Integration of Stablecoins into International Settlements: How to Accelerate Payments and Reduce Costs

In the reality of 2026, international bank transfers often take too long, and funds can get stuck between accounts and compliance checks. The crypto market has proposed an alternative monetary system, but it is too volatile. In attempts to escape this volatility, stablecoins emerged, and now they represent something more than just a bridge between crypto and fiat. They now constitute an entire alternative financial infrastructure that, in many ways, may be even more attractive for the B2B segment than traditional fiat.

According to McKinsey, in 2025, real payments in stablecoins reached approximately $390 billion, with about $226 billion attributed to the B2B segment. According to the Bank for International Settlements, these assets have already established themselves as significant players in the treasury bond market. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated that the supply of this instrument could reach $3 trillion by 2030.

Why Traditional Cross-Border Transfers Are Losing Efficiency

International settlements in fiat currencies still rely on SWIFT — a system created back in 1973. For over half a century, it has remained the main channel for cross-border transfers. However, today this infrastructure no longer fully meets the challenges of the modern global economy and has a number of systemic shortcomings.

First, fiat cross-border payments are characterized by long processing times due to compliance, correspondent banks, and jurisdictional checks. For example, for SWIFT payments, the typical timeframe is often 1–3 business days, but in practice it frequently extends to 1–5 days due to correspondent banks, compliance screening, weekends, and jurisdictional differences.

Second, the official fee of the sending bank is only the tip of the iceberg. The SWIFT transfer chain often involves one or two intermediary banks, each of which deducts its own commission (often without prior notice). As a result, the final amount received may be 1–3% less than the amount sent.

Third, every SWIFT transfer undergoes manual or semi-automated compliance screening for sanctions risks (OFAC, EU lists, FATF). If a trigger is activated (match by name, country, or payment purpose), the transaction is frozen for days or weeks pending supporting documents — contracts, invoices, certificates of origin. In the current geopolitical climate, this risk increases manifold: banks over-comply and block transfers even in "gray" zones where formal sanctions do not exist.

Asset Selection: USDT, USDC, and Regulated Stablecoins

For B2B settlements, the choice of stablecoin is by no means a trivial matter, as it affects compliance, liquidity, and counterparty risk. Today, the market is dominated by USDT and USDC, but their architecture and regulatory status differ significantly.

USDT (Tether) is the oldest and most established stablecoin, launched in 2014. According to CoinMarketCap, as of early July 2026, Tether's total market capitalization stands at approximately $186.8 billion. USDT reserves include U.S. Treasury bonds, cash, but transparency remains a major issue: Tether publishes only attestation reports, not full independent audits. Tether continuously faces regulatory scrutiny, which may be an important consideration for B2B. In corporate settlements involving large sums, the legal cleanliness of the asset is more important than market liquidity.

USDC (USD Coin) is a product of the American company Circle, launched in 2018. According to CoinMarketCap, USDC's market capitalization reached $73 billion in July 2026. The key difference of USDC lies in its reserve model: funds are held exclusively in the Circle Reserve Fund (ticker USDXX) — an SEC-registered 2a-7 money market fund composed of short-term U.S. Treasury bonds, repurchase agreements, and cash, managed by BlackRock. In June 2025, Circle went public on the NYSE under the ticker CRCL, further strengthening its institutional standing.

For B2B, the reliability of backing, predictability of redemption, and clear compliance procedures are critically important. Although USDT has greater market capitalization and name recognition, USDC has fewer regulatory issues and greater institutional acceptance, making it often more attractive for B2B. Of course, there are other stablecoins, but they lag far behind these two giants.

Fiat On/Off-Ramps and OTC Desks

From the perspective of a company's operations, the most critical segment is not the blockchain itself, but the entry and exit points. A fiat on/off-ramp is required to legally convert funds from a corporate account into stablecoins and then back into dollars, euros, or another settlement currency. This stage typically involves CEXs, licensed payment providers, OTC desks, or specialized fintech partners.

Fiat on/off-ramps can be specialized services such as Circle Mint, or mass-market platforms like MoonPay; both categories connect bank fiat and stablecoins, but operate at different infrastructure levels. Large centralized crypto exchanges — such as Coinbase, Kraken, and Binance — can also serve as fiat on/off-ramps if they offer bank deposits, card purchases, or fiat withdrawals.

OTC desks are off-exchange services for large transactions, where the rate and volume are agreed upon directly, without a public order book and with minimal slippage. They are convenient when transferring significant amounts in USDT or USDC and back, while maintaining predictable terms. This format is often used for treasury operations, settlements with counterparties, and regular conversion of large amounts.

Which Network to Use for Stablecoin Transfers?

Both USDT and USDC are issued on multiple blockchains, and the choice of network directly affects transaction speed, gas costs, and transaction reliability.

Tron (TRC-20) has long been the undisputed leader for corporate P2P transfers and settlements in emerging markets. The TRC-20 version of USDT has enormous liquidity and broad acceptance among OTC desks and counterparties in Asia, Latin America, and Turkey. As of early July 2026, the fee is $2–$4.5 per regular transfer.

Ethereum (ERC-20) remains an important choice for large-scale and institutional use cases where priority is given to ecosystem maturity, compatibility with custodial solutions, and familiarity for compliance. At the same time, Ethereum fees in 2026 have become more volatile: during quiet periods, they can be relatively low. For USDC on Ethereum, Circle's CCTP (Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol) is particularly significant — this cross-chain mechanism allows burning USDC in one network and minting it in another without traditional bridges, reducing infrastructure risks.

During periods of low network activity, Ethereum fees become cost-effective for transfers.

Solana and Polygon are attractive for high-frequency scenarios — mass payouts, settlements with a large number of suppliers, and programmable payments. In 2026, fees on these networks remain very low: on Solana, a stablecoin transfer often costs fractions of a cent, while Polygon typically costs around one cent or slightly more, depending on network congestion and the specific wallet. Both networks support USDT and USDC, making them suitable not only for DeFi but also for applied B2B settlements where speed and minimal costs are essential.

Legalization and Compliance: How to Conduct Transactions "On-Chain with Full Compliance"

For the B2B segment, stablecoin settlements require not only transfer speed but also legal and accounting transparency comparable to a conventional international payment. In practice, this means a clear contract with the counterparty, closing documents, exchange rate accounting as of the transaction date, and a pre-defined fund flow route — through a bank, a licensed on/off-ramp, an OTC desk, or an institutional payment provider.

In 2026, compliance around stablecoins is increasingly built on the logic of bank-grade controls: KYC on the client, AML screening on the transaction, and sanctions checks on addresses and counterparties. If a company purchases stablecoins to pay a supplier, it must have not just an account with a service but an agreement with a broker or agent documenting the source of funds, conversion rate, fees, and nature of the service. This allows explaining the origin of funds to the bank, auditor, and tax authority not as "we just sent USDT," but as a conversion for payment under a supply contract through a licensed intermediary with a documented route and transaction verification.

For internal control, KYT (Know Your Transaction) is particularly useful — a tool that verifies not only the client but also the transfer itself, its addresses, risk labels, and links to sanctioned or suspicious flows.

From an accounting perspective, the logic is typically as follows: incoming fiat is recorded as a regular receipt under the contract, then the purchase of the stablecoin from the provider or OTC desk is recorded, after which the transfer itself is processed as a movement of a settlement asset between own wallets or as settlement of a liability to the counterparty. It is important that the company maintains the chain linking "contract — payment order — blockchain transaction — certificate/invoice — conversion confirmation"; otherwise, it becomes difficult to substantiate either the tax base or the economic purpose of the transaction.

Using stablecoins "on-chain with full compliance" does not appear as an anonymous alternative to a bank, but rather as a technology layer over a normal compliance process, where blockchain speed is combined with a documentary trail understandable to the CFO and auditor.

Integration of Crypto Settlements into Corporate Treasury

The key challenge for corporate treasury is not so much the stablecoin transfer itself, but the seamless integration of this process into existing financial systems. Modern platforms address this through native integration: they automate conversion and payments, providing businesses with a familiar interface without the need to manage seed phrases or navigate blockchain intricacies.

For example, in 2026, major players such as Kyriba and Circle are already integrating USDC directly into corporate treasury systems. This allows managing stablecoins using the same controls, approval workflows, and audit tools as for conventional payments.

FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can taxes be paid from an account that has received funds from the sale of stablecoins? Yes, provided that the origin of funds is documented. This requires closing documents from the OTC desk or provider: a purchase and sale agreement, conversion confirmation, payment order, and invoice from the counterparty. In such cases, the income is considered legalized and accounted for on a general basis as foreign currency revenue or operating income.

2. How high are the risks of USDT "de-pegging" from the dollar? Risks exist but are minimal. However, full independent audits are absent, and whether Tether's reserves are sufficiently collateralized and whether they will survive regulatory battles remains an open question. To date, the issuer has successfully maintained parity with the dollar.

3. Can the tax authority see stablecoin transfers? Public blockchains (Ethereum, Tron, Solana) are fully transparent — all transactions and addresses are traceable. If a company uses licensed OTC desks and on/off-ramp gateways, transactions are easily trackable.

4. Is a company required to register a crypto wallet as a special account and notify the tax authority? This largely depends on the jurisdiction. Companies are not always required to register a crypto wallet as a special account, but before launching crypto settlements, a separate analysis of the tax and currency regime in the jurisdictions where you plan to operate is necessary.