By Harvey Silverman, Host, Golf Business | Silverback Golf Marketing
Golf and crypto are already bumping into each other at clubs, resorts, and tour events, whether we like it or not. As owners and operators, you may increasingly be asked whether to take crypto at the counter, host a crypto ATM in the clubhouse, or even hold digital assets as part of the club’s financial strategy—and those are three very different decisions with very different kinds of risk.
The crypto golfer walks into your shop
Crypto has already crept into parts of golf culture. Gemini promoted a Bitcoin credit card with 10% crypto rewards at public and private courses, aimed at players who like the idea of “earning bitcoin while they play.” The Barracuda Championship stepped out as the first PGA Tour event to accept cryptocurrency for tickets, hospitality, and sponsorships, positioning itself as a tech‑forward venue. In Scotland, a crypto‑focused community took over Spey Bay and billed it as “one of the world's most technologically advanced golf clubs,” with memberships on the blockchain and dues payable in Ethereum.
Crypto may be appearing in parts of the golf ecosystem—from events to niche clubs—though most facilities continue to operate without engaging it directly. For some operators, it could serve as a marketing hook or a sponsor perk; for others, it remains something their customers read about rather than use at the club. The more relevant question for most facilities is not whether crypto exists in golf, but whether it fits your customer base, brand, and risk tolerance.
The relevance of crypto may vary significantly depending on a facility’s customer base, price point, and market positioning. A high‑end resort with international guests might encounter more interest than a municipal course serving mostly local leagues, and a younger, destination‑oriented membership may ask different questions than a traditional, retiree‑heavy private club. What feels “normal” at one facility may feel unnecessary—or even off‑brand—at another.
The crypto ATM: metal box, real tradeoffs
On paper, a crypto ATM sounds simple: a customer puts cash in and, a few taps later, has Bitcoin or another token in a wallet—no bank, no brokerage, minimal friction. In practice, that same ease of use has been associated with higher rates of fraud incidents, especially involving older customers coached over the phone by scammers. Law enforcement has documented many cases where someone is told their bank account is compromised, or a family member is in trouble, and the “solution” is to feed thousands of dollars into a specific crypto ATM.
Golf clubs can be a convenient environment for this kind of fraud: older, affluent customers, a relaxed atmosphere, and staff focused on tee sheets and tournaments rather than spotting financial crime patterns. Regulators and investigators have found machines with high fees, elevated fraud rates, and victim profiles skewed toward people in their 60s and 70s. Once cash turns into crypto and leaves that machine, it is effectively gone; there is no chargeback, no dispute process, and very little your team can do afterward. Public reporting in several industries shows that, when something goes wrong, the venue that hosted the machine often becomes part of the story, not just the kiosk operator.
At the same time, crypto ATMs do have legitimate use cases for some customers. They can provide access to digital assets for people who are unbanked or underbanked, for international visitors who prefer crypto over local banking systems, or for customers who value privacy and anonymity, and manage a portion of their finances in digital form. The experience can be relatively straightforward when the operator uses transparent pricing, clear disclosures, and strong fraud‑prevention tools.
Risk levels also depend heavily on the quality of the ATM provider and the controls in place. Some providers emphasize robust compliance, scam‑wallet blocking, transaction limits, and staff education, while others offer a more bare‑bones service with looser controls and higher fees. For a golf facility, that difference can matter as much as the decision to host a machine in the first place.
From an operator’s point of view, the tradeoffs will look different from club to club. On one side: a modest rental or revenue‑share check and an amenity that a subset of guests may appreciate. On the other: reputational risk, potential involvement with regulators and law enforcement, and difficult conversations if a long‑time member is victimized on your property. If you even consider a crypto ATM, it is worth drilling into fraud controls, scam‑prevention procedures, transaction limits, ID requirements, clear fee disclosure, how quickly the operator cooperates with the police—and, importantly, how your staff will respond if they see someone at the machine who appears distressed or confused.
Taking crypto at the counter
Accepting crypto for green fees, dues, or events sounds more benign: add another logo next to Visa, Mastercard, AMEX, and Discover. In reality, it behaves more like adding a foreign currency than adding a new card brand. Volatility, tax treatment, and irreversibility all become relevant as soon as you process the first transaction.
There are customers who prefer to pay with Bitcoin or Ethereum for ideological reasons, for perceived privacy and anonymity, or because they have gains they enjoy spending on leisure activities like golf. For a daily‑fee facility, academy, or tech‑leaning club, offering crypto payments can be a minor differentiator for a specific slice of the market. Some operators also see potential convenience for international visitors who already transact in crypto, particularly when they want to avoid card‑network foreign transaction fees.
Most businesses that are not trying to speculate treat crypto acceptance as a customer amenity rather than an investment position. They use a payments provider that prices everything in dollars, accepts crypto from the customer, and automatically converts it to cash at settlement. That structure allows the operator to say, “Yes, we accept Bitcoin,” while keeping exchange‑rate swings off the balance sheet. In normal operation, this can feel similar to accepting another digital wallet, with the main difference happening behind the scenes.
Even with auto‑conversion, staff training and policy work matter. Teams need guidance on how to quote prices, how to handle refunds for irreversible payments, and how to explain what happens if prices move between booking and play. For example, some crypto-accepting businesses set policies that require refunds to be issued in dollars at the original purchase amount, regardless of subsequent price changes in the underlying coin.
Taxes and accounting are the unglamorous parts. In many jurisdictions, crypto is treated as property for the customer, so a player may create a taxable event when they pay in crypto, separate from your own tax situation. On the club side, your later sale or conversion can result in gains or losses, depending on how your provider is set up and whether you hold any coins. There are also no traditional card‑network chargebacks. That can reduce one category of fraud but requires you to design your own refund and dispute policies.
Benefits and risks will look different depending on the facility. A resort with international play or a younger customer base might view crypto acceptance as a low‑stakes way to add convenience and align with sponsor branding. A municipal course with a tight back office and older clientele might see limited upside compared to the operational effort. For many facilities that simply want to modernize the front counter, a narrow path—accepting only major coins through a reputable processor, auto‑converting to dollars, and avoiding speculative holdings—can offer a middle ground between “no” and “all‑in.”
Parking club money in crypto
The decision that most changes the risk profile is not whether someone can buy a hat with Bitcoin; it is whether the club itself should hold crypto in its operating or reserve accounts. At that point, the conversation moves from payments experimentation into treasury management, board governance, and fiduciary responsibility.
Many traditional finance professionals view crypto as a high‑volatility, high‑risk asset subject to regulatory changes, exchange failures, and market sentiment. From that perspective, if used at all, it is often treated as a speculative sleeve rather than a core holding. Standard advice in corporate settings typically emphasizes clarity about why the asset is being held, limiting exposure to a small percentage of liquid assets, focusing on more established coins, and reporting both cost basis and market value on a regular basis.
At the same time, some organizations and investors consider limited crypto exposure as part of a diversification strategy or as a way to participate in what they view as a long‑term innovation trend in digital finance. Proponents often point to narratives about crypto as a potential hedge against inflation and to growing institutional involvement—from large asset managers offering crypto‑related products to public companies disclosing digital‑asset holdings in their filings. These developments do not remove risk, but they help explain why some boards and finance committees are at least discussing the topic.
Golf has already seen some aggressive experiments on the frontier: decentralized groups raising crypto to buy courses, NFT‑based membership models, and projects where membership value rises and falls with token prices. These examples demonstrate both the appeal of new funding and membership models and the strain that can arise when markets cool or regulatory expectations rise. For a traditional daily‑fee or member‑owned facility, using reserves to actively trade or hold substantial amounts of volatile tokens can be difficult to reconcile with conservative expectations around safeguarding club assets.
Critics such as actor and author Ben McKenzie, in his book “Easy Money: Cryptocurrency, Casino Capitalism, and the Golden Age of Fraud,” have characterized the broader crypto boom as speculative and tilted toward insiders. In that view, what looks like investing may resemble participation in a system in which latecomers bear most of the risk. Proponents counter that the market is maturing, citing increased regulatory clarity in some jurisdictions, greater institutional participation, and expanded use cases beyond trading. Both perspectives now appear in boardrooms and finance committees, making it important to separate personal views on crypto from the club’s documented investment policy and risk appetite.
For clubs that do consider holding any crypto, a clear framework can be helpful: tie the decision to the overall investment policy, define limits and eligible assets, establish how custody and security will work, and decide in advance how losses or gains will be communicated. Some organizations explicitly allow a small “innovation” or “opportunistic” sleeve that can include digital assets, while others decide that direct exposure falls outside their mandate.
Three separate calls, three different lanes
From a golf‑business point of view, it helps to separate “golf and crypto” into three clean decisions instead of treating it like one big yes or no.
Decision: Crypto ATM on property
Core Question: Do we want a machine that turns cash into crypto in our clubhouse?
Why You Might Say Yes: Small rent or revenue share; looks like a modern amenity to some guests.
What Can Bite You: High fraud risk for seniors, brand damage, possible regulator and law‑enforcement attention.
Decision: Accepting crypto for payments
Core Question: Do we want to take crypto for fees, dues, or merch?
Why You Might Say Yes: Modest marketing angle; tech‑forward image; aligns with certain sponsors and players.
What Can Bite You: Volatility if you do not auto‑convert, tax and accounting friction, irreversible payments and refund challenges.
Decision: Investing club funds in crypto
Core Question: Should we put reserves or excess cash into digital assets at all?
Why You Might Say Yes: Potential upside, appeal to a subset of members, fit with certain partnership stories.
What Can Bite You: Extreme volatility, regulatory and counterparty risk, fiduciary questions if losses hit operations or projects.
Different facilities can land in different places along each of these dimensions. A conservative, member‑owned club might decline ATMs and direct investment while allowing a payment processor to accept crypto and auto‑convert to dollars for occasional customer use. Another facility with a younger or more tech‑oriented membership might outline a small, clearly defined digital‑asset allocation within its investment policy, while still declining to host ATMs due to fraud concerns. There is no single “correct” configuration; there are trade-offs that need to fit the club’s mission and risk profile.
Working examples, not just edge cases
Real‑world practice in other sectors suggests that, outside of headline‑grabbing experiments, many businesses use crypto in relatively quiet, limited ways. Some venues accept crypto for specific events or hospitality packages through mainstream processors and report few issues, treating it as an additional payment option rather than a core marketing story. Others have experimented briefly and decided that low customer uptake did not justify the operational work.
Golf facilities are beginning to mirror this range. A tech‑forward academy might allow crypto payments for lessons as a nod to its clientele and sponsors, while a resort might offer crypto as one of several accepted methods for select international guests. At the same time, most municipal and traditional private clubs have chosen not to engage at all, either because demand has not materialized or because leadership prefers to keep financial systems simple.
Fact, interpretation, and how to close the loop
With any emerging financial technology, it is useful to separate what is known from how we interpret it. Data shows that crypto‑related fraud, especially involving ATMs, has been a focus for law enforcement and consumer‑protection agencies. Businesses report that front‑line staff can play an important role in spotting red flags when they are properly trained. Some experts argue that the risk‑reward balance for ATMs on hospitality properties is unfavorable, while others believe that stronger controls and clearer education can make them workable in select environments.
Similarly, payment providers can document how many venues accept crypto, what share of transactions it represents, and how auto‑conversion tools function. Analysts can outline volatility statistics and regulatory developments that affect treasury decisions. Interpretation—how much risk is acceptable, how much complexity is tolerable, and how important innovation is to your facility—belongs to each club’s leadership.
For operators, the key is aligning any crypto‑related decisions with the club’s overall strategy, member profile, and risk tolerance—whether that leads to adoption, limited experimentation, or no engagement at all. A range of options for golf facilities includes full avoidance, tightly controlled payment acceptance, and selective investment policies, each reflecting different priorities and comfort levels. The goal is not to chase headlines or react to hype, but to make deliberate choices that fit your course, your customers, and your responsibilities.