On 15 October, Visa announced that stablecoin prefunding through Visa Direct was moving into commercial production, with Inyo Global as its first enabler. Eligible businesses can fund cross-border payouts using USDC through the provider’s existing infrastructure.
The same day, Mastercard and BVNK launched Global Money Platform, bringing together fiat and stablecoin balances, conversion and local bank payouts through a single API.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Access deeper industry intelligence
Experience unmatched clarity with a single platform that combines unique data, AI, and human expertise.
These developments bring the practical question into focus. Once value has travelled across a blockchain, how reliably can a business turn it into money its supplier can use?
For a company paying an invoice in local currency, the relevant destination is the supplier’s bank account. The quality of that final conversion and payout determines how much of the blockchain’s speed and cost advantage reaches the customer.
The intermediaries at the exit
An October 2026 working paper published by the Bank for International Settlements, by Wenxin Du, Catherine Huang and David Scharfstein, compares banks, fintech money transfer operators and stablecoin payment routes. Its findings challenge the assumption that a cheap blockchain transfer produces a cheap international payment.
In one illustrative route, a sender converts dollars into 100 USDC through Coinbase and transfers the tokens to Kraken. The Ethereum transfer costs about $0.19. Converting the USDC into euros then attracts a 1% trading fee, followed by a €1 withdrawal charge to reach a euro bank account.
Those are the paper’s illustrative fees, rather than a current quote or an enterprise pricing benchmark. They nevertheless show why the network fee alone is an inadequate comparison.
The authors argue that exchanges can perform functions analogous to correspondent banks, adding conversion steps and intermediary dependencies. Stablecoins change where these functions sit; businesses still need someone to perform them.
For payment providers, that creates a demanding commercial test. Can they make the complete journey sufficiently predictable that a finance team can rely on it for recurring obligations?
Price the amount that reaches the account
A useful quote should begin with the amount the recipient needs to receive. From there, the provider should show the total amount the sender must commit, the exchange rate, applicable charges and the period for which those terms remain valid.
This makes competing routes comparable. A low transfer fee is difficult to evaluate if the conversion spread is unclear or another charge appears when the recipient withdraws the proceeds.
The same discipline should apply to volume. A successful small transfer establishes that a route works at that size. Before moving a larger supplier payment, the business needs confirmation that the quoted conversion price and payout capacity will support the actual amount.
I would also distinguish a guaranteed recipient amount from an estimate. Both can be legitimate offers, but they serve different purposes. A business settling an invoice needs to know who absorbs any difference between the initial calculation and the final bank credit.
The commercial value lies in removing that uncertainty before the payment begins.
Keep the clock running until funds are available
Providers should distinguish blockchain confirmation, conversion into fiat, submission to the local payment system and availability in the recipient’s account. Each status answers a different operational question.
A finance team scheduling a supplier payment needs a commitment tied to the final stage. If the supplier cannot use the funds, an earlier confirmation does little to resolve the outstanding invoice.
This is particularly important when a service advertises continuous availability. The business should establish which parts of the journey operate around the clock, which receiving banks and local payment methods are supported, and what happens when a payment falls outside those conditions.
A useful service commitment should also address exceptions. Who investigates a payout that has been submitted but not credited? What information can the sender see? When will an update arrive?
Average delivery times offer limited reassurance when a delayed payment could interrupt a shipment. Providers should make their handling of delayed and rejected payments as understandable as their normal processing times.
Show where the liquidity sits
The funding arrangement deserves the same scrutiny as the transfer itself.
A business should ask when its money becomes committed and when it can change its instructions. Does the provider require funds before issuing a firm conversion quote? Can unused balances be withdrawn promptly? What happens if the receiving bank rejects a payment after the stablecoins have already been converted?
These questions reveal the working-capital consequences of a particular service.
For example, a provider might make local payouts quickly because it maintains fiat balances in the destination market. That arrangement may be useful. The customer should understand whether those balances belong to the provider or must be funded by the customer, and whether additional reserves are required.
From a treasury perspective, the test is the total funding commitment needed to deliver payments reliably. Faster movement across one part of the route is valuable when it also improves that calculation.
Make responsibility clear before the first payment
The exit into a bank account also requires a clear operating relationship between the customer, the conversion provider and the payout institution.
Before using a route, a business should establish what documentation is required, which counterparties are eligible and who handles requests for further information. Screening and review can still produce exceptions. The provider should explain how those exceptions are managed without promising that every payment will pass automatically.
One customer-facing contact can make this process easier, provided that contact has the authority and information to coordinate the underlying parties. A support team that can only confirm the blockchain transaction leaves the customer with the hardest part unresolved.
Payment records matter here too. Finance teams need to connect the original invoice, token transfer, conversion, fees and final bank credit. That record should be available without reconstructing the transaction across several dashboards.
As stablecoin services enter commercial production, providers have an opportunity to compete on the quality of this complete service. Clear recipient amounts, credible delivery commitments, transparent funding requirements and accountable exception handling give businesses something they can assess.
The strongest offer will make those commitments legible before money moves. That is how a fast settlement mechanism becomes a payment service a business can depend on.
Ivan Kroshnyi, founder of SharPay
