where flexibility can still be preserved.

The technology stack of a crypto-friendly neobank has direct implications for licensing, regulatory oversight, and long-term scalability. As Sofian, CEO of NextPay, articulated, fundamental architectural choices influence both whether an institution can obtain a license and whether its setup can scale sustainably over time.

In Lithuania, for example, the specialized banking license requires applicants to pass technical due diligence before the application is even assessed. This includes demonstrating the ability to perform real-time reconciliation with segregated accounts. These requirements highlight how deeply regulatory outcomes are tied to early technology decisions.

The implications of crypto-related use cases extend across every layer of the stack, and there is no established precedent to follow:

Because of this complexity, early architectural mistakes are exceptionally costly. Core banking systems are not easily replaced; changing them typically takes years and introduces significant operational and regulatory risk. This reality underscores why technology stack decisions made at the outset are effectively irreversible and critical to the long-term viability of crypto-friendly neobanks.

The core banking and ledger layer forms the foundational infrastructure for a crypto-friendly neobank. It encompasses the systems responsible for transaction processing, balance management, regulatory segregation of funds, and integration with both traditional payment rails and blockchain-based networks. Decisions made at this layer directly influence scalability, compliance, and the ability to support complex interactions between fiat and crypto assets.

Core Banking System and Ledger Capabilities

A real-time ledger and high transaction throughput are the backbone of any crypto-friendly neobank. NextPay handles around 1 billion euros per month for crypto-related clients, which illustrates the transaction volumes other institutions in this category must be prepared to support.

Operating at this scale requires strict controls around segregation, safeguarding, and reconciliation, particularly when dealing with fiat-linked or cryptocurrency-linked balances. Regulatory requirements mandate that customer funds and operational funds remain separate, with clear and auditable traces at all times.

Handling linked balances across asset types means the ledger must be able to track positions simultaneously across:

This, in turn, requires specific capabilities to balance linked positions while maintaining real-time conversion rates across all supported currencies.

An API-first architecture is essential to support extensibility. Crypto-friendly neobanks cannot treat payment rails as static designs; instead, they must plan for a future in which they connect to multiple blockchains and payment exchanges, as regulatory developments continue to evolve on a regular basis.

Choosing a Core Banking System vs Building a Custom Core

Choosing between an off-the-shelf core banking system and building a custom core is a central architectural decision within the core banking and ledger layer. This choice affects time to market, operational flexibility, and long-term control over product capabilities.

Off-the-shelf core banking systems are suitable when time-to-market requirements are short and the expected business model conforms to traditional banking patterns. Using white-label banking-as-a-service providers can allow companies to enter the market quickly without holding a banking license.

However, this approach comes with significant trade-offs. These arrangements often involve astronomical revenue-sharing costs and, in some cases, limited or no control over product design and evolution.

Building a core system from scratch makes sense when the neobank’s value proposition justifies the development effort. This typically applies to:

These scenarios require careful trade-offs between time to market, flexibility, and control. As a result, the decision is rarely a simple binary choice between buying an off-the-shelf system and building everything in-house.

In practice, some neobanks adopt a middle path by building selected core components internally while integrating third-party solutions for non-strategic functions. This approach can accelerate time to market for areas such as AML compliance and identity management while preserving control over strategically critical capabilities.

The crypto and blockchain layer encompasses the infrastructure and operational capabilities required to connect traditional financial systems with blockchain-based networks. It includes mechanisms for fiat–crypto conversion, liquidity access, wallet connectivity, and the technical and regulatory frameworks that support secure crypto operations.

Crypto On-Ramps, Off-Ramps, and Liquidity Access

Fiat-to-crypto on-ramps and off-ramps depend on multiple touchpoints with traditional banking infrastructure to support cryptocurrency ecosystems such as exchanges and liquidity providers. Crypto companies operating in this space require reliable mechanisms that allow clients to deposit and withdraw funds seamlessly between fiat and digital assets.

Given the centrality of fiat–crypto conversion, integration with exchanges must be sufficiently robust to support multiple conversion pathways, including:

To mitigate risks arising from market volatility, neobanks implement controls such as transaction limits, velocity checks, and exposure limits. These controls are increasingly dynamic, with limit-setting systems that account for:

Blockchain Connectivity and Crypto Operations

Blockchain connectivity and crypto operations focus on how neobanks interface with blockchain networks, manage wallets, and monitor transactions while meeting security and regulatory requirements. A key architectural decision in this area is the choice between custodial and non-custodial integrations, each of which introduces distinct technical and compliance considerations.

Custodial integrations

Non-custodial integrations

This compliance, risk, and security layer must address enhanced AML and transaction monitoring for crypto-fiat activity, incorporate blockchain analytics and screening for wallet and counterparty risk, and meet elevated security and cyber resilience requirements driven by crypto asset custody and emerging regulatory standards.

AML, Transaction Monitoring, and Risk Controls

Fiat transaction monitoring will need to be more heavy duty than standard banking AML, particularly given the additional risks introduced by crypto-fiat activity. In addition to velocity and pattern checking, monitoring will need to detect behaviors that signal potential abuse, including:

Behavior monitoring and alert management will also need to cope with the potential volume of alerts crypto activity could generate without overwhelming the compliance team. NextPay stated that “AML is now a part of it” and that it is building a “strong compliance team, which is on the core of this effort,” enabling it to stay licensed.

Case handling, escalation, and audit trails will need to comply with banking regulators and future MiCA regulations. Each transaction flagged should have a documented decision history, including escalation for suspicious activity.

Blockchain Analytics and Screening

Blockchain analytics and screening focus on wallet risk and counterparty risk scoring through tools that assess blockchain activity and produce a risk score. These tools trace the flow of crypto that entered a wallet to determine whether it is linked to illicit activity such as darknet markets or ransomware.

Sanction exposure screening will happen in real time prior to any crypto activity and will check wallets against OFAC and other sanction lists. Linking these tools within the same flow as AML provides a one-stop-shop view of the customer, using the same case management tools as standard transaction monitoring rather than separate processes. This integration helps compliance teams view customers in a less siloed manner.

Security and Cyber Resilience

Security and cyber resilience requirements for crypto and fiat assets go well beyond standard banking requirements. Secure infrastructure and encryption are foundational, but DORA compliance, as Sofian said, requires “not just having a firewall anymore,” given that “the imagination of cyber threats is just massive.”

Hardware security modules, multi-signature schemes, and access control measures that eliminate single points of failure are essential for private keys associated with cryptocurrencies. Incident detection and response planning must also cover crypto-specific incidents. Smart contract hacks, blockchain reorganization events, and compromised exchanges are all risks unique to the crypto ecosystem and must be addressed explicitly.

The channels, APIs, and orchestration layer must collectively support both fiat and crypto operations while ensuring security, real-time data visibility, and consistency across interconnected systems.

Digital Banking Channels

A web or mobile banking channel interface for crypto customers will need to support both traditional banking functionality and crypto-native features. In practice, this means displaying not only standard banking accounts but also public balances sourced directly from crypto protocols.

Balance and transaction activity will need to be presented in near real time. This requirement is complicated by the fact that different crypto protocols have varying confirmation times, which may take minutes, while fiat-based ledgers are typically updated immediately.

Customer authentication and access across multiple channels must also account for the irreversible nature of crypto transactions. Errors can result in permanent asset loss, increasing the importance of robust security controls. As a result, enhanced security features will be required, including:

At the same time, the channel experience should avoid overwhelming users with security complexity. Features that allow customers to authenticate—or cryptographically sign—transactions in a secure but intuitive way will materially improve the overall customer experience.

APIs and Orchestration

APIs and orchestration must bind core banking systems and crypto services into a single, coherent operational layer. Internal APIs will tie core banking platforms to crypto operations, while the orchestration layer will consist of integrated API flows that coordinate activity across systems.

Data consistency across these components is critical. The following elements must remain synchronized regardless of which service or channel is used:

External APIs will extend the neobank ecosystem to third-party partners and service providers, including exchanges, blockchain infrastructure providers, and fiat on- and off-ramp services.

Given their central role, APIs must incorporate strong protections against misuse. This includes proper authentication, authorization controls, and rate limiting, particularly because APIs can be overloaded with requests.

Orchestration mechanisms must also guarantee data integrity and consistency across all successful workflows. Failure to do so can result in complex reconciliation challenges, especially in scenarios where the core banking platform experiences an issue but a customer’s crypto transaction executed successfully through the broader neobank ecosystem. Such inconsistencies can lead to regulatory scrutiny and operational risk.

Optional modules and accelerators extend a crypto-friendly neobank’s baseline capabilities, adding functionality that supports payments, operations, and faster growth without constraining future flexibility.

Payments, Cards, and Embedded Finance

Card issuing and acquiring integrations are must-haves even for crypto-only neobanks, as customers increasingly expect both conventional payment methods and crypto capabilities. Sofian described building card issuing capabilities as a process that requires significant institutional access and technical integration, including memberships with Visa and MasterCard as well as integration with issuers and gateways.

For crypto-native neobanks serving a global customer base, local and international payment rails expand use cases and functionality. These typically include:

Embedded finance and partner integrations further create open banking–as-a-service opportunities for crypto-friendly neobanks. By exposing their infrastructure to other fintechs, these institutions can monetize existing capabilities beyond their direct customer base.

Operational and Growth Accelerators

Operational and growth accelerators focus on reducing time to market while preserving long-term flexibility. The ability to white label components enables rapid deployment, provided the decision is made with sufficient foresight to retain future optionality.

NextPay’s approach illustrates this balance. The company relies on third party vendors for selected functions, including parts of core banking, AML tools, and ID verification, while deliberately retaining inhouse capability for other areas. This selective outsourcing supports faster deployment without fully surrendering operational control.

Additional accelerators include:

Common technology mistakes in crypto-friendly neobanks often stem from fragmented architectures, poor integration planning, and underestimated compliance complexity. Disparate systems without orchestration capabilities create reconciliation and regulatory blind spots that regulators frequently call out in audits of neobanks.

When core banking platforms, crypto wallets, and transaction monitoring systems do not share data in real time, several issues arise:

Another recurring mistake is failing to avoid vendor lock-in. Technology partners that restrict licensing flexibility or limit scalability can directly constrain growth. This risk is amplified when partners are not supportive of MiCA licensing requirements or lack SOC 2 compliance, as these shortcomings affect the viability of the entire business.

Finally, many neobanks underestimate the complexity of integration and regulatory compliance. This often results in exceeded budgets and delayed timelines. As Sofian estimated, the EMI licensing journey alone typically requires €800,000 to €1 million, including capital, with the expectation of being “ready to sponsor the business more.” Depending on the operating model and jurisdictional complexity, this process can take anywhere from six months to two years.