Cross-border stablecoin transfers settle near-instantly at under $1, versus bank fees above 6%, but privacy and payment rail gaps persist, Consensus Miami panelists said.
A panel of executives from MoonPay, Ripple, and Paxos delivered a blunt assessment at Consensus Miami 2026: the GENIUS Act has given traditional finance a clear regulatory path into stablecoins, but the industry is nowhere close to solving the infrastructure and privacy problems that would turn dollar-pegged tokens into everyday payment tools. The disconnect between regulatory progress and real-world usability is now the dominant risk for a market sitting at roughly $317 billion in total value.
Richard Harrison, MoonPay’s vice president of banking and payment partnerships, framed the problem with an analogy. “What GENIUS brought us was clarity,” he said, noting that traditional financial institutions are entering stablecoins at a faster pace because compliance is easier to evaluate. But he compared the current state of adoption to electric vehicles: the core product works, yet mass-market take-up depends entirely on the supporting infrastructure. “How do you use stablecoin to pay your rent?” Harrison asked. “How do you use it to buy a cup of coffee?”
The question is not rhetorical. It exposes the gap between a $317 billion asset class and a payment system that consumers and businesses can actually use. The panel’s comments land just days before the Senate Banking Committee markup of the CLARITY Act on May 14, a legislative milestone that could either reinforce the regulatory framework or introduce new friction, depending on how the compromise language holds up against banking industry opposition.
The GENIUS Act provided a federal regulatory framework for stablecoin issuers, removing the ambiguity that had kept many traditional finance firms on the sidelines. Harrison said that clarity is why institutions are now moving in. But regulation alone does not build the plumbing that connects a stablecoin balance to a landlord’s bank account or a coffee shop’s point-of-sale terminal.
Harrison projected that stablecoins could capture around 10% of global remittance flows within five years, up from a currently small share. That projection hinges on payment rails improving and more merchants integrating digital dollar services. Without those rails, stablecoins remain confined to crypto-native use cases: trading, DeFi lending, and speculative activity. The remittance market is a natural fit because cross-border stablecoin transfers already settle near-instantly at fees below one dollar, compared with traditional banking fees that can exceed 6%. But remittances are only one slice of the payment pie, and even there, the last-mile problem persists: the recipient still needs a way to convert digital dollars into local currency or spend them directly.
Jack McDonald, Ripple’s senior vice president for stablecoins, reinforced the point by describing what institutional clients actually ask about. They are focused less on market capitalisation and more on practical details: regulatory compliance, custody security, and whether stablecoins can do something useful beyond trading. McDonald said Ripple continues to concentrate on treasury operations, collateral management, and cross-border payment settlement as the primary enterprise use cases. Utility, he argued, must drive adoption rather than speculative interest.
That focus on enterprise treasury and settlement is telling. It suggests that the near-term growth path for stablecoins runs through back-office functions at large corporations and financial institutions, not through consumer payments at the checkout counter. The infrastructure for institutional use is further along because it can piggyback on existing custody and compliance systems. The consumer side, by contrast, requires a new network of merchants, wallets, and on-ramps that does not yet exist at scale.
The fee differential in cross-border transfers is the clearest proof that stablecoin technology works. Sending money across borders via traditional banking can cost more than 6% in fees and take days to settle. A stablecoin transfer on a public blockchain settles in seconds for under a dollar. That is a genuine improvement, and it explains why remittances are the most frequently cited real-world use case.
But the panel made clear that cross-border settlement alone will not drive mass adoption. The problem is that the benefit stops at the point of conversion. If a worker in the US sends stablecoins to family abroad, the recipient still faces the challenge of turning those tokens into spendable local currency. That requires a local exchange, a mobile money integration, or a merchant willing to accept stablecoins directly. None of those are widespread. The infrastructure gap is not in the transfer layer; it is in the acceptance layer.
McDonald’s emphasis on treasury and collateral management points to a different adoption path. Large companies that already manage multi-currency cash pools can use stablecoins to move value between subsidiaries without the friction of correspondent banking. That use case does not require consumer adoption at all. It only requires that the stablecoin issuer is regulated, the custody is secure, and the token is redeemable 1:1 for dollars. Those conditions are increasingly met, which is why institutional demand is real. But it also means that the stablecoin market could bifurcate: one track for institutional settlement, another for consumer payments, with different infrastructure requirements and different timelines.
Brent Perrault, a senior staff software engineer at Paxos, identified privacy as the sector’s most persistent unresolved problem. Public blockchains expose transaction amounts and the flow of funds, which creates compliance and confidentiality concerns for businesses handling sensitive financial data. A company that pays suppliers via stablecoin does not want its entire payment history visible on-chain to competitors, counterparties, or anyone with a block explorer.
Perrault warned that partial privacy solutions are insufficient because users inevitably move between private and public blockchain environments. A transaction that is private on one leg becomes visible as soon as it touches a public chain. That leakage undermines the confidentiality that businesses require. He said competitive differentiation among stablecoin issuers is now increasingly driven by trust, distribution partnerships, and user incentives rather than technical specification alone. That is a significant shift. It means that the battle for market share will be won or lost on the strength of commercial relationships and compliance reputation, not on marginal improvements in throughput or latency.
Perrault pointed to PayPal USD’s growth and Charles Schwab’s use of Paxos infrastructure as evidence that demand from established financial institutions is real and expanding beyond crypto-native firms. But he also noted that even well-capitalised issuers with strong compliance records face significant friction when trying to connect stablecoin rails to the everyday payment systems consumers and businesses already use. The gap is not just technical; it is commercial and operational. Payment networks like Visa and Mastercard have spent decades building acceptance infrastructure. Stablecoin issuers are starting from scratch.
The panel’s comments at Consensus Miami came as the CLARITY Act moves toward its Senate Banking Committee markup on May 14. Five major banking trade groups have already rejected the Tillis-Alsobrooks stablecoin compromise language, arguing that it does not adequately address safety and soundness concerns. The executives at Consensus did not directly address the markup, but their remarks underscored why the regulatory outcome matters to companies building stablecoin payment products at scale.
If the CLARITY Act passes with language that banks oppose, it could create a parallel regulatory regime that fragments the market. If it stalls, the current patchwork of state-level regulation and federal guidance remains in place, which may be enough for institutional use cases but does little to accelerate consumer adoption. The risk is that regulatory uncertainty becomes a drag on the infrastructure investment needed to close the gap Harrison described.
Western Union’s announcement of its USDPT stablecoin on Solana earlier in May, with issuance through Anchorage Digital, reflects exactly the dynamic Harrison described: regulation has lowered the barrier, but the infrastructure needed to make stablecoins work in everyday consumer contexts is still being built. Western Union has an existing global network of agents and payout locations. That network could serve as the last-mile infrastructure that pure-play crypto firms lack. But integrating a stablecoin into that network is a multi-year project, not a flip of a switch.
The risk that stablecoins stall as a niche trading tool rather than becoming a mainstream payment medium can be reduced by concrete progress on two fronts. First, payment rail integration: stablecoin issuers need direct connections to existing payment systems, whether through partnerships with card networks, mobile money operators, or merchant acquirers. PayPal USD’s growth suggests that an existing user base and merchant network can accelerate adoption, but PayPal is an exception. Most stablecoin issuers do not have a built-in distribution channel.
Second, privacy technology must mature to the point where businesses can transact on-chain without exposing sensitive data. Zero-knowledge proofs and other cryptographic techniques are advancing, but they are not yet deployed at scale in a way that satisfies both regulators and enterprise users. Until that happens, stablecoins will remain a compliance risk for any business that handles customer funds or competitive financial data.
A third, less discussed factor is the incentive structure. Perrault noted that user incentives are becoming a differentiator. That could mean yield-bearing stablecoins, cashback programs, or loyalty integrations that give consumers a reason to hold and spend digital dollars instead of using a credit card. Without a clear consumer value proposition, stablecoins will struggle to compete with existing payment methods that already work well enough for most people.
The stablecoin market’s growth trajectory is not guaranteed. A regulatory setback, such as a prolonged stalemate on the CLARITY Act or a hostile amendment, could freeze institutional participation just as it is beginning to accelerate. Banks that have been exploring stablecoin issuance or custody could pull back if the compliance picture becomes murkier. That would delay the infrastructure build-out and keep stablecoins confined to crypto-native circles.
A privacy failure would be equally damaging. If a high-profile enterprise adoption attempt results in a data leak or a compliance breach, the reputational damage could set the sector back years. Businesses are risk-averse by nature, and they will not adopt a technology that exposes their financial flows to public scrutiny. The panel’s warning that partial privacy solutions are insufficient means that the industry cannot afford to ship a half-baked fix and call it done.
Finally, the macro environment matters. Stablecoins have grown during a period of relatively high interest rates, which makes yield-bearing stablecoins attractive. If rates fall sharply, the yield advantage diminishes, and the incentive to hold stablecoins over bank deposits could weaken. That is not an immediate risk, but it is a variable that traders should track alongside the regulatory and infrastructure developments.
The stablecoin market at $317 billion is a meaningful financial asset class, but its next phase of growth depends on solving problems that are less about technology and more about plumbing, privacy, and partnerships. The CLARITY Act markup on May 14 is the next concrete event that will signal whether the regulatory tailwind continues or stalls. For traders, the actionable question is not whether stablecoins are useful–they already are for cross-border settlement–but whether the infrastructure gap will close fast enough to justify the current market valuation and the growth expectations priced into related assets.
Drafted by the AlphaScala research model and grounded in primary market data – live prices, fundamentals, SEC filings, hedge-fund holdings, and insider activity. Each story is checked against AlphaScala publishing rules before release. Educational coverage, not personalized advice.