Foreign media commentary suggests that stablecoins were originally seen as a payment tool that could bypass the traditional banking system, but in the context of corporate cross-border settlements, the actual trend in the industry is the opposite. As institutional businesses expand, stablecoin companies are becoming increasingly dependent on bank accounts, local payment networks, foreign exchange channels, and compliance frameworks, with on-chain settlements serving more as just an intermediate step in cross-border payments.

Stablecoins mainly settle intermediate links

The article states that a corporate cross-border payment is typically divided into three stages: the payer first withdraws funds in their local currency through the local payment system, and the recipient ultimately receives the funds in the same local currency or fiat currencies such as US dollars. Only the portion of the value that is transferred across borders in between may be completed on the blockchain using stablecoins.

This means that stablecoins can reduce cross-border settlement times and lower transfer costs within the traditional correspondent bank chain, but the origin and destination of funds still remain within the banking system. For corporate clients, banks not only provide access to accounts but also act as the entities responsible for compliance reviews and local settlement networks.

There is still a gap between the scale of payments and the size of the market.

The article cites data from FXC Intelligence, McKinsey, and Artemis stating that the global cross-border payment market size will be approximately 208 trillion US dollars in 2025, while the annualized scale of stablecoins actually used for payments by the end of 2025 is about 390 billion US dollars, which still represents a very low proportion.

It is also mentioned in the text that the annual 'trading volume' data of common stablecoins in the market often reaches trillions of dollars, but a large portion of this comes from robot trading, internal exchanges, and automated trading, which cannot be directly equated with real payment demands.

• Global Cross-Border Payment Market: Approximately $208 Trillion
• Stablecoin real payment annualized scale: approximately $390 billion
• Annual scale of stablecoin payments between enterprises: approximately $226 billion

The article argues that in scenarios such as corporate finance, salary payments, supplier settlements, and institutional coin withdrawals, the funds initially come from fiat currency accounts. Therefore, what determines whether a business can expand to an institutional level is not only the efficiency on the blockchain but also includes the depth of bank connections, the ability to handle foreign exchange, and the coverage of licenses across multiple regions.

Dependence on a single bank is considered a major risk.

Commentary articles state that one of the most easily underestimated operational risks for current stablecoin payment companies is over-reliance on a single banking partner. When business volumes are small, one bank, one stablecoin issuer, and a set of compliance processes may be sufficient to support operations, but as the scale increases, this structure quickly exposes its vulnerabilities.

The article mentions that the liquidation of Silvergate, the takeover of Signature Bank, and the suspension letter obtained by Coinbase through public records all indicate that banks may suddenly scale back related businesses due to regulatory changes, adjustments in risk preferences, or internal audits. If a company has only one major banking counterparty, the interruption of cooperation could directly lead to the cessation of payment processes.

The author believes that a more sustainable approach is to establish multiple regulated banks for connections, redundant payment channels, and a compliance framework that covers different jurisdictions. In this way, even if a single partner withdraws, business operations will not be immediately interrupted.

Institutions place greater emphasis on compliance and banking capabilities.

The article argues that in the retail context, the market often views compliance as a source of friction and banks as a traditional burden; however, this perspective is less valid when dealing with the financial teams of multinational corporations, fund management departments, and large trading platforms. Institutional clients place more emphasis on whether partners possess bank-level reserve management capabilities, licensing qualifications, and auditable compliance processes.

It is mentioned in the text that the GENIUS Act signed by the United States in July 2025 further binds the issuance, reserves, disclosure, and licensing requirements of compliant stablecoins. Even though the rules allow non-bank institutions to issue stablecoins, larger-scale businesses will still tend to cooperate with banks and have their reserves managed by banks.

The article also cites a survey by EY-Parthenon which states that currently 13% of financial institutions and enterprises are using stablecoins, while another 80% of those not using them are evaluating the possibility of adopting them. Comments suggest that demand is indeed emerging, but what truly limits the expansion of the industry is the insufficient supply of regulated infrastructure that can handle the traffic of these institutions.

Additional information:The author of this article is Trace Finance, co-founder and CEO of Bernardo Brites. The article represents the perspective of industry practitioners, and the core argument is that for stablecoin payments to scale, it is essential to first establish a complete infrastructure involving banks and compliance measures.