Why Your Stablecoin Strategy is Based on a Lie

FinTech is innovating with record speed - we started to change the status quo with crypto, then "invented" tokenisation, now we are building a whole secondary market on our existing financial system with stablecoins. But even though everybody thinks that the future will be bright, the available data needs proper interpretation before we can make any strategic decision about trusting pur money with this seemingly quick, cheap and safe payment option.

The latest February 2026 McKinsey & Company report, "Stablecoins in payments: What the raw transaction numbers miss," has just revealed a staggering "Reality Gap" that proves exactly why the current lack of specialized education is a ticking time bomb for modern enterprises. While transaction volumes are often cited in the tens of trillions, the majority of this activity does not represent real-world payments but instead, it consists mainly of trading activity, internal fund movements, liquidity management and automated blockchain processes.

And once these elements are excluded, the actual volume of stablecoin payments is estimated at around $390 billion annually, which represents only a very small share of global payment volumes. That is a 99% discrepancy that most boards are completely unaware of. Stablecoins are relevant - but the way we interpret the data around themmight be totally incorrect.

The Danger of Not Knowing

In payments and banking, (as with everything) the devil lies in small details - and tiny misunderstandings can create expensive consequences.

The stablecoin survey shows that blockchain data indicates value movement, but it does not explain the economic purpose behind that movement. This means a transaction can represent a supplier payment, a treasury transfer, a trading loop or an automated contract execution, but somehow all of these appear the same in raw transaction volumes. The problem starts when these numbers are interpreted without understanding what is really behind them. If someone reads the headline figures, they can easily assume widespread adoption, while in reality the actual payment usage is far more limited and concentrated in specific use cases.

The more alarming issue is not that the data is difficult to interpret, but that the same interpretation is repeated across articles, presentations and advisory discussions without verification. This creates a situation where decisions are based on recycled explanations rather than on primary analysis.

The payments industry already lacks standardised education and widely accepted structured training. The ones who manage payment and banking tasks are just not adequately trained to do so. Key areas, such as how payments and banking affect technology, UX, compliance, and other essential aspects in a business, are absent from accounting, economics courses, and MBAs. And this is a VERY costly mistakes for individuals, businesses and governments.

What the Survey Actually Shows

When stablecoin activity is analysed based on transaction patterns consistent with payments, the picture becomes more realistic, as the majority of real economic activity is concentrated in business-to-business payments, particularly in cross-border transactions where traditional banking infrastructure introduces delays, higher costs and operational friction.

Other use cases such as remittances, payroll and peer-to-peer transfers are present, but remain relatively small compared to the global payment market. This indicates that stablecoins are currently used in specific areas where they offer a clear operational advantage, rather than as a general replacement for existing payment systems.

The gap between headline transaction volumes and actual payment usage does not reduce the potential of stablecoins, but it does show that adoption is still at an early stage and must be evaluated carefully based on real use cases. So, basically: hold your horses!

The Structural Problem Behind the Interpretation

Today, companies still handle their payment and banking flows on scattered internal expertise. Finance teams concentrate on fees, legal handles contracts, and technology integrates and manages the systems. While each department performs its role, there is no single function responsible for understanding how money actually moves through the organisation from end to end.

When new technologies such as stablecoins are introduced into this environment, decisions are made without a full understanding of how these flows will be assessed by banks, payment providers and financial institutions.

What's even more worrying is that banks and payment providers assess innovation with major precaution, as their main goal is to reduce risk to the minimum level. It doesn't matter if a company is legal or not, banks and payment providers evaluate every detail subjectively, and have all the right to reject a transaction if it doesn't seem right. I have seen closed accounts and delayed payments due to misinterpreted activity, risk, or operational structure. Banks font care what IS happening, they focus on what CAN go wrong. And this is a big difference.

Why Do You Need To Know This?

According to the survey, stablecoin usage is not spread evenly across all payment types, but instead concentrated in a few areas where the existing financial system still struggles to operate efficiently.

A company might see the 733% year-over-year growth in B2B stablecoin payments and rush to integrate a solution, without understanding that 60% of all global volume is concentrated specifically in Asian hubs like Singapore and Hong Kong. Without a structured education, a European or American firm might build a strategy on a foundation that doesn't even exist in their own jurisdiction.

Since no one owns how money actually moves from end to end, we are seeing a dangerous paradox where technological adoption is accelerating, such as the card-linked stablecoin spending growing by 673%, while strategic ownership remains stagnant. Decision makers seriously lack a complete view of how these "programmable" payments impact their safeguarding requirements and data architecture.

The key takeaway of the survery is not that stablecoins are insignificant, but that they must be assessed with precision - and much more education around payments, banking and crypto that currently we have within a usual organisation. Financial institutions rely on headline numbers and build strategies on incorrect assumptions. The focus needs to shift towards identifying real payment activity, understanding user behaviour and evaluating how these flows interact with existing banking and payment structures.

But this requires proper analysis, skillset and education: a structured understanding of how money moves, how banks think and how different payment methods interact with each other. But who wears this hat?

Education Became Critical

The industry is moving faster than the knowledge required to manage it, and this is where the real risk is!

Stablecoins implementation affect liquidity management, treasury operations, settlement cycles, customer experience and risk assessment - all on a complete new level of compliance expectation. At the end of the day, regardless of how innovative a payment method is, it still needs to pass through banks, payment providers and regulatory frameworks which means these institutions will always assess transactions differently than the traditional assets.

Without proper education and a structured approach to payment and banking strategy, companies are missing opportunities, exposing themselves to rejected transactions, delayed settlements and in some cases, complete loss of banking access.

The Rise of the Chief Payment Officer

This is why the Chief Payment Officer role becomes increasingly important across growing organisations. Today, companies can no longer innovate and develop products without considering how they will get paid for it, how they will pay their suppliers, and how in between their funds are held exactly.

The Chief Payment Officer is responsible for overseeing all cash flows and approaching payment and banking decisions holistically, evaluating providers and understanding how to negotiate fees and terms. Monitoring the FinTech industry, understanding opportunities and risks, and aligning these with business strategy requires dedicated focus and specialised knowledge. This includes evaluating new developments such as stablecoins based on real operational impact, rather than on headline figures.

Payment and banking today impact customer experience, risk management, technology, product development, data security, compliance, finance and more. It should be considered a standalone function, an essential element of the business strategy, not just a part of finance.

Without proper education and skillset, businesses can easily interpret data incorrectly, rely on biased advice and build strategies on weak foundations.

The full survey can be accessed here:

Survery stable coins.pdf

Download PDF • 1.11MB