The petitions, filed in Hong Kong on August 4, 2026, name RedotPay co-founders Michael Gao (Gao Zhangpeng), a former DBS banker, Jonathan Chan (Chan Wa Choi), and Yao Chao as defendants. The plaintiff entities are Nest Trading Ltd., Distributed Technologies Ltd., and Chaintecs Consulting Singapore Pte., all affiliated with Binance Holdings.

A parallel proceeding was filed in Singapore, where a hearing was scheduled for August 7. The combined damages sought total $472.8 million, calculated using Binance's own estimate of $925 in lifetime customer revenue per diverted user across more than 470,000 accounts.

What Binance Claims Happened

The dispute centres on how RedotPay's prepaid card product interacted with the Binance Pay infrastructure. Under their commercial agreement, Binance Pay was integrated as a funding channel inside the RedotPay app, allowing users to top up their RedotPay Visa or Mastercard-linked cards with Binance Pay funds.

Binance alleges that RedotPay permitted this process without maintaining proper segregation of funds, in direct violation of the agreed terms. The result, Binance contends, was that Binance Pay users were effectively absorbed into the RedotPay ecosystem rather than remaining within Binance's own product suite.

Binance says it detected the alleged violations in March 2026. The Binance Pay channel on RedotPay was shut down on April 3, 2026. At the time, RedotPay described the closure publicly as a standard merchant partner review.

What makes the situation more pointed is the timeline. This is not the first time the same issue has surfaced. The original Binance-RedotPay partnership launched in November 2023 and was shut down roughly six months later, in May 2024, over the same card top-up concern. A revised agreement with tighter fund segregation requirements was then signed in March 2025. Binance alleges RedotPay repeated the behaviour under the second agreement. Separately, according to Blockhead, citing Bloomberg, RedotPay's 2024 Series A pitch materials explicitly highlighted the Binance Pay partnership as a key driver of user acquisition, the same mechanism now at the centre of the lawsuit.

RedotPay's Position and Its Stakes

RedotPay has rejected the claims outright. In one public statement, the company said: "The Company rejects the unfounded allegations made against it and its co-founders. RedotPay is strenuously defending the proceedings." In separate communications, the company stated the litigation would have "no impact on RedotPay's day-to-day operations" and added: "We are confident in our legal position, and are vigorously defending all claims."

The timing is consequential. RedotPay is currently pursuing a U.S. IPO at a projected valuation above $4 billion, with a fundraising target of more than $1 billion. JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and Jefferies are reportedly advising on the process. The company was also in discussions for a $150 million pre-IPO raise. By any measure, an unresolved nine-figure lawsuit introduced as the company pursues a public listing represents a material complication.

RedotPay raised $194 million across three rounds in 2025 alone, including a $107 million Series B led by Goodwater Capital in December. Other backers include Coinbase Ventures, Lightspeed Venture Partners, Pantera Capital, HongShan Capital Group, and others across a broader cap table. The company reports more than 8 million users globally, $14 billion in annualized payment volume, and $180 million in annualized revenue, with 33% user growth in the six months before the lawsuit was filed.

Regional Stakes: Africa and South Asia

For users outside the US and Europe, this dispute carries immediate practical weight. According to BitKE, RedotPay holds an estimated 80% share of global crypto card transaction volume, a dominant position built largely on demand from markets with limited traditional banking access.

Nigeria and Egypt rank among the platform's largest user bases. In Sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa, crypto-linked prepaid cards function as primary payment tools for everyday transactions and cross-border remittances, not as speculative instruments.

South Asia presents a parallel picture. India and Bangladesh together represent RedotPay's largest single user concentration, with stablecoin-funded cards serving as a practical workaround for remittance costs and currency instability. The region recorded roughly $300 billion in crypto transaction volume in 2025, with adoption growing approximately 80% year over year. Indian regulators have been moving toward a more structured, if still cautious, stance on crypto payments infrastructure, a shift that adds further significance to RedotPay's position as the dominant provider in that market.

RedotPay's recently established Bhutan entity, RedotPay Bhutan GMC, signals further expansion ambitions in the corridor.

The shutdown of the Binance Pay top-up channel in April has already removed one funding option for users in these markets. The litigation raises longer-term questions about platform continuity for the millions who rely on the service for routine financial access.

What Comes Next

Binance offered a measured but firm public comment: "While Binance does not comment on ongoing litigation, where necessary we will use courts and other forums to pursue what is right." The dual-jurisdiction strategy, filing in both Hong Kong and Singapore, reflects both companies' operational footprints across Asia and indicates that Binance views the matter as one requiring formal resolution.

For fintech and Web3 developers building on either the RedotPay Connect gateway or Binance Pay's SDK, the case is a live demonstration of how co-distribution agreements in crypto payments can become contested territory over user ownership. The proceedings are expected to be complex and protracted, shadowing RedotPay's IPO ambitions for the foreseeable future.

The choice of Hong Kong as a primary filing venue carries its own significance. High-stakes commercial litigation between major crypto firms reinforces the legal frameworks available to the industry across Asia and demonstrates that contractual enforcement mechanisms in the region are functioning. For a sector that has long operated at the edges of formal dispute resolution, that precedent matters.