From Telegram to Stablecoins: Western Union's Digital Asset Strategy Malcolm Clarke

Author: Payment 201

In this episode of Stableminded, Zach had an in-depth conversation with Malcolm Clarke, Vice President of Digital Assets at Western Union, discussing how one of the world's oldest financial institutions is building its stablecoin infrastructure.

Founded in 1851, Western Union moves over $100 billion in fiat currency annually across 150 countries and 400,000 physical locations. Now, they are issuing their own stablecoin. Malcolm explained in detail why Western Union does not directly call its product a "stablecoin," but brands it as a "payment token"—USDPT, and why this naming distinction is crucial for consumer adoption. He also broke down the three core pillars of Western Union's digital asset business:

First, issuing USDPT on Solana through Anchorage;
Second, building a Digital Asset Network that transforms Western Union's global physical locations into on-ramps and off-ramps for crypto assets;
Third, launching stable cards in collaboration with Rain, allowing consumers to hold tokens pegged to the US dollar and spend them directly in fiat currency locally.

The conversation also covered the decision-making logic behind institutional blockchain selection, why Solana's privacy extensions are particularly important for enterprise applications, and why Western Union chose to issue its own token rather than directly adopting USDC or USDT. In Malcolm's view, the success of stablecoins ultimately depends on two core factors: economics and distribution capability. And Western Union has both.

Zach:
This is really interesting. I do want to dive deeper into the specific issues you are addressing at Western Union. But before that, you’ve mentioned a term several times—payment token. Do you think it conceptually differs from stablecoins? Is it an interchangeable term, or is it more of a corporate-side terminology? Because in my world—I’ve written a lot of articles—I almost never use the term "payment token." If you were to explain it to a complete novice consumer, what would you say it is?

Malcolm:
That’s a great question. The term "payment token" actually comes from our branding of Western Union's stablecoin. We have indeed had serious discussions internally about this: should we call it WU Coin? Should we fully brand it as Western Union, like "WUCoin"? Should we just call it a "coin"?

There are a few premises here.
First, I personally believe that tokenization will ultimately transform the financial industry just as AI has changed productivity. The change with AI is that tasks that used to take hours or days can now be completed in seconds or minutes, such as research, coding, and content generation. I believe tokenization will have a similar level of impact on the financial industry.

If you accept this premise—that everything will be tokenized, whether it’s gold, stocks, or commodities—then payments will also be tokenized. So, in my view, stablecoins are gradually evolving into a stage of "tokenization." Ultimately, it is a digital asset. Therefore, whether we call it a stablecoin or a payment token does not fundamentally change what it is.

This is also why we use the term "payment token." For example, we have USD Payment Token (USDPT), and if in the future we want to create a token for the Mexican peso or the euro, we just need to add the currency in front of PT. From a global usability perspective, this is much more natural than "coin."

Additionally, we are an institution. We transfer massive amounts of fiat currency daily among partners, agents (our offline agent network), and consumers. From this perspective, tokenizing this currency is the theme we really want to express.

Zach:
No, that explanation is really convincing.
If I were an average consumer, from the app perspective—when I see "this is a payment token, a method of payment," compared to seeing "stablecoin," my psychological defenses would be significantly lower. Because around me, whether friends or family, as soon as they hear "coin," they immediately think of cryptocurrency, speculation, and then start to resist.

Malcolm:
Yes, the term stablecoin itself is quite interesting. I was chatting with someone before, and they said something I can’t remember who said it, but I found it particularly funny. They said, "We call it stable, but it actually moves very fast." When you really think about this from a linguistic perspective, it feels a bit ironic. "Stable" originally means still, unmoving.

So I completely agree with you. Honestly, I had never seriously thought about this from the "consumer psychology" angle before. But you’re right—"payment token" is indeed easier for the average user to understand and accept. I might use this term in every meeting from now on.

Zach:
Yes, I’ve even seen someone on LinkedIn say: stablecoins are actually not stable because they are pegged to a fiat currency that continues to depreciate. Especially the US dollar, which is an inflationary currency. Does it really express the "utility" of the underlying asset? If we continue down this path, we will encounter more questions: what do we call yield-bearing tokens? What about those that are essentially "tokenized hedge funds"?

Malcolm:
This brings us to a very important term—utility. And "payment" itself is one of the most basic and clear utilities. Whether we are facing consumers or using it internally, if something does not have a clear utility, if it becomes complex and full of barriers, it will not be adopted.

Ultimately, it will lead to the path you just mentioned—becoming a product of some hype cycle, then being replaced by the next "new thing," providing some VCs with a funding story, and then disappearing. So for us, "utility" is at the core of the core.

Zach:
Since we’ve talked about utility and payment tokens, can you give us a high-level panoramic view? Not just of your stablecoin itself, but also the role Rain plays in it, and how you envision these things being used in emerging markets.

Malcolm:
That’s a very good question. And I think we can’t just look at it from the "Rain partnership" perspective; it must be placed in the context of our entire stablecoin plan. From a macro perspective, our stablecoin strategy has three key components.

The first component is issuing our own stablecoin, USDPT.
There are several very important reasons for this. One obvious reason is optimization and liquidity, and achieving these capabilities within the digital asset network. This makes a lot of sense for us.

Today, Western Union moves an extremely large scale of fiat currency globally—in the hundreds of billions. If we can put part of this liquidity onto a 24/7 operating digital asset track, and earn returns when these funds are not in motion, then this makes economic sense.

So starting from here, this step itself gives you economics. And economics is the first thing that needs to be validated for a large institution. You have to ask yourself: if we are going to invest a lot of time and energy into this, will it really bring returns? Or is this just a hype cycle? Are we just following the trend because "everyone is doing it," and getting a few nice news articles in return? But for us, this is not the case. This is a real, quantifiable economic optimization problem.

Malcolm:
Once you confirm the economics, the next step is distribution capability.
For a stablecoin to succeed, you must have distribution capability; you must make it truly used and held by consumers. Because only when it is used and held can you earn more returns, thus driving the entire cycle.

For us, there are two very important projects here.
One of them is precisely related to Rain, and the approach is very interesting—we are actually one of the "suppliers" for Rain. We have built a Digital Asset Network, which addresses the "last mile to cash" issue, whether on-ramp or off-ramp.

If you look at today’s crypto industry, you will find that converting money into crypto assets is not difficult; the real challenge is: how to convert money back into cash. You may already have a rapidly circulating digital asset, stablecoin, or payment token, but when you actually want to use it, you still have to go back to the fiat network: transfer to a bank account, go through real-time transfer channels, use a debit card, swipe, or tap to pay.

And cash is still the most liquid, direct, and easy-to-use asset in the world. Western Union has an agent network covering 150 countries and over 400,000 physical locations. Through the digital asset network, users can directly choose "Western Union" as their exit channel in wallets like Rain. You just need to walk into our store, show your code, and you can get cash directly. The reverse is also true. If you want to bring cash into the crypto world, you can initiate the operation in your wallet, saying, "I want to top up my wallet because I saw the Bitcoin price drop today, and I need liquidity now." You can walk into a Western Union store and deposit cash into your wallet.

So, this digital asset network gives us distribution capability. Moreover, these users today may not necessarily be traditional Western Union users. They are users in the crypto world.

Honestly, if you are a crypto user, today you wouldn’t choose Western Union just because of "crypto," because we do not provide services for crypto trading, crypto wallets, or buying and selling crypto assets. But through this network, we are entering a completely new market, a new use case, and establishing connections through partners like Rain.

Malcolm:
The third component, and the most exciting part, is what we are doing with Rain—stable cards.

We have over 100 million users globally who transfer money to each other across different countries every day. If we can tell users: in certain suitable regions, you can hold payment tokens pegged to the US dollar in your wallet, and then swipe the card locally to spend in local currency, this is inherently very valuable.

For example, in some countries (I can’t name specifics), many users want to hold their assets in dollars before their local currency depreciates. They wait for the right time to spend. If that $100 is "cashed out" directly from the wallet, then for us, that money leaves the ecosystem, and we no longer earn any returns on it. But if that $100 is placed on a card, and the user spends it through small, multiple transactions, then that money will stay in the ecosystem longer, and we will earn higher overall returns.

From the user’s perspective, this experience is also a huge improvement. If users can set in their wallets: "Every time Malcolm sends money to Zach, automatically load it onto the card," then the whole process is almost seamless. Zach is now in a hurry to pay his phone bill; I send him money, and seconds later, the money is on his card, and he pays directly. This is the immediacy and utility that the stablecoin network truly brings.

So, these three lines—issuing USDPT, the digital asset network, and stable cards—together constitute the overall strategy we are advancing.

Zach:
This really resonates. Even as an American user, I often encounter these barriers. For example, I have stablecoins, maybe from selling some positions, and I don’t want to immediately transfer them back to my bank account. But I might need to attend an event where only cash is accepted; or I see a transaction on Facebook Marketplace where the seller only accepts cash. When you really look at the existing options, either you go to an ATM to withdraw cash, and the fees are outrageous; or you think, "Okay, I have to transfer it back to the bank, wait for it to arrive, and then go withdraw cash."

But you mentioned identity and compliance, especially in the context of converting between cash and crypto. How does this work? Have you completed KYC, and will there be withdrawal limits? Is it similar to the process of going to a bank? Because I can already imagine that there will be people who are skeptical about cryptocurrency and say, "Look, now they allow cash to be directly washed into Bitcoin, and it has become criminal currency."

Malcolm:
"Criminal currency"—that sounds like a great coin name (laughs). There will definitely be someone who actually creates something like that. But this is indeed a very important question. It also explains why now, for institutions like Western Union, stablecoins are a reasonable choice. When you face a new thing in a hype cycle, you usually look at three things.

The first thing is the technology itself.
Is it mature? Can it really deliver? Or is it just some kind of fantasy? In terms of blockchain, we have been studying and using it for many years. Ethereum is a very mature standard, and Solana is also a very good standard. They have gone through painful phases and are now stable. So from a technical perspective, this is a checkmark.

The second thing is consumerization and real use cases.
Can you see existing use cases? Or can you clearly feel that if you do this, you can unlock more use cases, and as consumers evolve in the digital asset or payment token environment, you can meet their needs? On this point, we also have a checkmark.

The third thing, and the most critical one, is compliance and regulation.
The GENIUS Act plays a very important role here. It gives us a clear guiding framework. We now have rules to refer to and boundaries to follow. My legal and compliance colleagues love this. They like frameworks, they like guidance, and they like to work within clear boundaries. And these regulatory frameworks naturally extend to KYC, AML, and other requirements.

In our network, for partners like Rain, we ensure they fulfill their KYC and AML responsibilities. When you initiate a transaction and then walk into a Western Union store, the code you have is directly tied to your KYC/AML identity. If the identity does not match, you cannot complete the withdrawal. This is very similar to banks: we must know who you are and why you are making this fund movement. Of course, we also set limits. You cannot walk into a Western Union store and directly withdraw $500,000 in cash.

Zach:
I think your store employees might be very happy (laughs), after all, that’s a nice income.

Malcolm:
Yes (laughs), but we don’t have $500,000 in cash in our stores to give you, so we need to clarify that. So that’s part of the logic.

Malcolm:
Another very important and somewhat unique aspect is that we do not participate in the crypto trading itself. All crypto transactions are completed within the wallet. Therefore, the compliance responsibility still mainly lies with the wallet provider, like Rain or other wallets. They need to ensure that users' on-chain transactions are compliant and that their processes meet the GENIUS Act and other regulatory requirements.

In this process, Western Union is just the last mile exit channel. Just like today: you complete all operations in the wallet, then choose an exit—maybe a bank, maybe a debit card, or maybe Western Union.

Malcolm:
The GENIUS Act gives us something very important: legitimacy and certainty. Without such a framework, you can easily fall into a risk: you have invested a lot of time and energy, there are consumers using it, and you have bet on this direction, only to have regulators later come in and say, "Sorry, this is not allowed." Then you have to pull everything back. So from an institutional perspective, now is a suitable time.

Zach:
I’m curious. You joined Western Union 6 months ago, and the GENIUS Act itself is a regulation that has been discussed for years and has only recently come to fruition. From your complete vision—stablecoins, on-chain finance, future ways of moving funds—where do you think Western Union currently stands? If you had to give a percentage: have you reached 10%? Or is it even hard to describe in percentages right now?

Malcolm:
My biggest feeling right now is that I really need to get more sleep (laughs). It’s indeed very busy. Let’s continue from here. We are already deep into this path. We are no longer doing proof of concept (POC). For example, we internally call the digital asset network DAN. DAN is not a "let’s try it out" project or an experiment. DAN is built on the capabilities that Western Union already has today. We already have a mature network that can serve as an institution providing "last mile" services. What we are doing now is just extending this capability into the digital asset and crypto network.

In this regard, we have long surpassed the "early stage." We already have partners like Rain formally onboarded. These partners can quickly bring scale to this network. Rain will bring their partner wallets, and other partners will bring their respective wallets. We are also communicating with some large wallets and major players who can similarly bring a large number of consumers into the network quickly.

We have publicly announced that in the second half of next year (H2), the digital asset network will officially open to these wallets. When these wallets start integrating Western Union’s API, users will be able to see Western Union in their wallets and use it as an optional exit channel (off-ramp). Moreover, there is a complete roadmap behind this. Because Western Union not only has a cash network. We also have a digital banking network, we have banking licenses, and we have our own wallets. Over time, we will gradually connect these capabilities and truly build a bridge between fiat ↔ digital assets ↔ fiat.

Malcolm:
Because we are very clear that this is not a one-way bridge. Fiat still exists. You can think of it as a "stablecoin sandwich": stablecoins in the middle, with fiat on both sides. Money in the real world will not disappear. On the stablecoin line itself, we have already announced partnerships with Solana and Anchorage. If you’d like, we can delve into why we chose them.

Zach:
I would love to discuss this.

Malcolm:
Great. Regarding stablecoins, our goal is also in the second half of next year (H2). I spend a lot of time on this every day. The reason we chose Solana and Anchorage is that they are both very mature in their respective fields and have provided us with significant support on this journey.

As for the stablecoin card part, we are already partners with Visa. I personally oversee Western Union's card issuance business. We issue prepaid cards and debit cards in multiple regions globally. So, from a capability perspective, the stablecoin card is not a brand new thing, but rather an extension of our existing capabilities. What we are doing now is expanding this capability into the stablecoin space through Rain. Where we already have wallets, it can be directly embedded; where we don’t have wallets, it can be combined with our remittance business.

Malcolm:
These things are not "replacing" our existing systems. It’s not like, "We are now going to move all remittances onto this chain and shut down the original system." Not at all. I mentioned two terms earlier: economics and distribution capability. In these two aspects, Western Union is very unique. We can add these new capabilities directly to the existing system without needing to undergo massive technical restructuring or suddenly change course mid-journey.

Zach:
This is really interesting. Because when many people talk about enterprise adoption, they imagine a "huge migration": as if everything will suddenly go on-chain. What you describe sounds more like a supplement and enhancement, improving user experience through multiple systems working together.

Malcolm:
Yes. And frankly, if you had asked me this question 6 months ago, I might have said, "Everything will be tokenized, gold will be tokenized, toilet paper will be tokenized." But when you actually enter an ecosystem like Western Union, you realize one thing: consumers do not care how you transfer money. They only care about three things: is it the cheapest? Is it safe? Will it arrive on time? Whether you use NFTs, emojis, rainbows, or carrier pigeons, they don’t care.

So for most consumers, whether the backend is a stablecoin or a payment token does not really matter. Of course, in certain countries and regions, the recipient may indeed care about dollar-pegged tokens. We have already seen people spending Tether directly in physical stores. We frequently discuss these use cases with partners in Latin America and Argentina; these demands are real. But this still only applies to some countries. From an industry-wide perspective, we are still in a very early stage.

Malcolm:
So what we are doing is betting in these areas:
We believe the world will move towards tokenization;
We believe stablecoins can bring optimization;
We believe they can improve fiat liquidity;
We also believe they can enhance fund management and returns.

And even if all consumer-level assumptions ultimately do not hold, merely the optimization at the fund and treasury level makes this worth pursuing.

In fact, there are already people in the industry doing this. For example, Circle’s network is already using USDC for cross-border remittances, reducing foreign exchange costs. So this is not a hypothesis; it is happening. If you do not participate, you will lose the ability to meet user needs in the future, and ultimately, these users will gradually drift away.

Zach:
From the consumer demands you are currently encountering, if we look towards 2025, entering 2026, what do you think is the most core user demand?

Malcolm:
That’s an interesting question. Honestly, I don’t think you can really make accurate predictions about these things.
I feel like every prediction you make might end up being wrong (laughs).

Zach:
Yes, I agree with that.

Malcolm:
However, I can see some things happening. In certain regions, there is a real demand for holding dollar-pegged tokens; there is also a real demand for using these tokens for consumption. The use of this "alternative currency" is real.

I also see many crypto users who, at the right time, will exit to stablecoins and then use them as a stable value carrier while traveling or crossing borders. These are real use cases. We also know that a portion of the stablecoin flow is still B2B, and some of it is not fully automated. But as more large institutions enter these networks, this situation will gradually change. Personally, I know that some institutions have started putting very large liquidity scales into these networks. Some of them have already publicly announced it.

If you push these trends forward, I personally believe we might reach a stage where: when I need to transfer money, and I have crypto assets but don’t want to sell them, can I use them as collateral to obtain a credit line, just like in traditional finance? This is actually a form of credit.

Malcolm:
Combining this with Western Union's use cases, you will find some very real problems. For example: my salary hasn’t arrived yet, but my family overseas is in an emergency, and I need to send money right now. Today, Western Union does not provide such services, but there are already people in the market thinking about this, and we are thinking about it ourselves. That is: Send Now, Pay Later. Send the funds first, and then slowly repay with future income in small amounts and short terms.

If you combine this concept with crypto assets, the scenario becomes: I hold crypto assets, my family has an emergency in the UK, can I use these crypto assets as collateral to obtain a credit line and immediately send money to them? Later, I either repay this money, or when necessary, these crypto assets are used to cover this expenditure.

Zach:
This is really interesting. Because from a certain perspective, this infrastructure already exists in the DeFi world. But I find that even in traditional finance, many people don’t know they can use assets as collateral to get loans in their SoFi accounts, or borrow against their 401(k).

Especially when you talk to ordinary users about Bitcoin, you often see discussions like, "I don’t want to sell my Bitcoin." But they don’t naturally think, "Can I use it as collateral?" This might be an experience issue or a product presentation issue.

Malcolm:
I believe all of this ultimately comes back to specific use cases. You must truly understand what your users are doing. If I introduce Buy Now Pay Later to the existing user base, they will certainly use it. But here, we are discussing a pressing real need: I need to send money right now, and I have a short-term gap in funding.

I don’t want to sell my crypto assets because the price just dropped; or I believe the price will rebound soon. And those holding crypto assets today are generally a relatively "financially literate" group. But as these products become consumerized, you will see these needs gradually emerge.

Malcolm:
Another use case I think is very important is the stablecoin card. In some markets, users can consume with tokens pegged to the US dollar or euro, while these currencies are not legal tender locally. This kind of "liquidity available at any time" is very intuitive and easy for users to understand.

But if you try to explain what a stablecoin is to an average consumer today, they often say, "Oh, it’s pegged to the dollar." But then they will ask, "What does pegged mean?" This concept does not naturally connect with their everyday experience.

Zach:
Yes, I can relate to that.

Malcolm:
So in my mind, I have been simulating such scenarios: today our remittance mechanism is: I send you £50, you receive £50. Tomorrow I send you $50, and your wallet shows $50. Then you go to the store to buy something, and you need to do the mental math: "How much is £1 in dollars?" But in reality, no one wants to do that kind of mental calculation.

Malcolm:
So the UI and product design must solve this problem: you see the amount in local currency for consumption, while in the background, the corresponding dollar token balance decreases. Users should not perceive the technical complexity.

Malcolm:
You can compare it to Buy Now Pay Later. Why has it been successful? Because on the checkout page, the options are directly in front of you: pay $300 now in one go, or pay $50 weekly? Most people will choose the latter because it is simple, intuitive, and has almost no thinking cost.

Zach:
We’re almost out of time, but I have to ask one question. We must talk about Solana. How does an institution like Western Union decide to issue a stablecoin and choose the primary blockchain to operate on? Where do you start?

Malcolm:
We start from the institution's existing knowledge and methodology. As an institution, we spend a lot of time choosing technology, which is very different from startups. Solana and Anchorage are technical choices for us, not market choices. Their selection is entirely based on: what problem are we trying to solve? If I were a startup, my path might be completely different. I might say, "I have an idea, I want to issue a token, I want to do a token auction, I hope the blockchain project can give me some funding to get through the initial stage." But we are not in that situation. We are an institution; we do not need to finance through issuing tokens, nor do we need to look at "who offers the most money."
So we start with a very fundamental question: is the technology suitable for our use case? Then we look deeply at the lifecycle of this chain: what is its development direction? What is its roadmap? Do its future capabilities align with what we want to do? From a functional perspective, most blockchains are actually quite similar: they all have speed, can handle transactions, and can support our basic use cases. We are chain-agnostic. Solana is our starting point, but not the endpoint. Over time, we will also enter Ethereum and other chains.

Malcolm:
So why start with Solana? One very important reason is Solana's roadmap on privacy extensions. And its approach to on-chain privacy design. For institutions, being able to completely transparently track every token movement on-chain is very unsettling. Solana's scalability allows us to mask certain information in smart contracts rather than exposing everything to public view. This is very important for enterprise-level applications.

Another reason is Solana's performance in terms of innovation pace. Its development speed, community, and technological evolution align very well with our future needs.

As for Anchorage, it is a bank regulated by the US OCC, a true institutional-grade custody and banking partner. We have previously collaborated with Anchorage. In terms of compliance, regulation, and security, it aligns very well with us.

Malcolm:
Next is a question many people will ask: why issue our own token? Why not use USDC, USDT, or other existing stablecoins? I often use an analogy to explain this. If I go to a bank to buy dollars, and the bank tells me, "This dollar comes with a bunch of rules I cannot control, and these rules can change at any time," I would probably not choose to use that dollar. Stablecoins are the same.

As an institution, we need control over the contract: control over where the token can go, how it circulates, how it evolves in the future, and how it meets compliance requirements. These things cannot be controlled if you use someone else's coin. We are not operating in a completely open, unregulated market. We need a certain degree of controllability to build customer-facing use cases.

For a very specific example, if users use my coin and exit the last mile through my network, I can add loyalty incentives at the token level. For example: if you hold it for a while, I can give you rebates; I can give you discounts; I can program these rules into the contract. If I am using someone else's coin, these use cases cannot be realized at all.

So to summarize our approach as an institution in choosing technology: we start from the technical fit, innovation capability, and use case alignment, and then enter the formal RFI, compliance, and procurement processes. This is a completely different logic from the startup approach of "I have an idea, I want to issue a token, I want to raise funds."

Zach:
This is actually a very large paradigm shift. Because a few months ago, the market was still hotly discussing Hyperliquid's stablecoin proposal, and the focus of the discussion was almost entirely on: "USDC has such a large scale; if Hyperliquid issues a token, how much can it earn? How many tokens can it buy back?" What you are saying is: economics is important, but privacy and control are more important.

Malcolm:
Yes. I return to what we said at the beginning. The internal optimization and treasury use cases themselves are already sufficient to support this. We move hundreds of billions of dollars annually. In the fiat system, there are costs associated with this. Just optimizing the flow of these funds makes issuing our own token economically viable.

You can look at PayPal. Their situation is very similar. They do not need any additional reasons; simply relying on internal optimization, their stablecoin is already "successful." Of course, we also hope to use the token in stablecoin cards, Visa networks, and consumer scenarios. This is very important for our long-term strategy. But the risk is not high, because even without a consumer-level explosion, internal optimization is already sufficient.

This is a completely different logic from projects like Hyperliquid. They need to establish a balance sheet first, attract deposits, and rely on returns to drive growth. But institutions are different. Banks and payment institutions already have liquidity, returns, and funds. So we can make choices in a completely different way.

Zach:
Speaking of privacy, in the last season, we talked with the Solana team. They mentioned that privacy extensions might be one of the most underrated yet crucial capabilities in the stablecoin space. What do you think is the biggest misunderstanding people have about blockchain privacy?

Malcolm:
I’m actually laughing because my earliest career work was in "privacy by design." From an institutional perspective, if you expose your core business completely on-chain, that is unacceptable. Not because you want to "hide something," but because it brings market risks and regulatory risks. If the market can see in real-time that a publicly traded company is moving large sums of money on-chain, this could affect stock prices and regulatory attitudes. But here, "privacy" does not mean "no one can see it." Rather, it means that those who should not see it do not see it, and those who should see it can see it under legal circumstances. This is institutional privacy, not personal anonymity. This is different from the early crypto world’s pursuit of "complete anonymity." You would not trust a bank if it posted every transaction you made on a bulletin board.

Zach:
Like Venmo.

Malcolm:
Exactly. Venmo is interesting. I often intentionally write exaggerated things in the transfer notes, and it always sparks a call (laughs).

Zach:
One last question. Do you have any core insights you want to leave for the audience? Whether they are already in this field or just starting to learn about stablecoins.

Malcolm:
What I want to say in closing is: this is an open network, multi-chain, multi-partner; openness is very important. But more importantly—does it truly solve use cases? Western Union is fortunate because we have both economics and distribution capability. If you only have one of these, it is hard to succeed. If economics and distribution capability do not align, whether you are doing stablecoins, emojis, or NFTs, you will ultimately fail. Partners like Rain, Solana, and Anchorage are key to helping us align these two things.

Zach:
That was fantastic. I hope the next time I’m at an international conference, I can directly exchange stablecoins for cash at Western Union.

Malcolm:
Let me know when, and maybe I can prepare some codes for you in advance (laughs).

Zach:
Thank you, Malcolm. I really appreciate you coming on Stableminded.

Malcolm:
Thank you, Zach. This was a great conversation.