Stablecoins go mainstream: How US regulation and infrastructure are changing payments

Stablecoins are no longer “just crypto”

Stablecoins have moved from the edges of crypto into the centre of how money is starting to move. A big reason is simple: once stablecoins entered the picture, blockchain payments stopped being only technically interesting and started working commercially.

Before stablecoins, volatility made crypto payments hard to use in real business flows. After stablecoins were integrated, payments became fast, cheap, and frictionless, without the price swings.

What a stablecoin is (in plain terms)

A stablecoin is a token that is usually pegged 1:1 to a fiat currency. The biggest category in circulation is dollar-backed stablecoins.

Stablecoins are typically backed 1:1 by dollars or cash equivalents. Issuers can make money by investing reserves (for example in T-bills). In some setups, rewards based on that return can be shared with partners.

A key point is stability. Unlike more volatile crypto assets, a stablecoin is meant to stay at $1. It is possible to mint and redeem at $1 and receive $1 when off-ramping back to dollars.

Where US regulation stands now

The Genius Act has passed and is in the rule-making phase of implementation, but it is not yet enacted. The practical change is clearer rules for how stablecoins are treated and how institutions can engage with them, including using, holding, transferring, and offering stablecoins to customers.

That clarity is already linked to faster adoption. Stablecoins in circulation have increased by about $60 billion since the Genius Act passed.

A second bill, the Clarity Act, is still in progress. One of the debated topics is yield and how rewards can be shared.

Why regulation is speeding things up, not slowing them down

The idea that regulation and innovation always conflict does not hold in stablecoins. Regulation is unlocking the participants that move the needle.

The Genius Act changes the risk calculation for enterprises and regulated institutions. Before that, uncertainty was existential: concerns about licences, reputational damage, and client trust made stablecoins hard to justify. With a federal framework, that uncertainty drops, and stablecoins become a credible option for treasury operations, including at large companies.

Consumer-to-business stablecoin transactions grow by 130% in 2025, and regulation accelerates that growth by bringing in institutional treasuries, enterprise finance teams, and regulated financial institutions that previously stayed away.

MiCA vs the US approach

MiCA is pan-European crypto legislation, but it is structurally different from the US framework.

Key differences:

• Scope: MiCA regulates what happens inside the EU. The US framework sets the tone for dollar-dominated stablecoins globally, reflecting the dominance of dollar-backed stablecoins in overall volume.

• Structure: MiCA is one regime across EU states. The US approach has both federal and state paths, which is more flexible for smaller issuers.

MiCA also changes the euro stablecoin market. It legitimises euro stablecoins as regulated instruments while limiting scale through caps and yield prohibitions. The result is a controlled, institutional-grade euro stablecoin market rather than organic growth. This approach leaves room for a digital euro, with the European Central Bank running a digital euro project that competes with private stablecoins.

Why banks and big payments companies are getting involved

Traditional finance is leaning in. Stablecoin conversations move from innovation teams to board-level and CEO-level discussions about stablecoin strategy.

The drivers are practical:

• faster and cheaper payments

• instant, final settlement

• 24/7 availability

• better cross-border movement of dollars

• growing customer demand

Yield is also a driver at the partner level. Under the Genius framework, rewards can be passed to partners (not necessarily to end users). That makes stablecoin-based dollars more attractive even when they are not moving.

What Visa, Mastercard, and Stripe are really doing

Major payments companies are competing to control infrastructure, not to sell stablecoin products to end users.

The focus is:

• owning the orchestration layer

• owning the conversion point between fiat rails and on-chain rails

Visa settles about $3.6 billion on-chain in 2025. The number is small relative to total volume, but it signals commitment to settlement infrastructure.

Mastercard quietly upgrades backend settlement and tests stablecoins to settle card transactions while keeping checkout the same. Stripe’s acquisition of Bridge is a purchase of conversion infrastructure, not stablecoin exposure.

This participation reduces scepticism and normalizes stablecoins for merchants, treasury teams, and B2B payments.

How to choose stablecoin infrastructure partners

Two areas matter most: track record and regulation/compliance.

Track record matters more than marketing

Important checks:

• how long the provider has been operating

• security incidents (and how they were handled)

• platform uptime

• churn rate (switching costs are relatively low, so retention is a direct signal of service quality)

Talking to existing customers is one of the most telling steps.

Compliance and licensing are not optional

Key questions:

• can the provider move money legally in the US, Europe, UAE, and other relevant places

• travel rule compliance

• sanctions screening

• who regulates them (and how reputable that regulator is)

These differences matter most when something goes wrong.

Stablecoins are not only for cross-border payments

Stablecoins are not primarily a cross-border tool. In 2025, stablecoin flows are more intra-country than cross-border, moving from 50% to 75%.

Domestic use cases include:

• supplier payments

• contractor payouts

• recurring B2B settlements

The benefit is operational: removing settlement lag that costs finance teams time every month.

The “stablecoin sandwich” problem: where complexity shows up

Stablecoins can add steps. If money has to go:

1. fiat → stablecoin

2. stablecoin → fiat

that adds two conversions. Those steps can be costly and slow, and they reduce the “faster, cheaper” advantage.

The practical starting point is identifying where the biggest friction sits in the settlement stack, then naming the type of friction:

• technology problem

• liquidity problem

• reconciliation problem

That determines where stablecoins help and where they add complexity.

What to watch over the next 6–12 months

This is a move-now moment, but not a run-10-pilots moment.

The priorities:

• identify the highest-friction payment workflows

• put a clear ROI on the use case

• assign real authority to execute

Moving Forward

Stablecoins have crossed the threshold from crypto curiosity to commercial necessity. The incoming regulatory clarity—led by frameworks like the Genius Act—is exactly the green light institutional treasuries and enterprise finance teams have been waiting for. As the infrastructure layer solidifies, led by moves from Visa, Mastercard, and Stripe, the focus must shift from understanding the technology to implementing it where it hurts the most: high-friction, slow-settling payment workflows. This isn't the time for tentative exploration; it's the moment to identify real operational bottlenecks, demand clear ROI, and start moving money with the speed and efficiency that modern business demands.