RedotPay, a Hong Kong-based stablecoin payments firm and one of the largest crypto card providers, has delayed its planned U.S. initial public offering from this year to potentially 2027 or later, according to Bloomberg. The company cited the need to secure regulatory approvals and manage an active legal dispute with Binance as reasons for the postponement.
The delay follows a lawsuit Binance-affiliated entities filed on August 5, seeking roughly $473 million in damages. Binance alleges RedotPay breached a commercial agreement by diverting more than 470,000 users away from Binance Card to RedotPay's own payment cards using Binance Pay, a claim RedotPay has rejected, saying it would defend itself “vigorously.”
A Business Built on Card-Linked Stablecoin Spending
RedotPay has grown quickly by letting users spend stablecoins directly through Visa and Mastercard-branded cards, positioning itself at the intersection of crypto custody and everyday payments. The company currently processes an estimated $14 billion in annualized payment volume, generates roughly $180 million in annualized revenue, and serves more than 8 million users — a scale that had made its previously planned roughly $1 billion IPO one of the more closely watched listings in the crypto payments space.
The dispute traces back to Binance's decision to end Binance Pay support on the RedotPay platform starting April 3, 2026, a move that set up the conditions for the user-diversion claims Binance is now pursuing in court.
Related: JPMorgan Quietly Cut Ties With Polymarket Despite ICE's Billions
Why the Timing Matters
Pushing the IPO past 2026 means RedotPay will need to navigate an active $473 million legal claim while simultaneously building the audited financial and governance track record public markets typically expect from a first-time issuer. Litigation of this size against a company's own former distribution partner is unusual heading into a listing process, since prospective IPO investors generally price in unresolved legal exposure as a discount on valuation or a reason to wait for resolution altogether.
The case adds to a string of legal disputes among crypto payment and card providers this year as the sector matures and platforms compete more directly for the same card-linked spending customers, a dynamic that has increasingly spilled into contract disputes over shared distribution agreements rather than staying confined to product competition alone.
