Continue Reading
The stablecoin story stopped being about speculation sometime around 2024. The companies now building on stablecoin infrastructure aren’t pitching a new asset class. They’re solving a specific payments problem: how to move dollar-denominated value across borders quickly, cheaply, and with settlement finality that the correspondent banking system can’t consistently deliver.
We spend a lot of time on this. Cross-border payments is one of the clearest areas where traditional infrastructure has failed to keep pace with the needs of modern businesses. The opportunity for stablecoin rails isn’t speculative. It’s operational, and it’s being captured corridor by corridor, right now.
A stablecoin transfer between two parties on the same blockchain settles in seconds or minutes, not days. The cost is fractions of a cent on efficient blockchains, not the $15-$45 in correspondent banking fees that characterize a traditional international wire. And critically, the settlement is final. There’s no recall window, no float, no correspondent that drops out of the transaction overnight.
The piece that makes this commercially viable — not just technically interesting — is the on-ramp/off-ramp infrastructure. A US company sending a payment to a supplier in Mexico doesn’t want their supplier to receive USDC and deal with converting it to pesos. They want the supplier to receive pesos in their bank account. The stablecoin portion of the transaction is invisible infrastructure — it’s the rail, not the currency.
The companies building this are essentially building a new layer of the correspondent banking system: local banking relationships in each market that can receive and distribute local currency, connected by stablecoin settlement in the middle. At sufficient volume, the economics are dramatically better than the traditional model.
The corridors where stablecoin rails are making the most impact share a few characteristics:
Latin America fits all four criteria for several corridors. US-Mexico, US-Colombia, US-Brazil, and US-Argentina (where dollar access has been a persistent issue) are all seeing meaningful stablecoin payment volume. Africa — particularly Nigeria, Kenya, and Ghana — is seeing rapid growth as well. The traditional banking cost in these corridors was high enough that even a partially frictionful stablecoin solution beats the alternative.
Stablecoin regulation in the US moved significantly in 2025. The conversation shifted from “should stablecoins exist” to “what framework should govern them.” Congressional action on a stablecoin framework has been slow, but FinCEN guidance has made it clear that stablecoin transfers carry the same AML/KYC obligations as any other money transmission. That’s actually helpful for the serious infrastructure builders. Regulatory clarity, even if imperfect, removes ambiguity that was holding institutional adoption back.
The companies we back in this space are not betting on regulatory arbitrage. They’re building compliant infrastructure that happens to use stablecoin settlement as an efficiency layer. That’s a durable business. The ones trying to exploit regulatory gaps won’t be around in five years.
Consumer remittances get most of the attention, but the B2B cross-border payment market is substantially larger by dollar volume. A mid-market US importer paying suppliers in Vietnam, Indonesia, and Bangladesh multiple times per month is paying correspondent banking fees that stablecoin rails could eliminate. The challenge on the B2B side is compliance complexity — trade finance involves more documentation, more parties, and more regulatory touch points than a remittance.
The companies making headway here are building compliance tooling alongside the payment rail. Automated sanctions screening, trade document verification, and audit trail generation are not glamorous, but they’re what enterprise buyers need before they’ll route meaningful volume through a new payment rail.
One thing we watch carefully: the stablecoin infrastructure market is currently quite concentrated. A small number of issuers represent the majority of dollar-denominated stablecoin supply, and a small number of blockchains carry most of the payment volume. That concentration creates systemic risk. If a major issuer has a reserve or regulatory problem, or if a primary settlement blockchain becomes congested or has a security issue, the companies built on that infrastructure face operational exposure.
The serious infrastructure builders are aware of this and building for multi-issuer, multi-chain settlement. It adds complexity, but it’s the right approach for any company trying to support enterprise volumes reliably. Diversification in the rail is as important as diversification in the correspondent banking relationships it’s replacing.
The stablecoin payments story is still early. But it’s no longer theoretical. Real businesses are processing real payrolls, real supplier payments, and real remittances on these rails right now. The infrastructure to support that at institutional scale is the investment opportunity.
Building cross-border payment infrastructure? We want to hear from you.
