X, formerly Twitter, is trying to become a bank. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, is set to begin early-access rollout of “X Money,” which integrates payment, savings, and remittance functions into the social media platform X.
According to a Bloomberg report on the 26th local time, X Money is currently being piloted with some beta users. Its key features include 6% annual interest on balances, 3% cash back on payments, issuance of a Visa debit card, and fee-free peer-to-peer (P2P) transfers.
Its operator, X Payments, has obtained money transmitter licenses in about 44 of the 50 U.S. states.
Working with global payments network Visa, it will support instant transfers through “Visa Direct.” Creator payouts for advertising revenue are also expected to be moved from Stripe to X Money.
The essence of this launch is not simply the arrival of another payments app. It is an attempt to rewrite the revenue model of U.S. big tech by “layering finance on top of social media.”
Since founding X.com, the predecessor to PayPal, in 1999, Musk has envisioned an “internet where money stays.” Twenty-five years later, he is drawing the same picture again on the platform that bears the same name. The difference lies in the foundation. Back then, there was only payments; now, there is a user base approaching 600 million monthly active users and the artificial intelligence service Grok layered on top.
The key question is why social media and finance should be combined. The answer lies in the convergence of three resources: data, relationships, and time spent on the platform. Banks do not know whom people talk to or what they react to.
Social media does. Conversely, social media does not know where people spend their money. The moment those two sets of data meet inside one app, it becomes possible to expand into advertising, credit scoring, and personalized financial products.
Another pillar is a move away from dependence on advertising. According to Bloomberg, X’s advertising revenue, which was $4.4 billion before Musk’s takeover, fell to $2.6 billion in 2024 amid advertiser departures and is said to have recovered about 18% last year.
A structure that relies on a single revenue source for more than 70% of sales exposes vulnerability to a single politically charged statement by its owner. Unlike advertising, payments and savings are less sensitive revenue sources when it comes to a company’s political image.
That is why Musk reportedly told employees that he would make it possible for users to live their daily lives inside the X app if they wanted to.
The model is WeChat. Starting as a messenger and absorbing payments, transfers, reservations, shopping, and mini-programs, WeChat built a structure in which more than 70% of Tencent’s revenue comes not from advertising but from value-added services. It is no longer a secret that the destination Musk seeks is the same.
Industry assessments are divided. Wedbush Securities analyst Scott Devitt said, “What Musk is focusing on is highly likely to succeed,” citing his understanding of payments, commerce, and generative AI. The 600 million-strong user base and the Visa partnership are also viewed as assets that are hard for latecomer fintech companies to match.
Skeptical views are no less prominent. Payment industry analyst Richard Kron told Bloomberg, “He has been promising the same vision for two years, saying it would come within a year, but it is late,” adding that it could become “a launch that is a step behind and a dollar short.”
The payments market in the United States is already saturated, with PayPal, Venmo, Cash App, and Apple Pay occupying much of the space. The fact that the company has not clearly stated whether the 6% interest is permanent or merely a limited-time promotion to attract users also weakens trust.
Regulation is an even sharper variable. Some states, including New York, have blocked the issuance of licenses. New York state officials are reported to have submitted an opinion in the license review saying that “the reckless behavior Musk himself has displayed in both business and administration has posed risks to consumers.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren has also joined the pushback. In an open letter to Musk, she warned that if X Money operates in the same way as X’s current practices, consumers, national security, and the stability of the financial system could be endangered.
The signal sent by X Money goes beyond the launch of a new business line for a single company. It may mark a turning point in which the revenue model of U.S. big tech shifts from “advertising” to a hybrid structure of “advertising + finance + AI.”
If the past decade, during which Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok competed by advancing their ad algorithms, was the first round, then the next battlefield is moving to apps where conversation and money flow on the same screen.
Meta’s push into Instagram shopping and Robinhood’s attempts to add social features to its stock app point in the same direction: gathering people through content, retaining them through payments, and interpreting that flow with AI.
X Money’s key differentiator is an “AI concierge.” Musk’s xAI plans to connect Grok to payment data in order to handle spending analysis, transaction categorization, and even future stock and crypto trading on a single screen. The moment a user checks a social media timeline, transfers assets within the same app, and asks AI for advice, the boundaries between social media, payments, and investing effectively disappear.
This is not a distant story for South Korea either. Kakao, Toss, and Naver Pay are already pursuing similar integration, in a climate shaped by falling advertising rates and easing fintech regulations.
If Musk’s model proves workable in the United States, it is increasingly likely that for domestic operators, bundling social media, finance, and AI into one app will no longer be an option but a survival requirement.
The center of gravity for success or failure is shifting from technology to institutions and trust infrastructure. More important than the marketing variables of 6% interest and 3% cash back is the question of how 600 million people’s money will be safeguarded and who will be responsible for it.
The first wall it faces is a “deposit protection gap.” The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has warned that funds held in PayPal, Venmo, and Cash App do not receive direct protection from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). So-called pass-through insurance only applies when the partner bank fails; if the payment app’s parent company goes bankrupt, users are not protected.
Whether the 6%-interest balances promised by X Money are actually held in a segregated bank account, whether the interest is covered by investment returns, or whether the funds are mixed with corporate money will determine the level of risk. Transparent disclosure of this structure in advance is considered a task that comes before obtaining licenses.
There is also the possibility of reshaping the regulatory landscape itself. The United States maintains a highly inefficient system in which payment licenses must be obtained state by state across all 50 states. This stands in contrast to the United Kingdom and the European Union, where a single electronic money institution (EMI) authorization enables faster fintech expansion.
If X Money is blocked at the final state license, there is speculation that Musk could use political influence to push for federal-level unified regulation. That could become a variable that shakes not only X Money as a single company, but the regulatory framework of the entire U.S. fintech industry.
The repeated failures of super-app attempts in the West are also worth noting. Facebook tried to integrate payments and finance through the Libra cryptocurrency project and Facebook Payments, but retreated in the face of regulatory barriers and a lack of trust.
Meta’s Instagram shopping also showed limits in transaction expansion. The WeChat model worked in China, many analysts say, because Tencent bundled communications, gaming, payments, and identity verification under a single governance structure.
If Musk is to draw the same picture, how he separates the flow of funds between his corporate group, including Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI, and X Money will become the litmus test of trust.
On top of that comes the unfinished area of “AI finance.” X Money’s promised Grok concierge could expand beyond spending analysis to stock and crypto recommendations. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has been refining regulatory guidelines to strengthen accountability and disclosure of conflicts of interest for AI-based investment advice.
South Korea’s Financial Services Commission is also adjusting its oversight framework for the combination of MyData and AI advisory services. If a recommended transaction made by an algorithm results in losses, who is responsible, and whether the interests of advertisers or partners are reflected in the advice, are emerging as new regulatory issues.
This launch ultimately rests on one fundamental question: can a platform that lost advertisers because of political statements and content disputes be allowed to accept people’s deposits under the same owner?
Unlike advertising, payments and savings are areas where even one incident can immediately lead to mass user flight. The case of Tencent, which grew WeChat Pay while founder Ma Huateng restrained his public commentary and built trust in the company, is highly instructive.
Without a design that separates Musk’s personal risk from X Money’s governance, neither AI nor licenses are likely to make up for the deficit of trust.
It is too early to say whether X Money will reach the same destination as WeChat. Still, this launch carries weight because it marks the first serious test case in the United States for combining social media, payments, and AI.
The way Musk’s 25-year-old ambition functions on a payment screen is likely to illuminate not only the shape of the next decade’s big tech landscape, but also the evolutionary path of fintech in South Korea and Southeast Asia.