In November 2025, I presented at the deBlock Summit in Tehran, Iran. As an American citizen, the circumstances were shocking to both the audience and my peers in the industry. Many were surprised that a country like Iran was even interested in blockchain. Yet their interest mirrors that of any financial institution: asset-backed currency, alternatives to the SWIFT system, and cross-border trade and finance without predatory regulation. The difference is that Iran's interest comes from necessity rather than last-mile optimization. Since 2018, the United States has imposed increasingly strict sanctions on Iran, which have contributed to economic collapse and civil unrest. The ethics of these sanctions are for others to debate, but the reality is that the Iranian people have paid the price. Today, they are in active conflict with their government to restore access to global trade, using cryptocurrencies and tokenized real-world assets as interim mechanisms for financial relief. Similar use cases exist across other developing nations where banking infrastructure is weak or disconnected, currencies are highly inflationary, and political instability undermines trust and legitimacy. In these contexts, stablecoins backed by U.S. Treasury bills—which still maintain global hegemony, albeit waning—or hard assets such as gold are extremely useful. They provide currency stability relative to local fiat and reserves, while their foundation on immutable, decentralized technology creates unprecedented confidence and trust in the ability to trade. Stablecoins also provide a global, standardized platform for commerce. This is analogous to the U.S. dollar's role as a global reserve currency—now expressed in blockchain form. Trading in U.S. dollars is not inherently difficult; holding, settling, and tracking them is. For countries with fragile banking systems, this is a structural weakness. Moving these instruments on-chain resolves that limitation. At that point, the primary constraint on participation in global trade becomes the economics of the goods or services exchanged. The key takeaway is that stablecoins for cross-border payments are one part efficiency and three parts independence. International banking is more restrictive than it is inefficient. With the rise of BRICS, this dynamic will sit at the center of any serious conversation about stablecoins.
Look, stablecoins are basically a programmable settlement layer. They fix that "trapped liquidity" headache we've dealt with for years in traditional banking. Right now, we're seeing firms move capital between global subsidiaries instantly. They aren't stuck waiting three days for correspondent banks to clear a transfer anymore. It's just-in-time funding for local operations, and it drastically improves a company's daily cash position. It's just smarter capital efficiency. When you look at cross-border B2B payments, the shift from SWIFT to stablecoins is really driven by atomic settlement. SWIFT is basically a chain of intermediaries, and every single one of them adds a fee and a delay. Stablecoins let payment and reconciliation happen at the same time. Our research shows enterprises can cut transaction costs by up to 80%. Moving from a T+3 settlement cycle to something near-instant is a massive win for anyone trying to manage a predictable supply chain. Regulation is the final hurdle, obviously. We're seeing companies gravitate toward "compliance-first" stablecoins that offer real, transparent proof of reserves. Navigating frameworks like MiCA in Europe or the emerging guidelines in the US is now a core part of the implementation process. These enterprises aren't just buying into the tech; they're buying into regulated ecosystems. They need that legal certainty before they'll even think about holding these assets on a corporate balance sheet. Moving to a blockchain-based treasury requires a serious change in mindset regarding risk and custody. The efficiency gains are undeniable, but the real challenge for most organizations is the integration. You have to plug these new rails into existing ERP and accounting systems without breaking your internal controls. That's where the rubber meets the road.
Enterprises aren't using stablecoins for speculation, they're using them to fix slow, expensive cross-border payments. I worked with treasury and payments teams, the main benefit is settlement speed. Stablecoin transfers settle in minutes, 24/7, versus 2-3 business days on SWIFT. That directly improves cash flow and reduces trapped capital across subsidiaries and vendors. Cost is the second driver. Once you include correspondent bank fees, FX spreads, and reconciliation overhead, stablecoins are materially cheaper at scale. Companies still convert to fiat at the endpoints, but removing intermediaries changes the economics. Treasury teams also use USD stablecoins as a short-term cash equivalent to move value between entities, pay overseas suppliers, or fund payroll in emerging markets without opening local USD accounts. Importantly, this is done through regulated on/off-ramps with full KYC/AML. Stablecoins are treated as payment rails, not balance-sheet bets.
I see stablecoins used for cross-border supplier payments and intercompany transfers where teams want 24 7 settlement and fewer intermediaries than a typical SWIFT path. On the rails side, Visa's rollout of USDC settlement with bank partners is a clear signal that stablecoins are becoming part of mainstream payment operations, not just a crypto sidebar. The gating issues are compliance and controls, so serious pilots stick to regulated issuers and use tight AML screening, and they align programs with frameworks like the US GENIUS Act and EU MiCA.