Who is really using Stablecoin?

Original Xu Chen Steven Payment 201

In the past two years, the narrative of Stablecoin has transitioned from the Crypto circle into the Payment Industry.

Pay with USDC, Stablecoin Checkout, Stablecoin Card, Stablecoin Remittance, Stablecoin B2B… almost all payment scenarios can be rewrapped with Stablecoin. However, if we truly look at the flow of funds, we will find an interesting phenomenon: the Stablecoin Flow that has actually scaled today is not the same as the "consumer using USDC to buy coffee" often discussed in the media.

Recently, Eric Barbier, founder of Triple-A, disclosed a set of interesting data: from July 2025 to July 2026, Triple-A's TPV doubled, with the TPV of the Trading Platforms, Exchanges, and Market Makers segment growing by 150%, contributing about two-thirds of the company's TPV.

Another interesting example is Codex. Codex recently disclosed that its monthly volume has reached about $1.2 billion, but at the same time, its newly launched USDT ↔ USDC 1:1 Conversion product Codex Par is already handling hundreds of millions per month in volume.

After seeing this news, I casually shared it in the Payment201 community, and a group member reminded me of an important question: do not automatically interpret a large Stablecoin TPV as that much money has been used for purchasing goods, remittances, or merchant payments.

The Stablecoin Volume may inherently contain a large amount of Trading, USDT / USDC Swaps, Arbitrage, Liquidity Rebalancing, and Treasury Movement. These are all real use cases, but their economic meanings are completely different.

So in this article, I do not want to discuss whether Stablecoin will replace banks, nor do I want to debate which chain has a higher TPS. I want to analyze from the perspective of the business and fund flows I see at this stage:

What real financial flows have Stablecoin been integrated into.

1. The largest base is still Trading and Liquidity

If we only look at volume, the Crypto-native flow cannot be overlooked.

Exchanges, Trading Platforms, Market Makers, Brokers, OTC Desks are constantly moving liquidity between different venues, wallets, assets, and counterparties every day. Market Makers need to provide positions for Exchanges, Trading Firms need to move funds from Venue A to Venue B, and Exchanges need to handle withdrawals, counterparty settlements, and treasury rebalancing.

In these scenarios, Stablecoin is never just a payment method; it is closer to a Settlement Asset + Liquidity Rail.

Traditional Bank Money can also facilitate fund movement, but Banking Hours, Cut-off, Account Structure, Correspondent Banking, and Funding Windows all affect when funds are truly available. The Crypto Market itself operates 24/7, and a Dollar-denominated Asset that can settle 24/7 naturally aligns better with the rhythm of this market.

Thus, the place where Stablecoin first achieved true product-market fit was not Checkout, but Liquidity.

Moreover, there is no need for Crypto ↔ Fiat to occur here.

USDT and USDC both represent Dollar Exposure, but they are clearly not the same asset: different issuers, different redemption channels, different chain distributions, different counterparty acceptances, and different liquidity depths in different venues.

So a large amount of:

USDT ↔ USDC

is itself a business.

Some is trading, some is arbitrage, some is treasury rebalancing, and some is simply because the next counterparty only accepts another type of Stablecoin. The fact that Codex Par can handle hundreds of millions per month indicates that even though they are both on-chain Dollars, there is still liquidity fragmentation internally.

There is another layer to break down within trading.

When consumers deposit funds into an exchange, it is essentially C2B Fiat Acceptance. Users enter the Crypto Economy using cards, bank transfers, or local payment methods; at this point, exchanges excel in trading, wallets, and crypto liquidity, but may not be adept in global acquiring, authorization, fraud, chargebacks, and local APMs.

Thus, traditional financial institutions like Worldpay will still appear in this chain. Worldpay officially still identifies Crypto Exchange and Trading Wallet Funding as clear scenarios, and Card Networks may even use special account funding/transaction indicators for Crypto/Stablecoin Ramp Transactions.

However, when it comes to Exchange ↔ Market Maker, Exchange ↔ Liquidity Provider, Trading Firm ↔ OTC Desk, there is no consumer checkout; what is truly competing are fiat accounts, OTC, Stablecoin inventory, custody, liquidity, and settlement.

While both are called Stablecoin, C2B competes on Fiat Acceptance, and B2B competes on Liquidity and Settlement.

2. Africa: On one side is Cross-border Liquidity, on the other is Dollar Access

Remittance is another significant scenario for Stablecoin, but the market's understanding of Stablecoin Remittance is often quite singular.

The most common image is: a US user buys USDC and sends it to family in Nigeria, who then converts it to NGN.

This flow certainly exists, but in actual business, I see another demand that is equally prevalent and may be more interesting from the perspective of Payment and Treasury:

How to get local money out of Africa.

Many markets do not necessarily find local collection difficult. Local currencies like NGN, GHS, KES can be collected through banks, mobile money, or local PSPs; the real challenge lies in the latter part—how these local currency positions can be converted into liquidity that can be used cross-border.

Thus, we see chains like this in the actual market:

Local Collection → Liquidity Provider → Stablecoin → On-chain Settlement → Offshore Liquidity / Off-ramp → Destination Fiat

Locally, the collection of the local currency is completed, and the conversion is done through institutions with the appropriate FX, liquidity, and regulatory capabilities, with USDT / USDC undertaking cross-border settlement, and finally landing back into fiat in the UAE, Europe, Asia, or other destinations.

From a payment perspective, this is just an A → B.

But from a funding perspective, what truly happens is:

Local Liquidity is converted into a type of Settlement Liquidity that has stronger global transferability.

Thus, liquidity providers are crucial in this chain. Often, the real difficulty is not the few seconds of on-chain transfer, but the local fiat before going on-chain and the offshore fiat after going off-chain.

When Mastercard and Yellow Card announced their partnership this year, they explicitly listed Cross-border Remittance, B2B Settlement, and Treasury Management as key application directions for Stablecoin.

This is also why I believe that simply understanding African Stablecoin as "Crypto Remittance" underestimates it.

It has begun to enter:

Local Collection → Cross-border Treasury → Offshore Settlement.

Of course, there is still a very important boundary here. FX Regulation, Capital Control, and Cross-border Payment Licenses do not automatically disappear just because funds go on-chain.

Blockchain provides Settlement Technology, it does not provide Legal Permission.

Similarly, in Africa, Latin America, and some Emerging Markets, Stablecoin has another completely different demand: users are not primarily looking to make payments; they just want to Hold Dollar.

If a person lives in New York and already has a USD Bank Account, Card, and Brokerage Account, then the incremental utility of USDC may not be that significant. However, if the market faces long-term depreciation of the local currency, has difficulty obtaining dollar accounts, and has restrictions on official FX access, USDT / USDC begins to transform from a "Payment Instrument" into a more easily held and moved Dollar Asset.

Thus, the same USDC may represent liquidity for Market Makers; a settlement asset for PSPs; a working capital dollar position for SMEs; and for ordinary users, it may be close to Digital Dollar Savings.

This also means:

Stablecoin Adoption does not equal Payment Adoption.

Some large use cases may not even require the Stablecoin to be "spent" again.

3. B2B Trade: The goods are real, but the banking path may not be easy

Another area worth watching in the future is Physical Goods Trade.

Mobile phones, 3C, electronics, used cars, auto parts, wholesale daily necessities, import/export are typical scenarios. Their common issue is not that companies "like Crypto," but that buyers and sellers often exist in completely different financial systems while being very sensitive to settlement speed and working capital.

Eric Barbier previously publicly discussed a typical case: a Hong Kong company exporting mobile phones to Vietnam, where the Vietnamese buyer wishes to pay using Stablecoin, with Triple-A completing the conversion and settlement, while the Hong Kong seller ultimately receives fiat in their bank account.

What is truly important here is not Crypto, but:

Buyer Preferred Settlement Asset ≠ Seller Preferred Settlement Asset.

Just because the buyer has USDT does not mean the seller should be forced to hold USDT. A mature Stablecoin infrastructure truly completes the compliance, liquidity, FX, and settlement translation in the middle.

In other words, the truly valuable product form of Stablecoin B2B should be:

The payer continues to use their most convenient asset, while the payee continues to receive the money they need.

Stablecoin only enters that middle segment.

Why are there demands in scenarios like used cars, mobile phones, auto parts, and wholesale? Because they generally have strong cross-border attributes, significant ticket sizes, and very fast capital turnover.

A used car has already been shipped, and the next batch of mobile phones can only be procured after the previous batch's payment returns; if a bank transfer is delayed for two days due to cut-off, correspondent banks, or funding delays, the loss is not just an abstract "payment experience," but inventory turnover and cash conversion cycle.

Thus, the real question Stablecoin B2B should ask is not:

"Are companies willing to accept Crypto?"

But rather:

"Can it make the money in trade turn over faster?"

4. Digital-native Business: The business is already 24/7, but money is not

Another group that is naturally inclined to accept Stablecoin are industries whose business models are highly digital-native.

Gaming, creators, affiliates, freelancers, contractors, marketplace sellers, agencies—these businesses share the commonality of not just having young or crypto-friendly users, but they are inherently Global + 24/7 + Distributed.

A Singapore platform might have clients in the US, developers in Eastern Europe, sellers in the Philippines, and affiliates in LATAM. The business does not have real banking hours, but the funding system still does.

Thus, Stablecoin naturally first enters Payout.

The G2G / OffGamers case publicly shared by Triple-A is a typical example: two gaming marketplaces serve over 100 countries, and payouts already account for about 60% of their Triple-A volume.

This case actually illustrates an important point:

Stablecoin Adoption does not require companies to become Crypto Companies.

Companies do not necessarily manage private keys, build wallet infrastructure, or hold Stablecoin long-term. They simply find that in a certain segment of financial flow, Stablecoin is more suitable than the original rail.

Slash's current GTM is also quite interesting. It does not simply categorize by "Stablecoin Customer," but directly sells the financial stack according to Agencies, E-commerce, Web3, Wholesalers, Affiliates, Travel Agencies, Contractors, etc., with different verticals corresponding to completely different banking, card, FX, payout, and working capital capabilities.

I think this perspective is very accurate.

Because what customers are truly purchasing is never:

"Do you support USDC?"

But rather:

"Do you understand how money flows in my industry?"

Stablecoin is a rail; what customers are truly buying is Money Workflow.

Advertising flow and VCC is a typical workflow.

Some advertisers, affiliates, and agencies upstream already receive USDT / USDC, and they are naturally willing to continue using Stablecoin for settlement. However, platforms like Google, Meta, TikTok, etc., primarily operate in the fiat/card economy.

Thus, we see:

Stablecoin Revenue → Agency / Ad Buyer → Fiat / Card Balance → VCC → Advertising Spend

The most interesting part of this chain is:

Stablecoin does not replace Card. Stablecoin solves Funding, Card solves Acceptance.

The upstream is already Stablecoin-native, while the downstream remains Visa / Mastercard-native; what is truly valuable in between is the translation layer.

Slash's current product has made this trend very intuitive: it provides cards, global payments, and treasury for verticals like agencies, affiliates, e-commerce, and travel; the global card is built on a Stablecoin-backed global USD infrastructure, and when transactions occur, it enters Visa Card Spend in the background.

Thus, when looking at Stablecoin use cases, we cannot just ask if the merchant has a Pay with USDC button.

Many times, Stablecoin does not even appear in the final merchant transaction.

It only exists in the earlier funding/treasury layer.

5. The higher the banking friction in an industry, the stronger the Stablecoin demand

Continuing further, we encounter some more complex verticals.

I am reluctant to simply call this "gray industry." A more accurate term might be High Banking Friction / Elevated-risk Industries.

Many businesses can be entirely legal, but in the risk models of banks, acquirers, and PSPs, they require stricter EDD, transaction monitoring, or only a few financial institutions are willing to service them.

Forex / CFD is a specific case.

BVNK disclosed that about 40% of deposits from its client Titan FX already come from Stablecoin, with an average Stablecoin deposit of about €5,000, which is 10 times that of card deposits. Titan FX's explanation is quite realistic: some international clients face high card fees or poor cross-border card acceptance, and users prefer to fund larger amounts through crypto.

At this point, Stablecoin is no longer a marginal alternative payment method.

It has truly entered:

Account Funding.

Similar demands also exist in gambling/betting, precious metals, jewelry, some mining/metals, commodity trading, and some financial/digital businesses with relatively cautious bank risk appetites.

This type of industry often presents a contradiction:

The higher the banking friction, the higher the Stablecoin utility; but the higher the banking friction, the higher the compliance difficulty for Stablecoin providers.

Thus:

Stablecoin Demand ≠ Stablecoin Serviceability.

Just because banks are unwilling to service does not mean that switching to a Stablecoin PSP will make the problem disappear.

Ultimately, we still need to address KYB, UBO, KYT, source of funds, AML, sanctions, license perimeter, and the most practical question:

Are your banking partners willing to accept this flow?

Thus, the real difficulty in Stablecoin business often lies not in blockchain, but in the combination of:

Regulation × Entity × Bank × Liquidity × Corridor × Risk Appetite

that can truly run long-term.

Sometimes in the market, this capability is collectively referred to as regulatory arbitrage, but I believe that is not entirely accurate. While there certainly exists real arbitrage, more often, it is simply Regulatory Fit / Jurisdictional Optimization: companies are not looking for a "no-regulation" place, but rather a market and financial partner where the rules are clear, banks are willing to engage, liquidity is sufficient, and the business model can scale.

6. The weaker the traditional financial connectivity, the stronger the alternative settlement demand

Another category of Stablecoin flow that cannot be completely ignored comes from markets with significantly weaker traditional financial connectivity.

This may be due to insufficient correspondent banking coverage, FX/capital control, or stricter financial restrictions. As long as there are real economic activities like imports, exports, supplier payments, investments, and payroll, the demand for value transfer will not disappear.

When traditional banking connectivity declines, the market will naturally seek alternative settlement assets, and Stablecoin, due to its global transferability and 24/7 settlement, will become one of the options.

However, two completely different things need to be distinguished here:

The existence of settlement demand does not mean that this flow can be serviced legally and compliantly.

Stablecoin can change value transfer technology but will not eliminate sanctions, export controls, AML, and counterparty restrictions.

This is actually a very simple economic phenomenon:

The weaker the traditional financial connectivity, the stronger the demand for alternative settlement infrastructure.

7. The same Stablecoin solves completely different financial problems

Putting all these flows together, the most interesting aspect of Stablecoin at this stage is becoming increasingly clear:

It is not a single payment product.

For exchanges and market makers, it is a Liquidity Rail; between USDT ↔ USDC, it is Liquidity Transformation; for PSPs and remittance companies, it is a Settlement Asset; for Africa outbound, it is a Bridge connecting local liquidity and offshore liquidity; for emerging market users, it may be a Dollar Store of Value; for B2B exporters, it is doing Settlement Translation; for gaming, creators, and contractors, it is a Payout Rail; for forex brokers, it is an Account Funding Rail; and when it comes to advertising flow and VCC, it becomes a Funding Instrument before entering the card network.

The same USDT / USDC solves completely different financial problems.

This is why looking solely at Stablecoin TPV can easily lead to misunderstandings.

Codex processes $1 billion monthly or more, which may include both real cross-border settlements and a large amount of Stablecoin swaps, liquidity rebalancing, and institutional flows; Triple-A's data tells us that trading platforms, exchanges, and market makers have contributed most of the volume.

The volume is real, but the economic meaning of the volume may not be the same.

So the real question is not:

How large is the Stablecoin volume?

But rather:

Why does this volume occur?

Is it completing payments, or moving liquidity? Is it doing FX, or treasury rebalancing? Is it providing dollar access, or asset transformation between two Stablecoins?

Only by answering this question can we truly understand which layer of financial infrastructure Stablecoin is entering.

Moving to the next layer, once the payment flow runs smoothly, credit will naturally grow

This is also a consensus that many group members have discussed.

Today, Stablecoin is increasingly entering payment, settlement, liquidity, and treasury, but as long as these flows are stable enough, the next layer of demand will almost certainly emerge:

Credit.

B2B trade will naturally lead to trade finance, inventory finance, and receivables financing; agencies and advertising flows will have working capital and card credit lines; PSPs, remittance, and liquidity providers will see settlement credit/intraday liquidity; and once merchant flows stabilize, merchant financing based on transaction flows will also emerge.

Stablecoin can reduce settlement time from two days to a few minutes, but it cannot solve another more fundamental issue in the real business world:

Upstream wants money today, while downstream will only pay back in thirty days.

This is the reason for the existence of credit.

Once payment infrastructure masters more real flows, it also gains a set of data that only banks could see in the past:

Transaction volume, settlement history, receivables, counterparties, inventory turnover, collection/payout patterns.

Thus, the entire evolution becomes very natural:

Payment → Settlement → Liquidity → Credit

Or from another perspective:

Payment generates flow, flow generates data, and data ultimately generates credit.

Therefore, the truly valuable part of PayFi may not just be giving DeFi lending a new name, but rather whether real payment flows can transform into underwriting data, repayment sources, and credit infrastructure.

At this stage, the Stablecoin ecosystem is no longer just about "how to transfer money."

It begins to enter the complete financial lifecycle of enterprises.

Conclusion

Returning to the initial question.

What is truly worth watching at this stage is not just how many merchants have added a:

Pay with USDC.

But rather how much real capital flow has begun to insert Stablecoin into the existing financial stack in the most expensive, slowest, least continuous, or hardest to connect segment.

It may solve liquidity, it may solve settlement, it may solve dollar access, it may improve working capital, or it may just serve as a funding instrument before card spending.

Stablecoin does not necessarily need to replace the entire traditional financial chain.

Many times, it only replaces a segment of it, and then returns to bank accounts, local clearing, FX, card networks, and even grows into credit.

The truly competitive type of Stablecoin company in the future may not necessarily be the most crypto-native one.

But rather the one that is most clear about:

When to use fiat, when to use Stablecoin; when to use banks, when to use cards; when liquidity is needed, and when to access credit.

Then, piecing these capabilities together into a truly suitable financial workflow for the customer's business model.

This is the Stablecoin use case I see now.

Finally,

The Stablecoin industry has just begun, and everyone's real goal should be the same: to grow the ecosystem together, rather than compete with each other in already mature segments.

The world is big enough. Rather than competing for channels or a few basis points, it is better to truly go out—Go Local, Go to Industry, Go to Market, find real demand, and also find the most suitable position for oneself in the ecosystem.

I also hope everyone can create more real use cases and expand and deepen the Stablecoin ecosystem in Asia. In the next round of global financial infrastructure, we should not only be participants but also builders.