Stabledash
Stabledash
Insights
December 16, 2025
Global finance runs on invisible infrastructure.
For decades, a small group of correspondent banks has controlled the movement of dollars across borders through layered networks of nostro and vostro accounts.
But the dynamics within the venture space are now changing. Every fintech deal I have reviewed in the past six months contains some form of stablecoin connection.
Large companies such as Klarna are exploring issuance, and Western Union has announced plans for stablecoins.
The trade press claims that "fintech is basically dead" without a stablecoin strategy in place. That comment captures the change underway, but often leads leadership teams toward unproductive reactions.
Many executives default to asking "Should we do stablecoins?," hoping that plugging into a new rail will modernize their existing stack.
The companies that will set the pace over the next decade will approach the problem differently. They will begin by defining the operational pain points they aim to solve, then assess whether stablecoin infrastructure addresses those issues more effectively than the current stack.
This framework provides a path to make that call.
The phrase "fintech is dead” has become a headline device, yet it reflects a genuine shift.
The era of creating “neobanks” with a polished interface wrapped around legacy banking rails is fading. Fintech is moving toward a model in which stablecoins and blockchains serve as the connective tissue between payment systems.
Look at how global settlement works today.
Domestic payment systems such as SEPA in Europe, UPI in India, PIX in Brazil, and FedNow in the U.S. operate well within their borders but lack natural cross-border connectivity. The gap between those systems is bridged by correspondent banks and SWIFT messages that move slowly and create friction.
Stablecoins offer an alternative bridge rail.
They move value between siloed systems with immediate settlement and programmable logic.
They give builders a way to connect payment environments without relying on “store and forward” messages.
Traditional rails still matter.
You still need ACH or Fedwire for the last mile when converting to hard cash or traditional fiat. Stablecoins sit beside these systems and increase the reach of the overall stack rather than replacing it.
The pressure on incumbent fintechs comes from a new cohort of stablecoin-native competitors. These new entrants begin with global reach on day one because their settlement rail moves across borders without the cost structure of correspondent banking.
Stablecoins already support 5-10% of flows in corridors such as the U.S.-Mexico market. This creates a structural advantage that legacy stacks cannot match without architectural change.
Leadership teams often begin with vendor or rail selection, but the real work starts earlier. The strongest strategies begin with a clear diagnosis of the business itself.
I use this four-part framework to help leadership teams determine whether to include stablecoins on their roadmap:
Stablecoins should map to a clear business need, not a desire to adopt new rails.
In some scenarios, traditional rails perform better.
On Monday, fiat might be cheaper due to FX liquidity depth; on Tuesday, stablecoins might offer better rates.
Hybrid approaches often win.
If existing rails already meet customer expectations with strong economics, a stablecoin layer may add complexity without improving results. The decision rests on measurable structural limits rather than broad enthusiasm for new technology
Distribution remains the primary currency in fintech.
Large platforms like Chime have built massive user bases in the US. However, a proprietary stablecoin requires more than just users; it needs liquidity across external markets.
A "Chime Dollar" faces immediate utility limits outside the Chime network. Without a strategy to bridge that liquidity gap, you risk creating a stranded asset.
This filter eliminates many stablecoin ambitions at the outset. Pursuing an OCC charter or money transmission licenses requires a specialized team. Companies without the internal capability to cut through regulatory complexity should avoid issuance paths.
New legislation, including the GENIUS Act, widens the field but still favors firms equipped to manage the compliance burden.
After defining the core business problem, stablecoin strategy falls into three clear paths. Each offers different strengths, operational demands, and long-term implications.
This path suits a narrow set of companies with significant scale and mature compliance capabilities.
When it fits:
The Liquidity Reality:
The most common misconception is that issuance equals volume. Just issuing a stablecoin does not automatically generate demand or liquidity.
To succeed, even proprietary issuers must often partner with major players like USDC or Tether to ensure their token is swappable and usable outside their immediate "walled garden."
This path prioritizes speed and utility over proprietary economics.
When it fits:
The Custody Decision:
Scope determines the custody model.
Self-custody gives global access and supports environments where banking partners are limited or unavailable. Custodial partners suit treasury use cases that require regulated oversight.
Choosing the right model shapes your risk controls, compliance design, and rollout speed.
Certain companies gain more by observing the market than by committing early.
When it fits:
The Time Pressure:
Ignoring stablecoins does not remove the need to adapt later. Pricing shifts from players like Stripe already show how global settlement costs are changing. As stablecoin-powered rails grow, margin pressure will increase.
Companies in this category are buying time to observe the field rather than opting out of the trend.
As stablecoin infrastructure becomes widely accessible, defensibility shifts away from technology. Once every company can plug into stablecoin rails, what creates a moat?
The strongest defense remains owning the customer relationship. Chime’s dominance comes from its user base, not its backend plumbing.
If Chime integrates stablecoins, it leverages its distribution to offer better products (remittances, yield).
A stablecoin-native startup may have better tech, but without users, they cannot compete.
Regulation has become a core product differentiator rather than an obligation.
Following frameworks like MiCA in Europe, we see a flight to quality. Companies with licensing, supervision, and strong KYC and AML operations now control a barrier that limits new entrants.
This capability compounds over time and grows into a major strategic advantage.
Deep integration into specific verticals creates stickiness.
A platform built for short-term rental hosts, exporters, or gig workers can embed financial tools inside daily workflows. This connection creates loyalty through utility, not novelty.
Broad stablecoin wallets cannot replace that depth.
We operate in a sprint-based environment. What typically takes incumbents months to evaluate can be achieved in weeks through focused sprints. The ability to execute an RFP process, select a partner, and launch a pilot quickly is a competitive advantage in itself.
A period of clarity is forming across major markets. The GENIUS Act in the United States and MiCA in Europe are setting a defined structure for how stablecoins must operate. This clarity drives institutional adoption. Fireblocks data shows that 90% of institutions are taking steps toward stablecoin adoption in 2025.
Clear rules force a "flight to quality."
Markets gravitate toward structures that can withstand regulatory inspection. Companies that secure licenses, strengthen compliance operations, and choose the right partners during this period gain an early position that later entrants cannot easily match.
The opportunity to secure first-mover advantage will not remain open for long.
The stablecoin conversation often drifts toward platforms, vendors, and technical minutiae. That focus obscures the real decision. The central issue is strategic clarity.
Stablecoins are simply the most efficient infrastructure available for moving value globally. Strategy involves knowing when infrastructure serves your goals.
Use the four-question framework. Identify the problem. If your answers point to friction that drains margin or speed, then stablecoins offer a direct improvement. If your answers are uncertain or vague, then you are not ready for a technology decision but a strategy conversation.
The companies that endure will treat stablecoins as core infrastructure for modern capital movement. Those that view them only as a crypto experiment will fall behind the firms that build with purpose and precision.
To learn more about Monad, visit www.monad.xyz or watch the interview with Raj from Stablecoin Conference LATAM 2025 below:
The Stabledash newsletter keeps you off the timeline and dialed into modern money.
Join leaders at Circle, Ripple, and Visa who trust us for their stablecoin insights.
