Stablecoins in cross-border payments: why the on- and off-ramps decide the outcome

Stablecoin settlement is often described as a replacement for correspondent banking. For a payment platform, exchange or fintech planning cross-border flows, that framing is not very useful. A stablecoin transfer is one leg of a payment. The customer still has to fund it, someone has to convert it, and the recipient usually needs money in a local bank account. Each of those steps has its own cost, cut-off and compliance check.

This article looks at what public data says about cross-border payments today, and where stablecoin settlement fits.

What the data says about today's rails

The Financial Stability Board tracks the G20 targets for faster, cheaper, more transparent and more accessible cross-border payments. Its 2025 progress report, published in October 2025, is cautious. Most Roadmap actions are done, but the FSB says they have not yet produced tangible improvements for end users at a global level. It also considers satisfactory global improvement by the 2027 deadline unlikely.

The detail matters more than the headline:

• Wholesale payments are faster than their reputation. More than 90% of wholesale cross-border payments were credited within one business day, and more than half within one hour.
• Retail is where the friction is. Only 35.4% of retail payment services settled within one hour, and 67.3% within one business day. The FSB notes that part of the improvement in the one-hour figure came from changes in the sample.
• Foreign exchange is the biggest cost. FX remained the largest component of retail cross-border cost. Receiver-side fees added roughly 0.1% to 1.3% of the amount sent and weigh most on smaller payments.
• Transparency is still patchy. Of the services that disclosed cost, 62.9% also disclosed speed.

In other words, the slow part of a cross-border payment is often not the message between banks. It is the first and last mile: getting funds in, converting them, screening them and paying out locally.

What stablecoin settlement changes

The Bank for International Settlements' Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) examined this in its October 2023 report on stablecoin arrangements in cross-border payments. It noted that settlement through correspondent chains can take anywhere from a few minutes to more than two days, depending on the corridor. Stablecoin arrangements could in principle reduce the number of intermediaries and run continuously.

The same report sets clear conditions. The CPMI found that no stablecoin arrangement it assessed was yet properly designed and regulated to the standard it described. It also stressed that any benefit depends on on- and off-ramps, so users must be able to move in and out of local currency. Its principle of "same business, same risks, same regulatory outcome" means the KYC, sanctions and anti-money-laundering costs of a payment do not disappear when the settlement asset changes.

Industry participants describe two common patterns:

• Two-sided flows. Fiat is converted to a stablecoin on the sending side, moves across a network, and is converted back to local currency on the receiving side. Circle's January 2026 overview calls this a "stablecoin sandwich".
• One-sided flows. One party holds or accepts the stablecoin directly, so only one conversion is needed.

Circle's overview also names the trade-offs: on-chain finality means there are no chargebacks, and price stability depends on the issuer and its reserves.

The questions that decide the outcome

For a platform building a cross-border product, the useful questions are operational:

1. How is the stablecoin leg funded? From a customer's own-name local account, a business collection, or a balance the platform already holds? Each needs different onboarding and permissions.
2. Who converts, and at what disclosed rate? Fiat-to-stablecoin and stablecoin-to-fiat conversion each carry a spread or fee. The FSB data suggests FX is where most of the cost sits, so a quote that shows rate, fee and delivered asset before confirmation matters more than network fees.
3. Is there a supervised off-ramp in the destination market? Without a local payout route, the recipient holds a token they may not be able to use.
4. Who carries the compliance? Travel Rule data, sanctions screening and transaction monitoring apply to the regulated entity in each leg. Moving to a new settlement asset does not change that.
5. How is it reconciled? Each conversion and payout needs a reference that matches back to the original instruction and customer.

A hybrid picture

For most programmes the realistic model is hybrid. Local rails handle collection and payout. A stablecoin or a currency balance is used where it shortens settlement or helps with treasury. Conventional rails remain the better option for some corridors and payment sizes. The right mix depends on the corridor, the value, the counterparties and the supervised routes available to that programme.

Where Axora fits

Axora is a financial technology platform. Its modules cover Local Accounts & Collections, Fiat & Stablecoin Conversion, Global Payments, and API & White-label. Which routes, currencies and conversion pairs a programme can use depends on its programme model, its markets and approval. Each service that needs a permission is provided by the operator or provider that holds it. Payouts to more countries are being added and are not yet available.

Next steps

• Cross-border payments & trade
• Explore Axora products: Platform
• See solutions by business type: Solutions
• For developers: Developers
• Talk to us: Contact