"Not Oppressive, Just Business” — Polygon’s Bjelic Defends Visa Amid Crypto Backlash
Polygon co-founder Mihailo Bjelic is pushing back against the narrative that Visa is “oppressive” in crypto, calling its merchant fees a standard business practice and defending its role in shaping ethical payment boundaries — especially when it comes to blocking support for harmful content.
The Visa Debate: Extractive or Ethical?
In the world of crypto, Visa often plays the villain — a centralized gatekeeper skimming fees, enforcing rules, and holding power over who can transact. But what if that view is too simplistic?
Mihailo Bjelic, co-founder of Polygon, thinks so. In a recent thread on X, he challenged the growing narrative — amplified by figures like Vitalik Buterin — that brands Visa as inherently “oppressive” due to its 2–3% merchant fees on transactions.
Bjelic doesn’t deny the fees are extractive. But he argues: that’s how capitalism works.
“Visa leverages market power — yes. But is it oppressive?” he asked. “Or is it just… business?”
His point? Just because a company profits from infrastructure doesn’t mean it’s acting unethically. In fact, he suggests, the real ethical question isn’t about fees — it’s about values.
The Censorship Question: Who Sets the Rules?
The debate heated up when Bjelic addressed a more controversial case: gaming platforms removing adult content — including games promoting rape and incest — out of fear that Visa might cut off payment processing.
Rather than call this censorship, Bjelic labeled it “self-censorship for brand protection.”
“These platforms made a business decision,” he noted. “They don’t want to be associated with illegal or morally repugnant content — and neither should Visa.”
He posed a critical question:
Should payment providers — traditional or crypto — be obligated to support transactions for harmful material?
For Bjelic, the answer is a firm no.
Even in a decentralized world, he argues, there’s a line. And ethical compliance — whether driven by law, public pressure, or moral standards — isn’t oppression. It’s responsibility.
Centralization vs. Real-World Integration
Of course, the deeper concern isn’t just about fees or content — it’s about centralization. Crypto was built to bypass gatekeepers. So when Visa starts launching crypto wallets, partnering with Tangem, and bridging fiat-to-crypto payments, some see a Trojan horse.
But Bjelic’s stance suggests a more nuanced reality: adoption requires on-ramps. And for millions of users, that on-ramp still runs through Visa.
Rather than fight the giant, he implies, maybe the ecosystem should focus on interoperability — building systems that can coexist, compete, and eventually outperform without demanding total replacement.
Visa’s moves into crypto aren’t necessarily a threat. They might be a validation — a sign that the old world sees the new one coming.
The Bigger Picture: What Do We Want From Crypto?
Bjelic’s intervention isn’t just about Visa. It’s a philosophical checkpoint for the entire crypto movement.
Do we want a world where all transactions are permitted, no matter the content?
Or one where ethical standards — even if enforced by corporations — help prevent real-world harm?
And is decentralization only about removing control — or also about building better, more accountable systems?
His message is clear:
Don’t confuse market dominance with moral failure. Don’t label risk-averse business decisions as oppression. And don’t pretend that decentralization means zero accountability.
In the end, Bjelic isn’t defending Visa’s profits — he’s challenging crypto to grow up.
