“Can You Add Solana?” Why That Request Could Take a Day or a Quarter An Uphold and American Banker survey 2026 found that 75% of US financial institutions have active $BTC blockchain initiatives, and 72% name digital wallets and custody as a top use case. I’ve written a lot here about the different ways a fintech company can bring crypto into its product, and more of them are doing it every quarter. Today let’s look at a business that already has Wallet-as-a-Service. How does it add new blockchain networks, and why does the speed of that depend more on the WaaS provider than on the company’s own developers? 🔍 https://institutional.whitebit.com/crypto-wallets-for-business?utm_source=coinmarketcap&utm_medium=davidwallet_asa&utm_campaign=post Picture fintech company X. It runs its wallets on a WaaS provider, and clients ask for a new network. I see two paths: ✅ Path 1. The provider supports the network. X could switch it on through settings or configuration, with no separate blockchain integration. ⛔ Path 2. The provider doesn’t support it. X would have to wait for the provider, bring in a second vendor, or switch WaaS platforms. That’s why coverage is worth checking before integration. A network list looks like a small detail at the start, but it decides how quickly a business could respond once users ask for something new. Some providers focus on a few of the biggest chains, while others, like WhiteBIT Wallet-as-a-Service, list 80+ networks under one API, and most sit somewhere in between. So when a business picks a WaaS provider, it also picks how far it could scale. Wider coverage could mean answering user requests in days, with fewer one-off integrations to maintain. That way the product could grow while developers stay on the core roadmap. Disclaimer: This is not financial or investment advice. Do your own research before making any decisions. Use at your own risk. #BTC Price Analysis# #Bitcoin Price Prediction: What is Bitcoins next move?#