Stablecoins are entering the "everyday money" era in 2026
While stablecoins currently function as "invisible" infrastructure for institutional cross-border flows rather than retail purchases, emerging global regulations and a massive generational wealth transfer are positioning them to evolve into a primary competitor for legacy payment networks by the next decade.
I’ve been innundated with reports about stablecoins lately, and they all say the same thing … but in very different ways, News.Az reports, citing The Finanser.
So let me try and cut through the noise.
Stablecoins are for wholesale commercial banking and trading today. They are not for the likes of you and me. But that will change. Let’s narrow this down a little bit.
First, there was a piece from Bloomberg highlighting that stablecoins processed around $33 trillion of transactions last year. That’s a huge number. On the surface, it sounds like stablecoins have gone mainstream and are taking over payments.
But then you stop and think: have you ever actually bought a coffee with a stablecoin?
Probably not.
Because when you dig into the detail, most of that volume isn’t people paying for things. It’s trading activity, arbitrage, bots moving money around and liquidity sloshing between exchanges. And it’s dominated by names like USDC and Tether.
So, what does that really tell us?
It tells us that stablecoins are already operating at global scale… but not as a payments revolution. They’re operating as infrastructure. Quietly, efficiently, moving money around the system at internet speed.
And that’s where things get interesting as another report popped up on Finextra: Navigating stablecoin adoption in financial services.
The report points out that stablecoins have been around for years, but what’s really driving adoption now is regulation. As frameworks emerge across the US, UK, EU and Asia, banks are starting to take them seriously not just as a crypto tool, but as part of mainstream financial infrastructure.
Specifically, in this context, they see the biggest use case is clear: cross-border payments. Stablecoins can move money faster, cheaper and more transparently than traditional correspondent banking, and they’re also being explored for interbank liquidity, FX efficiency, and as a hedge in weaker currency markets.
More than this, as you will see with the other reports below, the main barriers aren’t related to technology. They are all around regulation and customer trust. Banks won’t move until they have clarity on compliance, risk, and how these assets fit on their balance sheet.
Then I looked at a paper from Boston Consulting Group, and they basically say: be careful with the big numbers.
Yes, you’ll hear figures like $60 trillion in annual transaction volume. But strip out the noise—trading, arbitrage, internal crypto flows—and what’s left is far smaller. We’re talking hundreds of billions linked to the real economy, not tens of trillions.
Still significant. But a very different story.
What’s actually happening is that stablecoins are finding their niche in the places where traditional finance struggles. Cross-border payments. Treasury flows. Institutional settlement. The plumbing, not the shop window.
In other words, this isn’t about buying coffee. It’s about moving millions across borders instantly, reconciling accounts in real time, and reducing friction in global finance.
And that’s a big deal.
But we’re not there yet on the retail side. Regulation is still evolving, infrastructure is fragmented, trust is uneven, and merchants haven’t adopted stablecoins at scale. So for now, they remain a specialist tool rather than a universal one.
Then I went through the view from the Bank for International Settlements, and they take a more cautious tone.
Stablecoins have grown rapidly and are now sitting around a few hundred billion in market value, but they highlight three core issues: consistency, scalability, and integrity.
Or, put more simply: are they truly stable, can they expand reliably, and can they be trusted?
There are real concerns here.
Financial crime is one. These systems are borderless and pseudonymous, which makes tracking illicit activity hard: they export the dollar, potentially undermining local currencies and central bank authority.
And then there’s market impact. Stablecoin issuers are now major buyers of US Treasuries. They influence liquidity. They respond to interest rates. In many ways, they’re starting to look like shadow banks… just running on blockchain rails.
Which raises a big question: do we regulate them like banks?
Probably not. Because this isn’t just another financial product. It’s a fundamentally different system that is designed to be borderless, programmable, always on.
There are also other nuances here, such as FATF requirements about moving money cross-border.
FATF is the Financial Action Task Force. It is an independent intergovernmental body established in 1989 by the G7 to set global standards for combating money laundering, terrorist financing, and proliferation financing.
This is something that Victor Yaromin picked up from a report by Sumsub on LinkedIn. The report, “Scaling Travel Rule Compliance in the Stablecoin Era”, makes clear that the Travel Rule means that firms making payments with stablecoins must collect and share sender and receiver information for transactions. The problem with that is that stablecoins move fast, across borders, and at huge volume. That breaks traditional, manual compliance processes and trying to bolt compliance on afterwards just doesn’t work anymore.
Compliance has to be built into the transaction itself.
It needs to operate in real time, embedded in the flow of payments, with systems that can exchange data seamlessly across jurisdictions. That creates a new challenge for firms: dealing with fragmented global rules, different thresholds, and multiple counterparties, all while keeping the user experience smooth.
Add on to this other areas of amiguity such as how US Gov, with their GENIUS Act, seem conflicted. For example, the White House just released a report on their view of stablecoins and whether they can be interest-bearing / yield-bearing digital assets. This is a core issue for traditional bank operations versus the cryptcurrency and stablecoin exchanges, trading platforms and operators. The White House study backs the crypto industry in its clash with banks over yield-bearing stablecoins.
Banks argue that paying yield would pull money out of deposits and hurt lending, but the White House study says the impact would be minimal. Instead, it frames the issue as competition and they support that. The aim is that stablecoins offering yield could simply push banks to offer better returns.
In short, this isn’t really about financial stability; it’s about who controls customer money, which led me nicely to a Chainalysis report released last week, who note the following numbers:
Adjusted stablecoin volume is projected to reach $719 trillion by 2035 through organic growth alone. Factor in macro catalysts, and that figure could approach $1.5 quadrillion.
Between 2028 and 2048, an estimated $100 trillion in wealth will likely move from Boomers to Millennials and Gen Z (generations far more likely to use crypto as a default financial tool).
Stablecoin payment volumes are on pace to match Visa and Mastercard’s off-chain transaction volumes somewhere between 2031 and 2039, putting direct competitive pressure on legacy payment rails.
Deals like Stripe’s acquisition of Bridge and Mastercard’s partnership with BVNK signal that stablecoins are becoming core payments infrastructure.
So where does that leave us?
Stablecoins are not a retail payments revolution. Not yet.
What they are is something far more foundational: a new way of moving money. Faster, cheaper, programmable, and global by design.
Right now, they’re being used where that matters most: behind the scenes in the engine room of finance. Treasury, settlement, cross-border flows.
That’s the real story.
The technology works. The scale, in terms of real-world usage, is still catching up.
But if history tells us anything from cards to the internet, it’s that infrastructure shifts first and consumer behaviour follows later.
By Leyla Şirinova
Similar news
