Consensys Software Inc. is splitting into two independent companies, separating its MetaMask consumer business from its protocols and institutional infrastructure operations. Under the plan announced on September 9, the existing company will become MetaMask, with Joe Lubin as chairman and CEO, while a newly created company will retain the Consensys name and take over the other operations under Mike Kriak as CEO and David Cunningham as president. The separation is expected to be completed by the end of 2026.
Consensys is restructuring to separate two businesses that have developed around different customers and revenue models. MetaMask has grown from its original wallet function into consumer financial services, while the other side of the business has focused on blockchain software and infrastructure. The company said the MetaMask platform has more than 100 million downloads across roughly 190 countries and has facilitated trillions of dollars in cumulative transaction volume.
Today, Consensys Software Inc. (CSI) is becoming two independent companies.
CSI will continue as the same company and rebrand as MetaMask, operating the MetaMask platform and its consumer-facing products, with Joe Lubin as Chairman and CEO.
CSI’s Protocols Group and…
— Consensys.eth (@Consensys) September 9, 2026
What this split means for MetaMask users
For users, the most important change may be what happens inside the wallet, not the corporate structure behind it. MetaMask is moving toward a model where users can perform more financial tasks without leaving the application. That matters because switching between wallets, exchanges, payment apps and investment platforms creates friction, particularly when each service has its own login, fees and transfer process.
The company is also entering a market where wallets are becoming more programmable. MetaMask has been developing agent-wallet infrastructure alongside services that allow automated systems to interact with blockchain accounts. Its own research shows that competitors including Coinbase, Cobo, OKX, Ledger and BitGo are also building products around automated wallets and transaction controls.
That gives MetaMask another possible source of user activity beyond people simply storing tokens. If users eventually allow software agents to trade, pay bills, move assets or execute other transactions, the wallet could become an operating layer for financial activity rather than just a place where private keys are stored.
The challenge is that users will judge the platform by reliability and cost, not the number of features it offers. Self-custody removes some dependence on banks and exchanges, but it also leaves users responsible for their own assets and transaction decisions.
Is MetaMask building a bank without becoming one?
MetaMask’s Money Account shows how close a self-custody wallet can get to traditional financial services without actually becoming a bank.
The account currently pays up to 4% APY on mUSD, with a temporary offer of roughly 6% running through September 30. There is no minimum balance, and users can access their funds without a lock-up period. The yield comes from on-chain infrastructure rather than a conventional bank deposit system, and MetaMask says the rate can change with market conditions.
That distinction creates a different risk model. A bank deposit can come with deposit insurance and a regulated banking structure. An on-chain account depends on the assets, smart contracts, liquidity arrangements and service providers supporting the product. MetaMask itself says the yield is not guaranteed.
The attraction is flexibility. A user can earn a return on a dollar-linked asset while keeping the balance available for other activities. That makes the product closer to a financial account than a conventional crypto wallet, but without copying the full structure of a bank.
The business question is whether consumers will accept that trade-off. If they do, wallets can take over parts of the financial relationship traditionally controlled by banks. If users still prefer insured deposits and familiar financial institutions for their savings, self-custody products may remain mainly useful for people already comfortable with crypto.
Who makes the money when finance moves on-chain?
MetaMask already generates income from transactions through its interface, rather than relying only on users holding assets. DefiLlama data shows MetaMask generated about $7.88 million in gross protocol revenue in the third quarter of 2026, with roughly $4.57 million coming from wallet service fees. The same data shows mUSD asset yields contributed about $135,000 during the quarter.
Those numbers point to a different business model from a traditional wallet. The real asset isn’t necessarily the cryptocurrency sitting in the account. It is the flow of transactions passing through the platform.
The opportunity grows as stablecoins take a larger share of on-chain activity. WalletConnect recorded $207.82 billion in network volume during the first half of 2026, with stablecoins accounting for $171.35 billion, or 82.5% of the total.
This matters because stablecoins create more frequent financial activity than simply buying and holding volatile tokens. They can be used for payments, transfers, trading and settlement, giving wallets more opportunities to earn from the activity surrounding those transactions.
The fight is therefore moving toward the customer interface. Blockchains provide the settlement layer, stablecoins provide the money, and applications compete to control the point where users actually interact with both. For MetaMask, that creates a potentially valuable position. Its revenue does not have to come from becoming a bank or owning the underlying financial assets. It can come from sitting between the user and a growing collection of on-chain financial services.
Users react to the Consensys split
Mike focused on the leadership and the opportunity ahead, saying he was “super proud” to be leading Consensys alongside Joe, David and Declan. He described the group as the right team to help move digital markets forward.
Declan focused on Consensys’ technical work across Ethereum. He pointed to infrastructure such as Besu, Teku and Linea, as well as the company’s work on Ethereum’s Layer 1 roadmap and zero-knowledge technology. He also highlighted its recent work helping regulated financial institutions use Ethereum, saying the new structure gives its product and engineering teams a more focused organisation.
Moha took a more market-focused view, describing the split as a smart move because consumer crypto and institutional blockchain are developing in different directions. He argued that giving each business its own focus could help both sides move faster while keeping their shared Ethereum roots.
Meanwhile, Dan Finlay, co-founder of MetaMask, has announced his departure from Consensys after nearly a decade of shaping one of crypto’s most widely used wallets. In a post shared on X on Thursday, Finlay revealed that burnout played a major role in his decision to step away. After years spent building and scaling MetaMask, he said he now plans to focus on spending time with his family.
Enjoyed this? Bookmark DeFi Planet, explore related topics, and follow us on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and CoinMarketCap Community for seamless access to high-quality industry insights
Take control of your crypto portfolio with DEFI PLANET PRO, DeFi Planet’s suite of analytics tools.
