Stablecoins Can Move Money Faster. Can They Make Cross-Border Payments More Reliable?

Imagine a business that pays an overseas supplier in stablecoins. The transfer is confirmed within minutes, but the supplier cannot access the funds in the currency needed to fulfil the order. A bank review holds up the conversion, the delivery date approaches, and neither party knows how long the delay will last.
The payment has worked as a blockchain transaction. As a business transaction, however, it has fallen short.

This distinction matters as stablecoins gain attention as a more efficient way to move money internationally. They offer genuine advantages, including faster settlement and the potential to reduce transfer costs. But businesses do not adopt payment methods simply because the technology works. They need to know that money will arrive when expected, that recipients can use it, and that problems can be resolved without leaving both parties in limbo.

For stablecoins to become a practical part of global commerce, the industry must address the parts of a payment journey that technology alone cannot fix.

The Real Cost Is More Than the Transfer Fee

Sending money across borders remains expensive, despite years of investment in digital payments. World Bank data puts the global average cost of remittances at approximately 6.36% per US$100, down from 8.89% in 2010. Progress has been uneven, with established corridors such as the UAE–India and US–Mexico benefiting from more developed financial networks, while some routes serving Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia continue to face higher costs.

The UAE illustrates why this matters. With expatriates accounting for around 88% of its population, the country is a major centre for international remittances, particularly to South Asia. Improvements in payment infrastructure have implications not only for individuals sending money home but also for companies paying suppliers, contractors and employees abroad.

Stablecoins could help reduce some of the friction involved. Yet headline transaction volumes can obscure how much progress has actually been made in everyday payments. The $8.82 trillion in stablecoin transaction volume cited for the first half of 2026 includes activity that is not necessarily linked to purchasing goods, paying suppliers or settling commercial invoices. Estimates of real-world stablecoin payment activity, at approximately $390 billion, offer a different perspective on adoption.

The distinction is important. Moving a digital asset between wallets is not the same as completing a payment that meets a business’s commercial needs. The latter requires the entire process, from funding and settlement to conversion, reconciliation and confirmation, to work reliably.

Businesses Need Someone to Turn to When Payments Fail

Conventional payment systems have plenty of shortcomings, but businesses generally operate within established arrangements for investigating failed transfers, handling refunds and determining who is responsible for a loss. Stablecoin payments introduce a different set of participants and processes, and responsibility can become less clear when something goes wrong.

A cross-border transaction might involve a stablecoin issuer, a payment provider, an exchange and one or more banks. Each may have its own compliance obligations, operating procedures and timelines. A transaction can settle on-chain while remaining inaccessible to its intended recipient because a bank review, liquidity issue or other operational problem interrupts the next stage.

For a business, the consequences are tangible. A supplier may delay an order, a shipment may miss its window, or a contractual payment deadline may be breached. The savings achieved through faster settlement can quickly lose their value if the business cannot predict when the recipient will actually receive usable funds.

This is why dispute handling, refunds, transaction restrictions and clear escalation procedures need to be considered from the outset. A system designed for commercial use cannot rely on the assumption that every transaction will proceed as intended.

There is room for infrastructure that brings together blockchain-based payments and familiar financial risk controls. Such systems could help coordinate transaction monitoring, counterparty checks and the handling of disputed or interrupted payments.

The objective is not to recreate every layer of traditional banking, but to give businesses a clear process and an accountable party when a payment requires intervention.

International Payments Need International Coordination

The same issue arises at the regulatory level. A business making payments across several markets should not have to navigate a completely different set of operational expectations at every border.

Europe’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), the US GENIUS Act, and frameworks developed by the UAE’s Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) and Central Bank of the UAE (CBUAE) represent important efforts to establish rules for digital assets. However, they differ in their treatment of issuers, reserves, disclosures and permitted activities. Approval in one jurisdiction does not automatically establish acceptance in another.

Information-sharing requirements create another challenge. Where Travel Rule protocols are implemented differently, payment providers may struggle to exchange information about transaction participants consistently. This can introduce friction even when the underlying transfer is technically straightforward.
The answer is not necessarily a single global rulebook.

Countries have different legal systems and regulatory priorities. What the industry needs is greater compatibility between those systems: clearer expectations for cross-border transactions, more consistent information-sharing arrangements and practical ways for compliant providers to operate across jurisdictions.

For businesses, regulatory predictability is part of payment reliability. Companies need to understand the conditions under which funds can be transferred, held or released before committing to a payment method.

The Banking Relationship Still Matters

Stablecoins may change how value moves, but they do not eliminate the need to connect digital assets with conventional money. Businesses still need access to fiat currencies, dependable liquidity and banking services that support their operations.
That connection remains a weakness in parts of the market.

Liquidity can be spread across different issuers and blockchain networks, while some banks have chosen to reduce their exposure to digital asset companies rather than develop services for them.

The broader lesson is that blockchain infrastructure cannot operate in isolation. Its commercial usefulness depends partly on the strength of the institutions and services that connect it to the wider financial system.

Reliability Is What Will Make the Difference

None of this means that compliance controls should be weakened. Stablecoin issuers and payment providers must be able to respond to sanctions requirements, suspicious activity and other legitimate reasons to restrict transactions. But businesses also need transparency about why a payment has been held, what steps are required to resolve the issue and who is responsible for communicating the outcome.

Smart contracts can automate agreed payment conditions, but they cannot independently settle every legal dispute or reconcile conflicting requirements across jurisdictions. Those responsibilities must be addressed through contracts, institutions and operating procedures designed around the realities of cross-border commerce.

The next stage of stablecoin adoption will depend on how well the industry deals with these less visible parts of the payment experience. Better settlement technology is valuable, but it must be matched by dependable banking access, compatible regulatory arrangements and clear responsibility when transactions do not go to plan.

For businesses, the question is not simply whether stablecoins can move money faster. It is whether they can make international payments more predictable, easier to manage and less costly in practice.

That is the standard the industry must meet if stablecoins are to become more than an alternative way to transfer digital value.

(Author Info: Jack Tang is an accomplished fintech entrepreneur, at the intersection of payments infrastructure and digital assets. As Co-founder & CEO of London-based BoomFi, Jack leads the platform’s work in crypto payment infrastructure. He has over ten years of experience in entrepreneurship, building and scaling businesses across consumer and enterprise markets.)