Consensus split MetaMask to form an independent company. What will it develop next?

Consensus is officially split: MetaMask operates independently. Where is the future going?

Consensys Software Inc. It announced the split of its business into two separate companies, separating the consumer-facing MetaMask business from protocol and institutional infrastructure operations. Under the plan announced on September 9, the existing company will be renamed MetaMask, with Joe Lubin as chairman and CEO; while the newly formed company will retain the name of Consensus sys and be responsible for other operating businesses, with Mike Kriak as CEO and David Cunningham as president. It is expected that the split will be completed before the end of 2026.

Consensus sys 'reorganization aims to separate two business segments that have developed around different customer groups and revenue models. MetaMask has expanded from its original wallet capabilities into consumer financial services, while the other side of the business focuses on blockchain software and infrastructure. The company said that the MetaMask platform has more than 100 million downloads in about 190 countries around the world, and the cumulative transaction volume has reached trillions of dollars.

mean for MetaMask users?

For users, the most important change may not lie in the corporate architecture behind it, but in the functional evolution within the wallet. MetaMask is moving in a direction that allows users to perform more financial tasks without leaving the app. This is critical because switching between different wallets, exchanges, payment apps and investment platforms creates friction, especially when each service has its own login process, fees and transfer mechanism.

In addition, the company is entering a market where wallets are increasingly programmable. MetaMask has been developing proxy wallet infrastructure and launching services that allow automated systems to interact with blockchain accounts. Its internal research shows that competitors including Coinbase, Cobo, OKX, Ledger and BitGo are also building products around automated wallets and transaction controls.

This means that MetaMask may increase user activity in other ways in addition to traditional token storage. If users eventually allow software agents to conduct transactions, pay bills, transfer assets, or perform other transactions, the wallet will become the operational layer of financial activities, not just the storage place for private keys.

The challenge, however, is that users will judge the platform on reliability and cost rather than the number of features. Self-custody reduces reliance on banks and exchanges, but also means users take responsibility for asset security and trading decisions.

Is MetaMask building a "non-bank" bank?

MetaMask's Money Account demonstrates how much self-custodial wallets can approach traditional financial services without actually becoming a bank.

Currently, the account offers mUSD an annualized rate of return (APY) of up to 4% and a temporary discount of approximately 6% until September 30. There is no minimum balance requirement for this account and users can withdraw funds at any time without a lock-up period. These gains come from on-chain infrastructure rather than the traditional bank deposit system. MetaMask said yields could change with market conditions.

This difference creates different risk models. Bank deposits are usually protected by deposit insurance and regulated banking structures, while on-chain accounts rely on the assets, smart contracts, liquidity arrangements and service providers that support the product. MetaMask made it clear that this yield is not guaranteed.

Its appeal lies in its flexibility. Users can keep returns on dollar-linked assets while making the balance available for other activities. This makes the product closer to a financial account than a traditional cryptocurrency wallet, but does not fully replicate the complete structure of a bank.

The business question is whether consumers will accept this trade-off. If they accept, Wallet could take over some financial relationships that have traditionally been controlled by banks. If users still prefer insured deposits and familiar financial institutions to save, then self-custody products may mainly serve those who are already familiar with cryptocurrencies.

When finance turns to the chain, who is making profits?

MetaMask already generates revenue from transactions through its interface, rather than just relying on users to hold assets. DefiLlama data shows that in the third quarter of 2026, MetaMask generated total agreement revenue of approximately US$7.88 million, of which approximately US$4.57 million came from wallet service fees. The same data showed that mUSD asset income contributed approximately $135,000 during the quarter.

These numbers point to a different business model than traditional wallets. The real assets are not necessarily the cryptocurrency held in the account, but the transaction traffic flowing through the platform.

This opportunity is also growing as stablecoins take up a larger share of on-chain activity. WalletConnect records show that online transaction volume in the first half of 2026 reached US$207.82 billion, of which stablecoins accounted for US$171.35 billion, accounting for 82.5%.

This is important because stablecoins create more frequent financial activity than simply buying and selling volatile tokens. They can be used for payments, transfers, transactions and settlements, providing wallets with more opportunities to profit from related transactions.

As a result, the focus of competition is shifting to the customer interface. Blockchain provides the settlement layer, stablecoins provide money, and applications compete for entry points for users to actually interact with. For MetaMask, this creates an extremely valuable position. Its revenue does not have to come from becoming a bank or owning underlying financial assets, but can come from being at the hub between users and the growing supply of on-chain financial services.

Reaction of Parties to the Split of Consensus Systems

Focusing on leadership and future opportunities, Mike said he was "very proud" to lead Consensus Systems with Joe, David and Declan. He called the team the right force to move the digital market forward.

Declan highlighted Consensus sys's technical work in the Ethereum space, including infrastructure such as Besu, Teku and Linea, as well as the company's work on the Ethereum Layer 1 roadmap and zero-knowledge proof technology. He also highlighted recent results in assisting regulated financial institutions in using Ethereum, and said the new structure allows his product and engineering teams to focus more.

Moha took a more market-oriented view, describing the split as a wise move because consumer-grade encryption and institutional-grade blockchain are moving in different directions. He believes that giving each business an independent focus will help both parties speed up their pace while maintaining a common Ethereum foundation.

Meanwhile, MetaMask co-founder Dan Finlay announced his resignation from Consensus, nearly a decade after shaping one of the most widely used wallets in the cryptocurrency world. In a post posted Thursday, he revealed that burnout was the main reason for his decision to quit. After years of building and expanding MetaMask, he said he now plans to spend more time with his family.