The landscape today, what’s changing, and what Payments Teams should do next
Stablecoins are moving into the payments space for a few simple reasons: cheaper, faster, and global. Customers use stablecoins through user experiences they already understand, and payments can settle quickly, even across borders.
From working with payment service providers across regions, demand is rarely the limiting factor. Merchants and end users already understand the appeal of stablecoins. What slows adoption is the gap between interest and operational readiness, particularly around compliance, controls, and how stablecoin payments fit into an existing payments stack.
This piece breaks down what’s hindering adoption today, what’s changing globally, and what it looks like if you want to accept stablecoin payments without rebuilding your payments stack.
Stablecoins are already treated like a payment method.
The regulatory conversation has shifted away from whether stablecoins belong in payments and toward how they should be governed, safeguarded, and supervised. The policy focus is increasingly on the same themes you see in mainstream payments regulation: redemption, reserves, governance, safeguarding, financial stability, and AML. Research such as EY’s Global approaches to stablecoin regulation illustrates how closely stablecoin requirements now mirror mainstream payments regulation.
That doesn’t mean every country has a finished rulebook. It means the direction, and importantly, the regulatory support is clearer.
What’s changing by region
While the details differ by jurisdiction, the direction of travel is broadly consistent: stablecoins are being pulled into mainstream payments regulation, often faster than internal Payments teams expect.
United States
The GENIUS Act creates a federal framework for payment-focused stablecoins, including requirements around issuer oversight and reserve expectations. It became law in July 2025, and the practical detail is still being worked through via implementation and guidance.
What this means for Payments teams: the regulatory floor is rising, even as implementation details are still forming. Companies are already moving fast in the U.S. Waiting for perfect clarity is unlikely to be a viable strategy.
European Union
The EU’s MiCA provides structure, but not simplicity. Payments teams still need to map stablecoin categories carefully to their specific use cases and supervisory expectations, particularly where custody, redemption, or client funds are involved.
What this means for Payments teams: EU operations can increasingly be designed around a defined framework, but implementation still needs to match the exact stablecoin type and supervisory posture.
United Kingdom
The UK is building stablecoin regulation inside the payments framework, with a clear focus on consumer protection and financial stability.
The Bank of England has consulted on systemic stablecoins used for payments, and the FCA has consulted on cryptoasset-related regulation and custody expectations that intersect with stablecoin handling.
What this means for Payments teams: UK regulators are treating stablecoins less like “new crypto rails” and more like a payments activity that must meet familiar resilience and consumer standards.
Singapore
Singapore is one of the clearest examples of “payments-grade stablecoin regulation.”
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) finalized a stablecoin framework for single-currency stablecoins pegged to SGD or G10 currencies that are issued in Singapore, with requirements around reserve composition, custody, audit, and redemption.
What this means for Payments teams: there is a defined path for stablecoins to be treated as high-trust instruments, but only if they meet clear standards.
United Arab Emirates
The UAE has moved quickly from sandbox-style experimentation to formal frameworks across jurisdictions and regulators.
There is a Central Bank-led approach to “payment token” activity, and separate virtual asset frameworks in places like Dubai that cover issuance and market activity. Third-party summaries vary, but the consistent theme is licensing, operational standards, and AML controls for stablecoin activity offered in the UAE, alongside early indications of a potential dirham-pegged stablecoin.
What this means for Payments teams: if you operate in the UAE, you should assume stablecoin payments are a regulated financial activity and design from day one around licensing scope, safeguarding, and compliance flows.
Hong Kong
Hong Kong passed the Stablecoins Bill in May 2025, and set the regime to commence on August 1, 2025, establishing a licensing regime for fiat-referenced stablecoin issuers. Regulators have signaled that initial licences are expected in 2026.
What this means for Payments teams: Hong Kong is positioning stablecoins as regulated financial infrastructure. If you want to “accept stablecoin payments,” the issuer licensing model matters.
Switzerland
Switzerland continues to be influential in shaping how stablecoin risk is handled in a financial centre context.
FINMA published guidance in July 2024 on stablecoin issuance risks and supervisory expectations, including areas like default guarantees, classification questions, and heightened money-laundering risk considerations.
What this means for Payments teams: Switzerland’s approach reinforces a simple truth: “stablecoin acceptance” is never just a checkout decision. It is a risk decision that touches safeguarding and AML.
Brazil
Brazil is taking a stricter, payments-and-FX lens.
Reuters reported Brazil’s central bank introduced new rules that classify stablecoin transactions as foreign exchange operations, effective February 2026, as part of bringing crypto activity under banking-style oversight and reporting expectations.
What this means for Payments teams: even where stablecoins are heavily used in the real economy, regulators may treat them as cross-border value movement first, and payments UX second.
Australia
Australia is modernizing payment regulation and explicitly discussing stablecoins as part of stored value and payments licensing reform.
Treasury communications describe a licensing regime for payment service providers and a graduated framework for stored value facilities, including stablecoin issuers or wallets that hold customer funds.
What this means for Payments teams: stablecoins are increasingly being pulled into mainstream payments regulation, rather than left as a separate “crypto” category.
Nigeria
Reliable primary government sources are harder to consolidate quickly for Nigeria, and many summaries are from industry outlets.
That said, multiple reports indicate Nigeria is moving toward clearer SEC-led oversight of virtual assets and stablecoin activity, including reserve and licensing expectations, enabled by an updated Investment and Securities Act. This was reported by the Economic Times of Nigeria. Treat this as an “active development” area and validate with local counsel for implementation specifics.
What this means for Payments teams: in fast-growing markets, stablecoins can be common in practice while regulation catches up. Your controls have to be strong even when local detail is still forming.
India
India remains cautious. Recent reporting highlights ongoing central bank concern about stablecoins and financial stability (As reported by Reuters), with preference expressed for CBDC-style approaches.
What this means for Payments teams: India is a market where you should expect heightened scrutiny and a conservative supervisory posture toward private stablecoins.
Across these markets, the signal is clear: regulators are not treating stablecoins as an experimental edge case. They are assessing them against familiar payments questions—resilience, safeguarding, consumer protection, and financial crime—using new tools but familiar standards.
The Travel Rule and AML expectations (global theme)
Even when stablecoin-specific rules differ, AML and reporting expectations are converging. While this increases compliance obligations, it also normalizes stablecoin payments. For many payment companies, Travel Rule–style requirements feel closer to established internal financial compliance processes than to bespoke crypto compliance needs.
Globally, FATF standards drive Travel Rule-style information-sharing expectations for relevant virtual asset activity and service providers. That raises compliance requirements, but it also makes stablecoin payment operations feel more like a known compliance model, rather than a bespoke exception.
When Payments teams struggle with stablecoin adoption, it is rarely because of a single blocker.
1) Regional inconsistency
Even with improved clarity, requirements are not harmonized. You end up with different rules for custody, safeguarding, disclosures, and issuer eligibility market by market.
2) Compliance feels heavier than cards or APMs
Stablecoin acceptance can trigger new obligations around:
- counterparty and issuer due diligence
- screening and monitoring
- reporting and record retention
- handling of suspicious activity and risk escalation
In some markets, regulators are explicitly tightening these controls as stablecoin use grows.
3) Fragmented customer experience
Stablecoins live across multiple wallets and standards. That can create inconsistent checkout flows, edge cases, and support burden.
Payments teams feel this as “long tail complexity,” not as a single integration task.
4) Payment operations are not just “receive and settle.”
To run stablecoin payments at scale, you still need answers for:
- Refunds and disputes handling policy
- Reconciliation
- Treasury and conversion strategy
- Settlement timing and cutoffs
- Customer support workflows
This is where many pilots stall.
What “payments-grade stablecoin acceptance” looks like
If you want stablecoin payments to behave like a normal payment method, this is the practical bar many regulators are moving toward:
Clear issuer eligibility
Only accept stablecoins where the issuer and reserve model are credible in your operating markets. Singapore is a good example of this direction.
Controls that look like modern payment controls
Controls should be indistinguishable from modern payment controls. Risk, AML, reporting, and safeguarding need to be designed like a core payment method, not an “experimental rail.”
A consistent checkout flow
Merchants and users will adopt what feels simple:
- predictable payment steps
- clear confirmation
- fewer wallet-specific edge cases
This is the operational standard merchants expect.
Where WalletConnect Pay can help
Without replacing an existing payments stack, WalletConnect Pay is designed to remove the need for Payments teams and merchants to become wallet integrators.
- Less fragmentation across wallets, which makes “accept stablecoin payments” simpler to operationalize.
- More consistent wallet-to-merchant flows, so stablecoin checkout can behave more like familiar payment methods.
- Compatibility-first integration, so your compliance logic, reporting, and risk controls stay where they already live, inside PSP and merchant systems.
This is how stablecoins become a payments feature, not a bespoke crypto project.
What this means for legal and compliance teams
The question is shifting.
It used to be: Is this allowed?
It is increasingly: How do we enable this safely, in a way we can operationalize across markets?
The strongest internal posture is:
- treat stablecoins as a regulated payment activity
- pick jurisdictions and use cases intentionally
- design controls and support flows before you scale
Looking ahead
Across regions, expect continued movement toward:
- stablecoins being treated as a payments infrastructure
- more specific guidance and enforcement clarity
- increased expectations for AML and consumer outcomes
- infrastructure that reduces fragmentation at checkout
Stablecoins are no longer just an off-ramp from speculative trading or an experiment. They are becoming infrastructure. The organizations that succeed will be those that treat stablecoin acceptance not as a one-off integration, but as a regulated payments capability, designed intentionally, governed carefully, and operationalized at scale.