Who is actually using stablecoins for business payments in 2026?

Banks and corporate treasuries are increasingly exploring the rails, with faster settlement, lower friction, and global reach driving the next wave of adoption.

A note on perspective: This article brings together insights from experts in the field alongside my own research, interpretation, and synthesis of the subject. The way these perspectives are selected, connected, and presented reflects my reading of the topic. I welcome additional perspectives, feedback, and insights that can further enrich or challenge the discussion.

For now, much of the activity is coming from non-banks: fintechs, digital-native businesses, and merchants operating in corridors that traditional banking hasn’t always served particularly well. Banks are increasingly exploring how they can participate, while corporate treasuries are testing more focused use cases at the edges. The more interesting question may be what sits behind the headline number: how much of that volume is actually payments, and how much reflects other forms of activity?

Who is actually moving money – and why

Roughly USD 35 trillion moved across stablecoin networks in 2025. Strip out trading and internal transfers, as McKinsey and Artemis Analytics did, and real payments come out to about USD 390 billion. That’s around 0.02% of global payment volume. It more than doubled from 2024, so the growth is real, but the activity is still small and heavily concentrated. B2B transactions account for roughly USD 26 billion, or about 58% of real stablecoin payment volume, up 733% year over year. This is corporate activity, not consumer wallets, which makes it more useful to look at who is driving it than to quote the headline number on its own.

Non-bank actors: fintechs, startups, merchants, PSPs

Fintechs are the heaviest users, and they’re the furthest along. They entered the space while banks were largely shut out, built compliance frameworks around stablecoin-specific risks, and gained operational experience that banks are now trying to catch up on. For a fintech running payouts across multiple corridors, such as merchant payments into Southeast Asia, contractor payouts across Latin America, or remittances into Africa, this isn’t a strategic bet. It’s simply the cheaper, faster option where traditional rails are too expensive or too slow.

Startups and digital businesses are starting to use stablecoins for a pretty simple reason: sometimes the banking system just makes things harder than they need to be. Think SaaS companies paying contractors in different countries, marketplaces paying sellers around the world, or creator platforms sending money to people all over the place.

And it’s not just about saving a few dollars on fees. Stablecoins can let companies send lots of smaller payments throughout the day instead of waiting for banking cutoff times. Payments can also be linked to smart contracts, so money can be released automatically when a job or milestone is completed. The downside is equally simple: once the money is sent, getting it back can be very difficult. If someone accidentally marks a job as complete, there’s no bank in the middle to sort it out. The checks need to happen before the money moves.

Merchants are a quieter but growing part of this. In markets where card acceptance is low or chargeback exposure is high, stablecoin rails offer settlement finality without the fraud and dispute overhead of card networks. Once a transaction confirms, it generally can’t be reversed, which changes the economics for businesses operating in high fraud corridors. For PSPs, the play isn’t picking a side. It’s abstracting across both rails, so the winners will be the ones that can route clients to whichever settlement path fits a given corridor, without requiring them to understand the infrastructure underneath.

For banks

The regulatory shift from “not permitted” to “permitted under supervision” is real, and it matters. But banks didn’t walk away from stablecoins by choice. Regulators pushed them out. After FTX, Signature Bank, and Silvergate collapsed in 2022 and 2023, US regulators effectively shut banks out of most crypto-related activity. While banks waited on the sidelines, fintechs and payment companies built the infrastructure, brought in customers, and got a head start that’s now hard to close.

And that’s where the real threat sits. It’s not mainly about deposits. It’s about banks losing payment flows, transaction fees, and their place as the account businesses default to. Non-bank players have already had two or three years to build that position.

Ramzi Amairi, Director of Tech Coverage for Fintech and Digital Assets at Natixis, one of France’s largest corporate and investment banks, says corporate and investment banking demand is still early. Clients are looking at stablecoins, but they’re not using them at scale yet. For now, banks are mostly watching and reacting.

Qivalis is probably the clearest European example. It’s a group of 37 banks building a MiCA-compliant euro stablecoin under Dutch supervision. Its CEO, Jan Oliver Sell, described the May 2026 expansion as evidence that “the majority of European institutions have already prioritised euro native on-chain settlement in their digital asset journey.”

In the US, JPMorgan’s JPMD deposit token takes a different route. It offers some of the same things that make stablecoins useful, including programmability, 24/7 settlement, and peer-to-peer transfers, but the money stays on the bank’s books. Naveen Mallela, who ran JPMorgan’s Kinexys blockchain unit before moving to Standard Chartered as Global Head of Payments in May 2026, said: “For these reasons we believe that deposit tokens are a more compelling product offering for institutional clients than stablecoins.” (American Banker, June 2025)

These are sensible defensive moves. But they’re still defensive. Banks building stablecoin-adjacent infrastructure to protect what they already have will end up with different products and different capabilities than the non-bank players who built from zero to solve problems the banking system structurally couldn’t touch. The regulatory door is open now. The question is whether banks can catch up in the markets and customer segments that non-banks have already built around. That’s where the real competition is.

For fintechs

The opportunity is in the middle. Companies that can move between traditional rails and stablecoin settlement will be in a better position. They can use whichever works best for the corridor, the counterparty, or the job at hand.

That is not easy to build. Running both systems means more compliance work and more technical complexity. But once it works, it is hard to replace.

“We are just seeing the top of the iceberg. More fintechs are looking into stablecoins. Completely new use cases will emerge in the next 2–3 years.” — Ezequiel Canestrari, former COO of ClearBank Europe

For corporates

The first place this is showing up is treasury and supply chain. Stablecoin settlement for cross-border supplier payments is no longer just experimental, especially in markets where traditional banking is slow, expensive, or simply not available. Several industries are already using it in practice.

That’s also what Patrick Kunz sees from the treasury side. He is the founder of Pecunia Treasury & Finance B.V. and a treasury consultant with clients operating across several jurisdictions. Patrick shared his perspectives in a recent conversation:

“The first question is usually not ‘Should we use stablecoins?’ but: ‘What treasury or payment pain point are we actually trying to solve?’ The strongest use cases we currently see discussed are faster cross-border settlement, reducing FX friction and trapped cash, 24/7 payment capabilities outside traditional banking cut-off times, emerging market payment challenges, and treasury centralisation where banking infrastructure is fragmented.” — Patrick Kunz, FRM QT, Founder, Pecunia Treasury & Finance B.V.

The EY Parthenon Stablecoin Survey from June 2025 surveyed 350 corporate and financial institution executives around the world. 77% pointed to cross-border supplier payments as the most interesting use case. Just 13% said they were already using stablecoins in their operations.

That tells you something. Companies are interested, but most haven’t made the jump yet. The hard part is getting it through compliance, accounting, internal controls, and all the other checks that come before treasury can actually use it.

Patrick Kunz sees the same issues with his clients. He’s clear about what usually gets in the way:

“Where discussions often get stuck is not on the technology itself, but around governance, accounting, compliance, tax, controls, and integration into existing treasury processes. Typical concerns include counterparty and regulatory risk, accounting treatment and auditability, ERP/TMS integration, operational ownership between Treasury, Finance, Compliance and IT, internal risk appetite, and the question of whether the benefit outweighs the additional complexity. The typical treasurer is not a pioneer but a follower of proven tech and solutions — risk awareness is the default posture.” — Patrick Kunz, FRM QT, Founder, Pecunia Treasury & Finance B.V.

He shares two live deployments from his own client base:

“We have a few clients who are using stablecoins for trapped cash repatriation where traditional rails are slow or where there is no liquidity. This was also a relatively quick solution to implement – KYC being the biggest hurdle. We have another client looking at using stablecoins for supplier payments as well. This is more complex as more stakeholders are involved.” — Patrick Kunz, FRM QT, Founder, Pecunia Treasury & Finance B.V.

The fact that KYC, rather than the blockchain itself, was the biggest hurdle says a lot. The problem here is not really the technology. It’s the rules around it, and the internal processes companies have to work through. Accounting is probably the biggest issue still on the table, and in many places there is still no clear answer.

Under current US GAAP, stablecoins are not automatically treated as cash or cash equivalents. There is also the question of issuer risk, and accounting standards bodies have not yet settled on a clear treatment. In October 2025, FASB voted 6 to 1 to add stablecoin accounting to its technical agenda. Proposed guidance was issued in August 2026, with a comment period open until November 2026. Final rules and an effective date are still pending, so implementation in financial statements is unlikely before 2027 in most cases. Until then, US companies have to work with the rules already in place. That can lead to different treatments depending on the auditor and the jurisdiction.

IFRS gives companies a little more room, but it is not completely settled either. Under IAS 7, a MiCA-compliant euro stablecoin with full fiat backing and a clear right to redeem at par could potentially qualify as a cash equivalent. But regulatory approval alone does not settle the question. The actual redemption process and the quality of the reserves still matter.

Grant Thornton’s analysis points to a fairly narrow set of conditions for cash equivalent treatment. The stablecoin needs to be redeemable on demand, easy to convert during the day, have very low de-peg risk, and sit within a treasury policy that rules out holding it to earn a return. If those conditions are not met, the asset falls under IFRS 9 (or IAS 38) instead, which can change how it shows up on the balance sheet and in cash flow reporting.

PwC, which expanded its digital assets practice in early 2026, has been publicly clear about the CFO level questions: cash classification, counterparty exposure in custody arrangements, reconciling on-chain transactions against traditional ledgers, and internal controls. Paul Griggs, PwC’s US CEO, told the Financial Times the firm decided to “lean in” to stablecoin-related work once regulatory clarity improved — a sign that the accounting infrastructure around stablecoin treasury management is being built at enterprise scale, even if it hasn’t fully arrived yet. For a treasury team evaluating stablecoin settlement today, the practical read is: the operational case is there, the accounting framework isn’t fully there yet, and the gap is likely to close around 2026–27, depending on how final standards land. Any business case built now should factor that timeline in explicitly.

One last feature deserves a reality check before leaving treasury. 24/7 settlement is near the top of every stablecoin pitch. Patrick even lists it among the use cases clients raise. But what gets talked up isn't always what treasurers actually prioritise:

“Stretching cut-off times is also on the agenda of some of our clients to expand cash pooling and intraday/next-day cash investments. 24/7 sounds cool but is not something most treasurers are too keen on. Faster is step 1. Real-time and 24/7 might be the next step.” — Patrick Kunz, FRM QT, Founder, Pecunia Treasury & Finance B.V.

The dollar-denomination question — and what it means for local markets

Dollar-backed stablecoins dominate the space: over 99% of global circulation is dollar-denominated, with only about 0.2% euro-denominated. That concentration reflects real demand. In markets where local currencies are unstable, people want dollars, and stablecoins make those dollars easier to move. But at scale, that can put pressure on local currencies, which is why regulators are starting to respond with restrictions and new licensing rules. For banks and fintechs, this can directly shape which corridors are viable and at what cost.

Europe is taking a slightly different route. MiCA gives euro stablecoins a proper framework, and institutions like ClearBank Europe are starting to build around the demand coming from fintechs and banks. Ezequiel Canestrari, former COO of ClearBank Europe, knows the difference first-hand. As an Argentinian sending money home, he’s seen how a stablecoin transfer can take minutes while a traditional wire can take days. That’s not just a better payment experience. It’s a pretty big deal when you’re actually waiting for the money to arrive.

European institutional momentum became concrete in 2026. Qivalis, a European bank consortium set up to issue a regulated, MiCA-compliant euro stablecoin under the supervision of De Nederlandsche Bank, announced in May 2026 that 25 new member banks had joined, bringing total membership to 37 financial institutions across 15 European countries. New members include ABN AMRO, Intesa Sanpaolo, Nordea, Rabobank, Erste Group, Handelsbanken, and Swedbank, joining founding members like BNP Paribas, BBVA, ING, and UniCredit. Founded in September 2025 and based in Amsterdam, Qivalis is pursuing Electronic Money Institution authorisation and targeting a market launch in the second half of 2026.

The speed at which European banks are getting involved says a lot. They clearly don’t want euro-based settlement to become a market dominated by dollar stablecoins. There’s a regulatory angle to it, of course, but there’s also a pretty obvious competitive one.

MiCA does make things a little more complicated. Euro stablecoins can fall under both e-money and crypto rules, which means companies building around them may need to deal with two sets of licensing requirements. That adds time, cost and complexity, and for now gives dollar stablecoins a bit of an advantage.

Honest limits: where stablecoins are still the weaker option

Stablecoins have come a long way, but they don’t beat traditional payment rails everywhere. If you’re a corporate treasury moving large amounts between established banking partners in well-served markets, traditional infrastructure is still often faster, cheaper, and easier to manage.

There’s also plenty of friction around stablecoins. Regulation is still uneven, on- and off-ramps can be expensive, liquidity isn’t always there, and managing wallets at scale adds another layer of operational work. And while transactions on major chains are generally final, that also means they can’t simply be reversed when something goes wrong.

That’s great for merchants because there are no chargebacks. For banks and corporates, it’s a different story. A wrong payment, fraud, a sanctioned recipient, or a dispute with a counterparty can be much harder to sort out when there’s no bank or card network in the middle to step in. The technology may be ready, but the surrounding processes for handling mistakes and disputes are still catching up.

Regulatory risk is another thing to watch, especially at the corridor level. Brazil is a good example. In April 2026, its central bank moved to stop eFX providers from using stablecoins to settle overseas remittances, with the change taking effect in October. This is happening in a country with a large and active crypto market, which makes the point pretty clearly: just because a corridor works today doesn’t mean it will still be open tomorrow. For banks and fintechs, regulatory access needs to be part of the business case from day one.

The real question isn’t which system wins. They’re solving different problems. Banks are improving the plumbing of the existing system, while stablecoins are filling some of the gaps where traditional infrastructure doesn’t reach as well.

The bigger hurdle now may simply be making stablecoins feel normal. Corporate clients don’t want to think about wallets, private keys or blockchain workflows. They want something that feels as familiar as SEPA or SWIFT, with the stablecoin infrastructure quietly working underneath.

The path to 1% and beyond

That USD 390 billion in real payments is still a long way below 1% of global flows. Getting past that threshold needs three things that aren’t fully in place yet.

First, regulatory clarity. The current patchwork of permissive, restrictive and still unresolved frameworks is holding back institutional adoption. Jurisdictions that move first with workable licensing will attract the volume, while those that stall may simply push it offshore. MiCA is the most complete framework in force, but its dual licensing requirement for euro stablecoin operators shows how regulation can also add friction.

Second, interoperability. Volume is spread across different chains and issuers, and better cross-chain standards should make moving between them much easier over the next few years.

Third, on- and off-ramp depth. Converting stablecoins into local currency is still costly or unavailable in many of the markets where they could be most useful. Building those connections through local partners, regulated exchanges and banks may not be the exciting part, but it is what turns stablecoin potential into real payment volume.

Incentive design and the CLARITY Act yield ruling

The regulatory answer to the incentive question came in May 2026. The CLARITY Act compromise draws a fairly clear line: stablecoins cannot offer passive yield simply for holding them if that works like bank deposit interest. Rewards linked to actual activity, such as payments, transfers or platform use, can still be offered. In other words, the focus is shifting from “buy and hold” to “buy and use.”

“Today’s compromise on stablecoin yield marks meaningful progress in the CLARITY Act negotiations.” — Dante Disparte, Chief Strategy Officer, Circle (CoinDesk, May 2026)

A stablecoin issuer welcoming a ban on stablecoin yield sounds backwards until you read Circle’s actual position: USDC is payments infrastructure, not a savings product, so banning passive yield removes a use case Circle never treated as core anyway. Disparte pointed to USDC’s growth in cross-border payments, capital-markets collateral, and agentic commerce as proof the payments use case doesn’t need passive yield to work commercially. If the framework pushes issuers to compete on transaction-linked rewards instead of passive yield, product development tilts toward payments instead of savings substitution. The American Express rewards model, basically: the incentive sits on the spend, not the balance. Galaxy Digital puts the CLARITY Act’s odds of becoming law in 2026 at roughly 50-50, with the markup window closing before the Memorial Day recess. Whether or not it passes this cycle, the direction on yield regulation is set.

That points to a cleaner setup: keep stablecoins focused on payments and let yield live somewhere else. If companies want to earn something on money sitting idle, they can move it into tokenized money market funds and convert it back to stablecoins when they actually need to make a payment. It keeps the incentives simple and avoids turning stablecoins into savings products.

The rails are real. So is the gap.

Modern cross-border payments have actually gotten a lot better. Banks have made transfers faster, cheaper and easier than they used to be. If you are in a market with good banking infrastructure, the system works pretty well.

The problem is that it doesn’t work equally well for everyone. Some corridors are too expensive, too slow or simply not well served by banks and card networks. That is where stablecoins are starting to make sense. They are not really trying to replace the banking system. They are filling some of the gaps.

So the real question is not whether the technology works. It does. The question is where it actually makes sense to use it. Which payments are painful enough to justify the extra work? Which markets are worth the risk? Which banks and fintechs are willing to build around it? And can they make the whole thing simple enough that a treasury team can use it without having to become crypto experts?
In the end, this is less about the technology and more about timing, risk, and knowing what problem you are trying to solve.

About the author

Oana Ifrim is Lead Editor and Writer at The Paypers.  After more than a decade at The Paypers, Oana has built a pretty good sense of what’s happening across banking and fintech, with a strong network of industry insiders across payments, digital innovation, regulation, fraud, and financial crime. She mixes content strategy, trend spotting, a (slightly obsessive) love of research, expert conversations, and a big dose of curiosity to turn complex industry shifts into engaging stories and thought leadership that bring a little life to the industry’s biggest conversations.

More recently, she has been deeply dedicated to The Banking View, an exclusive series bringing direct perspectives from banking leaders on how they’re navigating payments modernisation, fraud and financial crime, regulation, and innovation. 

When Oana is out of office, you’ll probably find her singing, reading, cooking with her family, getting happily lost in detective and mystery shows, or exploring every forest she can find with her husband and daughter.

If you’d like to exchange ideas, explore content opportunities, or there’s an industry topic you’d love to dig into, reach out to her at: oana@thepaypers.com or on LinkedIn.