CasinoNews.io is currently in public beta with testing extended through Q1 2026. CasinoNews.io is currently in public beta with testing extended through Q1 2026.

DraftKings tests crypto-to-cash deposits as sportsbooks hunt new funding rails

Laptop screen showing crypto-to-USD conversion next to a DraftKings logo, with cash and coins on a desk

DraftKings is getting ready to add a new way to fund sportsbook accounts in the U.S., and it is arriving at a moment when payment rules are tightening, not loosening. The company plans to let customers convert cryptocurrency into U.S. dollars and then deposit those funds into their DraftKings wallet.

The hook is what it is not. This is not crypto wagering. Bets would still be placed in dollars, with the conversion happening before the money is treated as sportsbook funding. That design is meant to fit inside state rules that typically do not allow direct crypto deposits.

How the crypto-to-cash deposit will work in four states

DraftKings has said the rollout is expected “in the coming weeks” in Illinois, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The deposit flow converts digital assets into cash first, then loads a standard fiat balance into the wagering account.

That distinction matters for two reasons. It keeps the sportsbook balance in fiat, which limits volatility risk inside the betting wallet, and it gives regulators a clearer compliance perimeter around reporting and tax calculations that are built around gambling activity.

Why DraftKings is testing this now, and what could slow it down

The experiment follows DraftKings’ decision to stop accepting credit cards for deposits across its U.S. sportsbook and casino products in August 2025, a consumer-protection move the company tied to avoiding cash-advance fees and high-interest debt.

Even with crypto converted to cash before it hits the account, the core debate does not go away. Regulators have been wary of crypto because of KYC/AML, source-of-funds checks, and the way funds can move quickly across wallets and jurisdictions. The next questions are operational: which vendors sit in the middle, what transaction monitoring looks like, and whether state regulators treat this model as a workable compromise or something they want to contain early.

Share this article