U.S. Sports Bettors Want Crypto at the Cashier. Only Two States Allow It.

Dalius Mikalauskas, a crypto and sports betting expert who tracks operator payment stacks, sees a market sorting itself in real time. With 83% of U.S. sports bettors eager to fund accounts with cryptocurrency yet digital asset deposits legally permitted in only two states, the cashier has quietly become a competitive variable. Crypto deposit and withdrawal support is increasingly what separates top betting sites from the rest, Mikalauskas observes, because the operators that solve the cashier-and-compliance problem first are the ones bettors move toward. The demand is there. The infrastructure, in most of the country, is not.

“While crypto payments are only currently permitted in a relatively modest cohort of U.S. states, our latest research indicates that there’s strong player appetite for crypto at the cashier… across the broader market. As regulation evolves and as more iGaming markets embrace digital assets’ impressive value at the cashier, we’re confident that crypto will not just become an important payment method, but arguably pivotal to the industry’s transactional future.”

Those are the words of Zak Cutler, president of global gaming at Paysafe, whose firm’s report sits at the center of this story. But the data beneath that statement paints a structural picture worth examining state by state.

Two States Open, the Rest Locked Out

Colorado and Wyoming are the only U.S. states that explicitly permit digital asset deposits at online sportsbooks, according to Thefintechtimes, citing Paysafe’s report “All the Ways Players Pay: Crypto Edition.” The adoption numbers in those states suggest bettors act on that permission quickly. In Colorado, 59% of active bettors have already used crypto to fund a wager. In Wyoming, 45% have transacted with digital assets at the cashier.

Those figures become more striking when set against the demand festering in states where crypto funding remains unauthorized. New York leads the country in expressed appetite, with 92% of bettors there wanting the ability to make crypto deposits. Illinois and Florida follow at 88% each. New York, Florida, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are all among the large jurisdictions that have not authorized crypto funding, concentrating a significant volume of pent-up demand in some of the country’s most active sports betting markets.

The regulatory picture is not entirely static. Illinois and Virginia are beginning to use available regulatory latitude to grant operators discrete permissions for crypto-to-cash funding options, even where full statutory authorization does not yet exist. That incremental movement, rather than sweeping legislative change, may define the near-term path. For readers tracking how crypto is mapping the broader blockchain gambling market, the state-by-state fragmentation is consistent with a wider pattern of uneven iGaming infrastructure across jurisdictions.

Crypto Ranks Third Nationally, but Would Lead in Key States

Nationally, 45% of surveyed players list cryptocurrency as a top payment preference, placing it third behind digital wallets at 55% and debit cards at 50%. That standing is notable on its own. In high-value individual markets, the numbers shift further.

In New York, crypto would rank second overall if permitted, with 54% preference against 59% for digital wallets — meaning it would displace debit cards entirely. In Illinois, 52% of bettors favor crypto, compared to 58% selecting digital wallets. The pattern holds across markets where crypto ownership is highest and regulatory restrictions are tightest.

That concentration of demand is partly explained by the ownership base. Crypto ownership among active U.S. sports bettors sits at 64%, more than double the national average. These are not casual experimenters. They already hold digital assets, already understand the mechanics, and are waiting on operators and regulators to catch up. Sapio Research compiled the underlying data in March 2026 on behalf of Paysafe, surveying 2,550 active and high-intent online sports bettors of legal gambling age across nine regulated U.S. states.

Withdrawal Restrictions and the Cost of Friction

The deposit question is only half the gap. No U.S. state currently permits players to withdraw winnings directly in cryptocurrency, yet 85% of active bettors expressed a desire for crypto cash-outs. That restriction creates a one-way door that undercuts the experience even where deposits are permitted.

The operational stakes are direct. Seventy-one percent of bettors say transacting via digital assets significantly improves their overall betting experience. The same percentage would abandon a sportsbook if faced with a poor transactional experience. Those two figures together create a specific pressure point for operators. In New York, 80% of bettors say they would switch brands immediately over a friction-heavy cashier. In Florida and Illinois, that figure is 75%.

The selection criteria data adds further texture. Brand trust remains the leading factor in choosing a new sportsbook, cited by 36% of bettors. But seamless crypto withdrawals rank second among feature-specific priorities at 29%, followed by transaction flexibility at 28% and seamless crypto deposit capability at 26%. The cashier is not a secondary concern. For a material share of active bettors, it is close to the primary one.

Paysafe’s Position and the Report Behind the Numbers

Paysafe, listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker PSFE, handles an annualized transaction volume of $167 billion and employs roughly 2,800 professionals worldwide. The report behind these findings, “All the Ways Players Pay: Crypto Edition,” draws on the March 2026 Sapio Research survey of 2,550 bettors across nine regulated states.

Cutler’s framing positions the current moment as a threshold rather than a ceiling. Regulation is evolving, he argued, and the value proposition of digital assets at the cashier is strong enough that crypto will likely move from an emerging option to something central to how the industry processes transactions. The timeline for that shift remains open. The competitive pressure to get there first, for the operators who can clear the compliance hurdles, is already immediate.