Why Do Stablecoins Need Banks to Be Used Globally?

Stripe shelled out $1.1 billion to acquire Bridge, a company that actually focuses on managing relationships with banks. Citi launched crypto custody services. Standard Chartered tested stablecoin settlement in Singapore. 

One by one, large companies handling institutional transaction volumes are landing on the same architecture: deeper integration with the banking system, not moving away from it. This phenomenon reverses the initial promise of stablecoins, which supposedly could bypass banks entirely.

Key Takeaways

• Native stablecoin payments only reached $390 billion per year, just about 0.02% of the $208 trillion cross‑border payment market.
• Dependence on a single bank is the biggest operational risk in the stablecoin industry, with the precedents of the collapse of Silvergate and Signature Bank.
• The BIS believes stablecoins are not yet ready for large‑scale payments and instead promotes tokenized deposits as a safer alternative.

Why Every Stablecoin Transaction Still Ends Up at a Bank

Imagine a Brazilian importer paying its supplier in the United States. Such a cross‑border transaction actually has three stages. The first stage: the payer's money moves in local currency via local payment rails—for example, the Brazilian importer pays in Reals through Pix. 

The second stage is the middle leg: transferring value across borders from one institution to another. The third stage: the recipient receives local currency at the other end—for example, the supplier receiving dollars in its account.

According to Decrypt analysis, it is this middle leg that used to run through correspondent banking, where SWIFT messages hopped between intermediary banks, each adding a day and extra costs. 

When both institutions accept stablecoins, this middle leg can be settled on‑chain in seconds. However, banks still have full control over the other two stages: the on‑ramp, the compliance anchor, and the local rails in each market that the payment touches.

The scale gap is quite striking. The cross‑border payment market reached $208 trillion in 2025 according to FXC Intelligence, while native stablecoin payments ran at about $390 billion per year (annualised) at the end of 2025 according to McKinsey and Artemis, or about 0.02% of total global payment volumes. 

Big numbers like "$30 trillion stablecoin volume" often used as headlines actually reflect more of bot activity, exchange flows, and automated trading, not real payments.

If you are curious about the movement of popular stablecoins like USDT and USDC and want to start exploring crypto transactions safely, you can directly  register on Bittime to start transacting easily and reliably.

The Risk of Dependence on a Single Bank

One of the most important points from Decrypt’s analysis is the often‑underestimated operational risk in the stablecoin industry: dependence on a single banking partner. Banks can exit fintech and crypto programmes without much advance notice. 

They can leave certain corridors after regulatory changes, or revise their risk appetite when management changes or compliance review results are unsatisfactory.

History has provided evidence. The shutdown of Silvergate, Signature Bank being placed into receivership, and the "pause letters" from the FDIC that Coinbase later obtained through a public records request all show the same pattern. 

In March 2026, the Federal Trade Commission even sent formal warning letters to PayPal, Stripe, Visa, and Mastercard regarding debanking practices, part of a broader federal effort rooted in an August 2025 executive order.

For a company with only one banking partner, losing that relationship means an immediate operational halt. 

Read Also: Nvidia’s $500 Billion AI Funding, Will AI Crypto Tokens Also Benefit?

The solution, according to Decrypt, is banking depth that can withstand such losses—that is, having many regulated connections, backup access rails, and a compliance architecture that covers every jurisdiction in the operational corridor. Building such a foundation takes time and significant cost, but it survives when a demo‑style setup collapses.

Recent regulations reinforce this argument. The GENIUS Act, signed in July 2025, ties compliant stablecoin issuance to reserve, disclosure, and licensing requirements at a bank‑like level. 

Even in places that allow non‑bank issuers, these rules still push large volumes towards bank partnerships and reserves custodied by banks. An EY‑Parthenon survey found 13% of financial institutions and corporations already use stablecoins, while 80% of non‑users are actively exploring them.

Read Also: BIS Reveals New Potential of XRP Ledger for Digital Financial Systems

BIS View: Stablecoins Not Yet Ready for Large‑Scale Payments

Unlike the industry operator’s perspective, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) holds a much more sceptical view. 

BIS General Manager Pablo Hernandez de Cos stated that stablecoins do not yet have the credibility to become a large‑scale payment instrument. According to IDNFinancials, the institution that oversees the world’s central banks actually sees tokenized deposits as a more promising path for developing digital asset technology.

"Tokenised deposits offer a more straightforward path to harnessing tokenisation while preserving the foundations of the monetary system," de Cos said at the Federal Reserve’s economic policy symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, as quoted by Reuters via IDNFinancials.

De Cos, who is also one of the candidates to replace European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde next year, highlighted several weaknesses of stablecoins. According to him, the flow of funds from banks to stablecoin platforms could raise the banks’ own funding costs. 

Read Also: 10 Free Bitcoin Mining and Faucet Sites in 2026: Which Are Legit?

He also argued that stablecoins could undermine the "singleness of money" principle, because consumers cannot move from one stablecoin product to another without incurring buy‑sell transaction costs. Stablecoin platforms, he said, are also not truly interoperable, and there are money‑laundering risks because transaction controls are difficult to enforce consistently.

The biggest concern for the BIS is the risk of digital dollarisation. If many people outside the United States switch to dollar‑based stablecoins, this could reduce the effectiveness of domestic monetary policy transmission and make local economies more vulnerable to US monetary policy. 

The BIS view differs from the stance of the US government, which fully supports the development of stablecoins. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent even called stablecoins part of the digital revolution that could strengthen the dollar’s position as the world’s primary reserve currency while creating trillions of dollars of demand for US government bonds.

Read Also: 10+ Best AI Coins in 2026: Here’s the List of Artificial Intelligence Themed Crypto! 

Stablecoin Market Scale and Future Projections

For additional context, total stablecoin market capitalisation currently stands at around $314–322 billion in mid‑2026, with USDT dominating about 58‑59% of the market and USDC around 24%, so the two together control about 83% of the total global market. 

The GENIUS Act requires stablecoin issuers to operate like a "narrow bank," i.e., to hold cash and US Treasury bonds in a 1:1 reserve, publish audited reserve reports, and are prohibited from paying interest on stablecoin holdings. Full implementing rules are targeted to take effect on 18 January 2027.

Despite the debate on scalability between industry and regulatory views, long‑term projections remain optimistic. Citi projects the stablecoin market could reach $1.9 trillion by 2030 in its base case, while Standard Chartered sees a potential of $2 trillion by end‑2028. 

B2B stablecoin payments themselves reached an annualised run‑rate of about $226 billion at end‑2025, up 733% year‑on‑year, with growth concentrated among companies that first completed their banking layer before developing the technology side.

Read Also: 10 Largest RWA Crypto Asset Tokenisations in the World

Conclusion

The debate about the future of stablecoins is no longer about whether the technology can replace banks, but rather how deeply it must integrate with the existing banking system. 

Companies that have successfully scaled stablecoins, such as Stripe and Standard Chartered, have actually built multi‑corridor banking depth as their primary foundation, while the BIS pushes for tokenized deposits as an alternative that remains under central bank and commercial bank control. 

Both views affirm one thing: stablecoins can truly grow globally only when the banking infrastructure behind them is mature and trustworthy enough.

Want to own assets that track the US dollar? Check the movements of USDT, USDC, USD1, and USDS, then start trading your favourite stablecoins on Bittime.

Bittime is a Digital Financial Asset Trader (PAKD) platform licensed and supervised by the Financial Services Authority — where you can  buy Bitcoin in Indonesia and hundreds of other crypto assets starting from Rp10,000. Registration is fast, secure, and can be started today.

Monitor  USDT to IDR conversion and real‑time price movements of your favourite crypto assets. All available in one  crypto investment app that can be downloaded for free from the Play Store.

Ready to start? Register now on Bittime and execute your investment strategy with a platform trusted by millions of users in Indonesia.

FAQ

Why do stablecoins still need banks to grow globally? 

Because every payment transaction always starts and ends in fiat currency that moves through regulated banking infrastructure. Stablecoins can only replace the middle leg of cross‑border transactions, not the entire process.

What is the actual volume of stablecoin payments compared to the global payments market? 

Native stablecoin payments are only about $390 billion per year, or about 0.02% of the $208 trillion cross‑border payments market. Big numbers like $30 trillion often cited come mostly from bot and trading activity, not real payments.

What is the biggest risk for a stablecoin company that relies on only one bank? Losing the only banking partner can cause an immediate operational halt, as happened in the Silvergate and Signature Bank cases. The solution is to build multiple regulated banking connections as a safety net.

Why is the BIS sceptical about stablecoins for large‑scale payments? 

The BIS believes stablecoins risk undermining the "singleness of money" principle, are not truly interoperable, and could trigger digital dollarisation that weakens a country's domestic monetary policy. The BIS prefers tokenized deposits as a safer alternative.

Does the US government agree with the BIS view on stablecoins? 

No, the US government fully supports the development of stablecoins as part of the digital revolution that could strengthen the dollar’s position. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said stablecoins could create trillions of dollars of demand for US government bonds.