Panel at Money20/20 Asia questions whether stablecoins offer meaningful advantages beyond existing instant payment systems, despite growing use in cross-border transfers.
Stablecoins’ role in the future of payments came under direct scrutiny at Money20/20 Asia, as industry leaders questioned whether the technology delivers clear advantages over existing real-time payment systems.
During the event’s closing panel, Money’s Next Evolution: Stablecoins, CBDCs and the New Payment Stack, speakers challenged the assumption that stablecoins represent a step change in payment infrastructure, particularly in markets where instant domestic rails are already well established.

David Birch, Global Ambassador at Consult Hyperion, set the tone early by questioning the need for stablecoins in markets with mature real-time systems. He asked why “anyone would muck about” with stablecoins when platforms such as Pix already enable instant, low-cost transfers.
While the critique resonated in the context of domestic payments, the panel drew a clear distinction when it came to cross-border use cases.
Speakers pointed to persistent inefficiencies in international payments as the primary driver behind stablecoin adoption.
Maria Oldham, COO at Yellow Card, highlighted the delays and complexity still associated with correspondent banking networks.
“Normally, you would go through the traditional rails, through the correspondent banks… depending on holidays, those funds will reach the end within two to five days,” she said. “In emerging markets, it can take up to 10 days, but now using the stablecoin rails you’re immediately transmitting.”
Oldham pointed to remittance corridors as a tangible example, citing stablecoin-based payouts into Bolivia that were “30% higher than what was [possible] through the traditional rails.” She described the impact as “dramatic” for families relying on cross-border transfers for essentials such as medicine and education.
Beyond payment infrastructure
The discussion also moved beyond speed and settlement, with panellists arguing that stablecoins are increasingly being positioned as a programmable financial layer rather than simply an alternative payment rail.

Bhau Kotecha, Co-founder at Paxos Labs, said the focus is shifting towards developer access and the ability to build financial services on top of blockchain infrastructure.
“We now have stablecoins, blockchains — a platform that people can build use cases on top of, specifically financial services use cases,” he said.
Kotecha drew comparisons with the early internet, suggesting that open architecture was key to enabling innovation at scale. Birch referenced similar thinking in early central bank digital currency discussions at the Bank of England, where enabling third-party development had been considered a core objective.
“The winning stablecoins or winning CBDCs are going to be the ones that make it very easy to develop on top,” Kotecha added. However, he questioned whether central banks are equipped to foster such ecosystems.
“Is it private companies? Is it the central banks? I think central banks have no history of actually pulling that off,” he said.
Regulation remains a prerequisite
Despite growing usage, panellists agreed that regulatory clarity remains essential for broader institutional adoption.
Rahul Advani, Global Co-head of Policy at Ripple, pointed to progress across major jurisdictions, including legislative efforts in the US, Europe’s Markets in Crypto-Assets framework, and licensing regimes in Asia.
“All of the use cases we just discussed are predicated on trust. I am not going to use an asset if I don’t trust the issuer of that asset,” he said. “And how do you get that trust? It’s through regulatory clarity and licensing frameworks.”
The panel noted that approaches vary by region, with the US focusing on prudential oversight, Europe embedding stablecoins within broader digital asset regulation, and Asian markets advancing licensing structures.
However, speakers warned that without coordination between jurisdictions, fragmentation risks persisting.