Meta’s 2025 Stablecoin Initiative – Announcements and Projects​

In May 2025, reports surfaced that Meta (formerly Facebook) is re-entering the stablecoin market with new initiatives focused on digital currencies. While Meta has not formally announced a new coin, a Fortune report revealed the company is in discussions with crypto firms about using stablecoins for payments. These discussions are still preliminary (Meta is in “learn mode”), but they mark Meta’s first significant crypto move since the 2019–2022 Libra/Diem project. Notably, Meta aims to leverage stablecoins to handle payouts for content creators and cross-border transfers on its platforms.

Official stance: Meta has not launched any new cryptocurrency of its own as of May 2025. Andy Stone, Meta’s Communications Director, responded to the rumors by clarifying that “Diem is ‘dead.’ There is no Meta stablecoin.”. This indicates that instead of resurrecting an in-house coin like Diem, Meta’s approach is likely to integrate existing stablecoins (possibly issued by partner firms) into its ecosystem. In fact, sources suggest Meta may use multiple stablecoins rather than a single proprietary coin. In short, the project in 2025 is not a relaunch of Libra/Diem, but a new effort to support stablecoins within Meta’s products.

Strategic Goals and Motivations for Meta​

Meta’s renewed crypto foray is driven by clear strategic goals. Chief among these is reducing payment friction and cost for global user transactions. By using stablecoins (digital tokens pegged 1:1 to fiat currency), Meta can simplify cross-border payments and creator monetization across its 3+ billion users. Specific motivations include:

• Lowering Payment Costs: Meta makes countless small payouts to contributors and creators worldwide. Stablecoin payouts would let Meta pay everyone in a single USD-pegged currency, avoiding hefty fees from bank wires or currency conversions. For example, a creator in India or Nigeria could receive a USD stablecoin rather than dealing with costly international bank transfers. This could save Meta money (fewer processing fees) and speed up payments.

• Micropayments and New Revenue Streams: Stablecoins enable fast, low-cost micro-transactions. Meta could facilitate tipping, in-app purchases, or revenue sharing in tiny increments (cents or dollars) without exorbitant fees. For instance, sending a few dollars in stablecoin costs only fractions of a cent on certain networks. This capability is crucial for business models like tipping content creators, cross-border e-commerce on Facebook Marketplace, or buying digital goods in the metaverse.

• Global User Engagement: A stablecoin integrated into Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, etc., would function as a universal digital currency within Meta’s ecosystem. This can keep users and their money circulating inside Meta’s apps (similar to how WeChat uses WeChat Pay). Meta could become a major fintech platform by handling remittances, shopping, and creator payments internally. Such a move aligns with CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s longstanding interest in expanding Meta’s role in financial services and the metaverse economy (where digital currencies are needed for transactions).

• Staying Competitive: The broader tech and finance industry is warming up to stablecoins as essential infrastructure. Rivals and financial partners are embracing stablecoins, from PayPal’s PYUSD launch in 2023 to Mastercard, Visa, and Stripe’s stablecoin projects. Meta doesn’t want to be left behind in what some see as the future of payments. Re-entering crypto now allows Meta to capitalize on an evolving market (stablecoins may grow by $2 trillion by 2028, according to Standard Chartered) and to diversify its business beyond advertising.

In summary, Meta’s stablecoin push is about cutting costs, unlocking new features (fast global payments), and positioning Meta as a key player in the digital economy. These motivations echo the original Libra vision of financial inclusion, but with a more focused and pragmatic approach in 2025.

Technology and Blockchain Infrastructure Plans​

Unlike the Libra project—which involved creating a brand-new blockchain—Meta’s 2025 strategy leans toward using existing blockchain infrastructure and stablecoins. According to reports, Meta is considering Ethereum’s blockchain as one backbone for these stablecoin transactions. Ethereum is attractive due to its maturity and widespread adoption in the crypto ecosystem. In fact, Meta “plans to start using stablecoins on the Ethereum blockchain” to reach its massive user base. This suggests Meta might integrate popular Ethereum-based stablecoins (like USDC or USDT) into its apps.

However, Meta appears open to a multi-chain or multi-coin approach. The company will “likely use more than one type of stablecoin” for different purposes. This could involve:

• Partnering with Major Stablecoin Issuers: Meta has reportedly been in talks with firms like Circle (issuer of USDC) and others. It may support USD Coin (USDC) and Tether (USDT), the two largest USD stablecoins, to ensure liquidity and familiarity for users. Integrating existing regulated stablecoins would spare Meta the trouble of issuing its own token while providing immediate scale.

• Utilizing Efficient Networks: Meta also seems interested in high-speed, low-cost blockchain networks. The hiring of Ginger Baker (more on her below) hints at this strategy. Baker sits on the board of the Stellar Development Foundation, and analysts note that Stellar’s network is designed for compliance and cheap transactions. Stellar natively supports regulated stablecoins and features like KYC and on-chain reporting. It’s speculated that Meta Pay’s wallet could leverage Stellar for near-instant micropayments (sending USDC via Stellar costs a fraction of a cent). In essence, Meta might route transactions through whichever blockchain offers the best mix of compliance, speed, and low fees (Ethereum for broad compatibility, Stellar or others for efficiency).

• Meta Pay Wallet Transformation: On the front end, Meta is likely upgrading its existing Meta Pay infrastructure into a “decentralized-ready” digital wallet. Meta Pay (formerly Facebook Pay) currently handles traditional payments on Meta’s platforms. Under Baker’s leadership, it is envisioned to support cryptocurrencies and stablecoins seamlessly. This means users could hold stablecoin balances, send them to peers, or receive payouts in-app, with the complexity of blockchain managed behind the scenes.

Importantly, Meta is not building a new coin or chain from scratch this time. By using proven public blockchains and partner-issued coins, Meta can roll out stablecoin functionality faster and with (hopefully) less regulatory resistance. The technology plan focuses on integration rather than invention – weaving stablecoins into Meta’s products in a way that feels natural to users (e.g. a WhatsApp user might send a USDC payment as easily as sending a photo).

Reviving Diem/Novi or Starting Anew?​

Meta’s current initiative clearly differs from its past Libra/Diem effort. Libra (announced 2019) was an ambitious plan for a Facebook-led global currency, backed by a basket of assets and governed by an association of companies. It was later rebranded to Diem (a USD-pegged stablecoin) but ultimately shut down in early 2022 amid regulatory backlash. Novi, the accompanying crypto wallet, was piloted briefly but also discontinued.

In 2025, Meta is not simply reviving Diem/Novi. Key differences in the new approach include:

• No In-House “Meta Coin” (For Now): During Libra, Facebook was essentially creating its own currency. Now, Meta’s spokespeople emphasize that “there is no Meta stablecoin” in development. Diem is dead and won’t be resurrected. Instead, the focus is on using existing stablecoins (issued by third parties) as payment tools. This shift from issuer to integrator is a direct lesson from Libra’s failure – Meta is avoiding the appearance of coining its own money.

• Compliance-First Strategy: Libra’s broad vision spooked regulators who feared a private currency for billions could undermine national currencies. Today Meta is operating more quietly and cooperatively. The company is hiring compliance and fintech experts (for example, Ginger Baker) and choosing technologies known for regulatory compliance (e.g. Stellar). Any new stablecoin features will likely require identity verification and adhere to financial regulations in each jurisdiction, in contrast to Libra’s initially decentralized approach.

• Scaling Back Ambitions (at Least Initially): Libra aimed to be a universal currency and financial system. Meta’s 2025 effort has a narrower initial scope: payouts and peer-to-peer payments within Meta’s platforms. By targeting creator payments (like “up to $100” micro-payouts on Instagram), Meta is finding a use-case that is less likely to alarm regulators than a full-scale global currency. Over time this could expand, but the rollout is expected to be gradual and use-case driven, rather than a Big Bang launch of a new coin.

• No Public Association or New Blockchain: Libra was managed by an independent association and required partners running nodes on a brand new blockchain. The new approach doesn’t involve creating a consortium or a custom network. Meta is working directly with established crypto companies and leveraging their infrastructure. This behind-the-scenes collaboration means less publicity and potentially fewer regulatory targets than Libra’s highly public coalition.

In summary, Meta is starting anew, using the lessons from Libra/Diem to chart a more pragmatic course. The company has essentially pivoted from “becoming a crypto issuer” to “being a crypto-friendly platform”. As one crypto analyst observed, whether Meta “builds and issues their own [stablecoin] or partners with someone like Circle is yet to be determined” – but all signs point to partnerships rather than a solo venture like Diem.

Key Personnel, Partnerships, and Collaborations​

Meta has made strategic hires and likely partnerships to drive this stablecoin initiative. The standout personnel move is the addition of Ginger Baker as Meta’s Vice President of Product for payments and crypto. Baker joined Meta in January 2025 specifically to “help shepherd [Meta’s] stablecoin explorations”. Her background is a strong indicator of Meta’s strategy:

• Ginger Baker – Fintech Veteran: Baker is a seasoned payment executive. She previously worked at Plaid (as Chief Network Officer), and has experience at Ripple, Square, and Visa – all major players in payments/crypto. Uniquely, she also served on the board of the Stellar Development Foundation, and was an executive there. By hiring Baker, Meta gains expertise in both traditional fintech and blockchain networks (Ripple and Stellar are focused on cross-border and compliance). Baker is now “spearheading Meta’s renewed stablecoin initiatives”, including the transformation of Meta Pay into a crypto-ready wallet. Her leadership suggests Meta will build a product that bridges conventional payments with crypto (likely ensuring things like bank integrations, smooth UX, KYC, etc., are in place alongside the blockchain elements).

• Other Team Members: In addition to Baker, Meta is “adding crypto-experienced individuals” to its teams to support the stablecoin plans. Some former members of the Libra/Diem team may be involved behind the scenes, though many departed (for example, former Novi head David Marcus left to start his own crypto firm, and others went on to projects like Aptos). The current effort appears largely under Meta’s existing Meta Financial Technologies unit (which runs Meta Pay). No major acquisitions of crypto companies have been announced in 2025 so far – Meta seems to be relying on internal hires and partnerships rather than buying a stablecoin company outright.

• Potential Partnerships: While no official partners are named yet, multiple crypto firms have been in talks with Meta. At least two crypto company executives confirmed they’ve had early discussions with Meta about stablecoin payouts. It’s reasonable to speculate that Circle (issuer of USDC) is among them – the Fortune report made mention of Circle’s activities in the same context. Meta could partner with a regulated stablecoin issuer (like Circle or Paxos) to handle the currency issuance and custody. For instance, Meta might integrate USDC by working with Circle, similar to how PayPal partnered with Paxos to launch its own stablecoin. Other partnerships might involve crypto infrastructure providers (for security, custody, or blockchain integration) or fintech companies in different regions for compliance.

• External Advisors/Influencers: It’s worth noting that Meta’s move comes as others in tech/finance ramp up stablecoin efforts. Companies like Stripe and Visa recently made moves (Stripe bought a crypto startup, Visa partnered with a stablecoin platform). Meta may not formally partner with these companies, but these industry connections (e.g., Baker’s past at Visa, or existing commerce relationships Meta has with Stripe for payments) could smooth the path for stablecoin adoption. Additionally, First Digital (issuer of FDUSD) and Tether might see indirect collaboration if Meta decides to support their coins for certain markets.

In essence, Meta’s stablecoin initiative is being led by experienced fintech insiders and likely involves close collaboration with established crypto players. We see a deliberate effort to bring in people who understand both Silicon Valley and crypto. This bodes well for Meta navigating the technical and regulatory challenges with knowledgeable guidance.

Regulatory Strategy and Positioning​

Regulation is the elephant in the room for Meta’s crypto ambitions. After the bruising experience with Libra (where global regulators and lawmakers almost unanimously opposed Facebook’s coin), Meta is taking a very cautious, compliance-forward stance in 2025. Key elements of Meta’s regulatory positioning include:

• Working Within Regulatory Frameworks: Meta appears intent on working with authorities rather than attempting an end-run around them. By using existing regulated stablecoins (like USDC, which complies with U.S. state regulations and audits) and by building in KYC/AML features, Meta is aligning with current financial rules. For example, Stellar’s compliance features (KYC, sanctions screening) are explicitly noted as aligning with Meta’s need to stay in regulators’ good graces. This suggests Meta will ensure that users who transact in stablecoins through its apps are verified and that transactions can be monitored for illicit activity, similar to any fintech app.

• Political Timing: The regulatory climate in the U.S. has shifted since the Libra days. As of 2025, the administration of President Donald Trump is seen as more crypto-friendly than the prior Biden administration. This change potentially gives Meta an opening. In fact, Meta’s renewed push comes just as Washington is actively debating stablecoin legislation. A pair of stablecoin bills are working through Congress, and the Senate’s GENIUS Act is aiming to set guardrails for stablecoins. Meta could be hoping that a clearer legal framework will legitimize corporate involvement in digital currency. However, this is not without opposition – Senator Elizabeth Warren and other lawmakers have singled out Meta, urging that big tech firms be barred from issuing stablecoins in any new law. Meta will have to navigate such political hurdles, possibly by emphasizing that it is not issuing a new coin but merely using existing ones (thus technically not “Facebook Coin” that worried Congress).

• Global and Local Compliance: Beyond the U.S., Meta will consider regulations in each market. For instance, if it introduces stablecoin payments in WhatsApp for remittances, it may pilot this in countries with receptive regulators (similar to how WhatsApp Pay was rolled out in markets like Brazil or India with local approval). Meta may engage central banks and financial regulators in target regions to ensure its stablecoin integration meets requirements (such as being fully fiat-backed, redeemable, and not harming local currency stability). The First Digital USD (FDUSD), one of the stablecoins Meta could support, is Hong Kong-based and operates under that jurisdiction’s trust laws, which hints Meta might leverage regions with crypto-friendly rules (e.g. Hong Kong, Singapore) for initial phases.

• Avoiding the “Libra Mistake”: With Libra, regulators were concerned Meta would control a global currency outside of government control. Meta’s strategy now is to position itself as a participant, not a controller. By saying “there is no Meta stablecoin”, the company distances itself from the idea of printing money. Instead, Meta can argue it’s improving payment infrastructure for users, analogous to offering support for PayPal or credit cards. This narrative — “we’re just using safe, fully reserved currencies like USDC to help users transact” — is likely how Meta will pitch the project to regulators to allay fears of destabilizing the monetary system.

• Compliance and Licensing: If Meta does decide to offer a branded stablecoin or custody users’ crypto, it may seek the proper licenses (e.g., becoming a licensed money transmitter, obtaining state or federal charter for stablecoin issuance via a subsidiary or partner bank). There’s precedent: PayPal obtained a New York trust charter (through Paxos) for its stablecoin. Meta could similarly partner or create a regulated entity for any custodial aspects. For now, by partnering with established stablecoin issuers and banks, Meta can rely on their regulatory approvals.

Overall, Meta’s approach can be seen as “regulatory accommodation” – it is trying to design the project to fit into legal boxes that regulators have built or are building. This includes proactive outreach, scaling slowly, and employing experts who know the rules. That said, regulatory uncertainty remains a risk. The company will be closely watching the outcome of stablecoin bills and likely engaging in policy discussions to ensure it can move forward without legal roadblocks.

Market Impact and Stablecoin Landscape Analysis​

Meta’s entrance into stablecoins could be a game-changer for the stablecoin market, which as of early 2025 is already booming. The total market capitalization of stablecoins hit an all-time high of around $238–245 billion in April 2025, roughly double the size from a year before. This market is currently dominated by a few key players:

• Tether (USDT): The largest stablecoin, with nearly 70% of market share and about $148 billion in circulation as of April. USDT is issued by Tether Ltd. and is widely used in crypto trading and cross-exchange liquidity. It’s known for less transparency in reserves but has maintained its peg.

• USD Coin (USDC): The second-largest, issued by Circle (in partnership with Coinbase) with around $62 billion in supply (≈26% market share). USDC is U.S.-regulated, fully reserved in cash and treasuries, and favored by institutions for its transparency. It’s used both in trading and an increasing number of mainstream fintech apps.

• First Digital USD (FDUSD): A newer entrant (launched mid-2023) issued by First Digital Trust out of Hong Kong. FDUSD grew as an alternative on platforms like Binance after regulatory issues hit Binance’s own BUSD. By April 2025, FDUSD’s market cap was about $1.25 billion. It had some volatility (losing its $1 peg briefly in April), but is touted for being based in a friendlier regulatory environment in Asia.

The table below compares Meta’s envisioned stablecoin integration with USDT, USDC, and FDUSD:

Feature	Meta’s Stablecoin Initiative (2025)	Tether (USDT)	USD Coin (USDC)	First Digital USD (FDUSD)
Issuer / Manager	No proprietary coin: Meta to partner with existing issuers; coin could be issued by a third-party (e.g. Circle, etc.). Meta will integrate stablecoins in its platforms, not issue its own (per official statements).	Tether Holdings Ltd. (affiliated with iFinex). Privately held; issuer of USDT.	Circle Internet Financial (with Coinbase; via Centre Consortium). USDC governed by Circle under U.S. regulations.	First Digital Trust, a Hong Kong-registered trust company, issues FDUSD under HK’s Trust Ordinance.
Launch & Status	New initiative, planning stage in 2025. No coin launched yet (Meta exploring integration to start in 2025). Internal testing or pilots expected; not publicly available as of May 2025.	Launched in 2014. Established with ~$148B in circulation. Widely used across exchanges and chains (Ethereum, Tron, etc.).	Launched in 2018. Established with ~$62B in circulation. Used in trading, DeFi, payments; available on multiple chains (Ethereum, Stellar, others).	Launched in mid-2023. Emerging player with ~$1–2B market cap (recently ~$1.25B). Promoted on Asian exchanges (Binance, etc.) as a regulated USD stablecoin alternative.
Technology / Blockchain	Likely multi-blockchain support. Emphasis on Ethereum for compatibility; possibly leveraging Stellar or other networks for low-fee transactions. Meta’s wallet will abstract the blockchain layer for users.	Multi-chain: Originally on Bitcoin’s Omni, now primarily on Tron, Ethereum, etc. USDT exists on 10+ networks. Fast on Tron (low fees); widespread integration in crypto platforms.	Multi-chain: Primarily on Ethereum, with versions on Stellar, Algorand, Solana, etc. Focus on Ethereum but expanding to reduce fees (also exploring Layer-2).	Multi-chain: Issued on Ethereum and BNB Chain (Binance Smart Chain) from launch. Aims for cross-chain usage. Relies on Ethereum security and Binance ecosystem for liquidity.
Regulatory Oversight	Meta will adhere to regulations via partners. Stablecoins used will be fully reserved (1:1 USD) and issuers under supervision (e.g. Circle regulated under U.S. state laws). Meta will implement KYC/AML in its apps. Regulatory strategy is to cooperate and comply (especially after Diem’s failure).	Historically opaque. Limited audits; faced regulatory bans in NY. Increasing transparency lately but not regulated like a bank. Has settled with regulators over past misrepresentations. Operates in a grey area but systemically important due to size.	High compliance. Regulated as a stored value under U.S. laws (Circle has a NY BitLicense, trust charters). Monthly reserve attestations published. Seen as safer by U.S. authorities; could seek federal stablecoin charter if laws pass.	Moderate compliance. Regulated in Hong Kong as a trust-held asset. Benefits from Hong Kong’s pro-crypto stance. Less scrutiny from U.S. regulators; positioned to serve markets where USDT/USDC face hurdles.
Use Cases & Integration	Meta’s platforms integration: Used for payouts to creators, P2P transfers, in-app purchases across Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, etc.. Aimed at mainstream users (social/media context) rather than crypto traders. Could enable global remittances (e.g. sending money via WhatsApp) and metaverse commerce.	Primarily used in crypto trading (as a dollar substitute on exchanges). Also common in DeFi lending, and as a dollar hedge in countries with currency instability. Less used in retail payments due to volatility concerns around issuer.	Used in both crypto markets and some fintech apps. Popular in DeFi and trading pairs, but also integrated by payment processors and fintechs (for commerce, remittances). Coinbase and others allow USDC for transfers. Growing role in business settlements.	Currently mostly used on crypto exchanges (Binance) as a USD liquidity option after BUSD’s decline. Some potential for Asia-based payments or DeFi, but use cases are nascent. Market positioning is to be a compliant alternative for Asian users and institutions.

Projected Impact: If Meta successfully rolls out stablecoin payments, it could significantly expand the reach and usage of stablecoins. Meta’s apps might onboard hundreds of millions of new stablecoin users who have never used crypto before. This mainstream adoption could increase the overall stablecoin market cap beyond current leaders. For example, should Meta partner with Circle to use USDC at scale, the demand for USDC could surge – potentially challenging USDT’s dominance over time. It’s plausible that Meta could help USDC (or whichever coin it adopts) grow closer to Tether’s size, by providing use cases outside of trading (social commerce, remittances, etc.).

On the other hand, Meta’s involvement might spur competition and innovation among stablecoins. Tether and other incumbents could adjust by improving transparency or forming their own big-tech alliances. New stablecoins might emerge tailored for social networks. Also, Meta supporting multiple stablecoins suggests no single coin will “monopolize” Meta’s ecosystem – users might seamlessly transact with different dollar tokens depending on region or preference. This could lead to a more diversified stablecoin market where dominance is spread.

It’s also important to note the infrastructure boost Meta could provide. A stablecoin integrated with Meta will likely need robust capacity for millions of daily transactions. This could drive improvements on the underlying blockchains (e.g. Ethereum Layer-2 scaling, or increased Stellar network usage). Already, observers suggest Meta’s move could “increase activity on [Ethereum] and demand for ETH” if a lot of transactions flow there. Similarly, if Stellar is used, its native token XLM could see higher demand as gas for transactions.

Finally, Meta’s entrance is somewhat double-edged for the crypto industry: it legitimizes stablecoins as a payment mechanism (potentially positive for adoption and market growth), but it also raises regulatory stakes. Governments may treat stablecoins more as a matter of national importance if billions of social media users start transacting in them. This could accelerate regulatory clarity – or crackdowns – depending on how Meta’s rollout goes. In any case, the stablecoin landscape by the late 2020s will likely be reshaped by Meta’s participation, alongside other big players like PayPal, Visa, and traditional banks venturing into this space.

Integration into Meta’s Platforms (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, etc.)​

A critical aspect of Meta’s strategy is seamless integration of stablecoin payments into its family of apps. The goal is to embed digital currency functionality in a user-friendly way across Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, and even new platforms like Threads. Here’s how integration is expected to play out on each service:

• Instagram: Instagram is poised to be a testing ground for stablecoin payouts. Creators on Instagram could opt to receive their earnings (for Reels bonuses, affiliate sales, etc.) in a stablecoin rather than local currency. Reports specifically mention Meta may start by paying out up to ~$100 to creators via stablecoins on Instagram. This suggests a focus on small cross-border payments – ideal for influencers in countries where receiving U.S. dollars directly is preferable. Additionally, Instagram could enable tipping of creators in-app using stablecoins, or allow users to purchase digital collectibles and services with a stablecoin balance. Since Instagram already experimented with NFT display features (in 2022) and has a creator marketplace, adding a stablecoin wallet could enhance its creator ecosystem.

• Facebook (Meta): On Facebook proper, stablecoin integration might manifest in Facebook Pay/Meta Pay features. Users on Facebook could send money to each other in chats using stablecoins, or donate to fundraisers with crypto. Facebook Marketplace (where people buy/sell goods) could support stablecoin transactions, enabling easier cross-border commerce by eliminating currency exchange issues. Another area is gaming and apps on Facebook – developers could be paid out in stablecoins, or in-game purchases could utilize a stablecoin for a universal experience. Given Facebook’s broad user base, integrating a stablecoin wallet in the profile or Messenger could quickly mainstream the concept of sending “digital dollars” to friends and family. Meta’s own posts hint at content monetization: for instance, paying out bonuses to Facebook content creators or Stars (Facebook’s tipping tokens) being potentially backed by stablecoins in the future.

• WhatsApp: This is perhaps the most transformative integration. WhatsApp has over 2 billion users and is heavily used for messaging in regions where remittances are crucial (India, Latin America, etc.). Meta’s stablecoin could turn WhatsApp into a global remittance platform. Users might send a stablecoin to a contact as easily as sending a text, with WhatsApp handling the currency swap on each end if needed. In fact, WhatsApp briefly piloted the Novi wallet in 2021 for sending a stablecoin (USDP) in the US and Guatemala – so the concept is proven on a small scale. Now Meta could incorporate stablecoin transfers natively into WhatsApp’s UI. For example, an Indian worker in the US could send USDC via WhatsApp to family in India, who could then cash it out or spend it if integrations with local payment providers are in place. This bypasses expensive remittance fees. Aside from P2P, small businesses on WhatsApp (common in emerging markets) could accept stablecoin payments for goods, using it like a low-fee merchant payment system. The Altcoin Buzz analysis even speculates that WhatsApp will be one of the next integration points after creator payouts.

• Messenger: Similar to WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger could allow sending money in chats using stablecoins. Messenger already has peer-to-peer fiat payments in the U.S. If extended to stablecoins, it could connect users internationally. One could envision Messenger chatbots or customer service using stablecoin transactions (for example, paying a bill or ordering products via a Messenger interaction and settling in stablecoin).

• Threads and Others: Threads (Meta’s Twitter-like platform launched in 2023) and the broader Meta VR/Metaverse (Reality Labs) might also leverage stablecoins. In Horizon Worlds or other metaverse experiences, a stablecoin could serve as the in-world currency for buying virtual goods, tickets to events, etc., providing a real-money equivalent that travels across experiences. While Meta’s metaverse unit is currently operating at a loss, integrating a currency accepted across games and worlds could create a unified economy that might spur usage (much like Roblox has Robux, but in Meta’s case it would be a USD stablecoin under the hood). This would align with Zuckerberg’s vision of the metaverse economy, without creating a new token just for VR.

Integration Strategy: Meta is likely to roll this out carefully. A plausible sequence is:

1. Pilot creator payouts on Instagram (limited amount, select regions) – this tests the system with real value going out, but in a controlled way.
2. Expand to P2P transfers in messaging (WhatsApp/Messenger) once confidence is gained – starting with remittance corridors or within certain countries.
3. Merchant payments and services – enabling businesses on its platforms to transact in stablecoin (this could involve partnerships with payment processors to allow easy conversion to local fiat).
4. Full ecosystem integration – eventually, a user’s Meta Pay wallet could show a stablecoin balance that can be used anywhere across Facebook ads, Instagram shopping, WhatsApp pay, etc.

It’s worth noting that user experience will be key. Meta will likely abstract away terms like “USDC” or “Ethereum” from the average user. The wallet might just display a balance in “USD” (powered by stablecoins in the backend) to make it simple. Only more advanced users might interact with on-chain functions (like withdrawing to an external crypto wallet), if allowed. Meta’s advantage is its huge user base; if even a fraction adopt the stablecoin feature, it could outnumber the current crypto user population.

In conclusion, Meta’s plan to integrate stablecoins into its platforms could blur the line between traditional digital payments and cryptocurrency. A Facebook or WhatsApp user may soon be using a stablecoin without even realizing it’s a crypto asset – they’ll just see a faster, cheaper way to send money and transact globally. This deep integration could set Meta’s apps apart in markets where financial infrastructure is costly or slow, and it positions Meta as a formidable competitor to both fintech companies and crypto exchanges in the realm of digital payments.

Sources:

• Meta’s stablecoin exploratory talks and hiring of a crypto VP
• Meta’s intent to use stablecoins for cross-border creator payouts (Fortune report)
• Comment by Meta’s communications director (“Diem is dead, no Meta stablecoin”)
• Analysis of Meta’s strategic motivations (cost reduction, single currency for payouts)
• Tech infrastructure choices – Ethereum integration and Stellar’s compliance features
• Ginger Baker’s role and background (former Plaid, Ripple, Stellar board)
• Fortune/LinkedIn insights on Meta’s crypto team and partnerships in discussion
• Regulatory context: Libra’s collapse in 2022 and 2025’s friendlier environment under Trump vs. legislative pushback (Sen. Warren on banning Big Tech stablecoins)
• Stablecoin market data (Q2 2025): ~$238B market cap, USDT ~$148B vs USDC ~$62B, growth trends
• Comparison info for USDT, USDC, FDUSD (market share, regulatory stance, issuers)
• Integration details across Meta’s products (content creator payouts, WhatsApp payments).

Introduction​

Ika is a parallel Multi-Party Computation (MPC) network strategically backed by the Sui Foundation. Formerly known as dWallet Network, Ika is designed to enable zero-trust, cross-chain interoperability at high speed and scale. It allows smart contracts (especially on the Sui blockchain) to securely control and coordinate assets on other blockchains without traditional bridges. This report provides a deep dive into Ika’s technical architecture and cryptographic design from a founder’s perspective, as well as a business and investment analysis covering team, funding, tokenomics, adoption, and competition. A summary comparison table of Ika versus other MPC-based networks (Lit Protocol, Threshold Network, and Zama) is also included for context.

Technical Architecture and Features (Founder’s Perspective)​

Architecture and Cryptographic Primitives​

Ika’s core innovation is a novel “2PC-MPC” cryptographic scheme – a two-party computation within a multi-party computation framework. In simple terms, the signing process always involves two parties: (1) the user and (2) the Ika network. The user retains a private key share, and the network – composed of many independent nodes – holds the other share. A signature can only be produced with participation from both, ensuring the network alone can never forge a signature without the user. The network side isn’t a single entity but a distributed MPC among N validators that collectively act as the second party. A threshold of at least two-thirds of these nodes must agree (akin to Byzantine Fault Tolerance consensus) to generate the network’s share of the signature. This nested MPC structure (user + network) makes Ika non-collusive: even if all Ika nodes collude, they cannot steal user assets because the user’s participation (their key share) is always cryptographically required. In other words, Ika enables “zero-trust” security, upholding decentralization and user ownership principles of Web3 – no single entity or small group can unilaterally compromise assets.

Figure: Schematic of Ika’s 2PC-MPC architecture – the user acts as one party (holding a private key share) and the Ika network of N validators forms the other party via an MPC threshold protocol (t-out-of-N). This guarantees that both the user and a supermajority of decentralized nodes must cooperate to produce a valid signature.

Technically, Ika is implemented as a standalone blockchain network forked from the Sui codebase. It runs its own instance of Sui’s high-performance consensus engine (Mysticeti, a DAG-based BFT protocol) to coordinate the MPC nodes. Notably, Ika’s version of Sui has smart contracts disabled (Ika’s chain exists solely to run the MPC protocol) and includes custom modules for the 2PC-MPC signing algorithm. Mysticeti provides a reliable broadcast channel among the nodes, replacing the complex mesh of peer-to-peer messages that traditional MPC protocols use. By leveraging a DAG-based consensus for communication, Ika avoids the exponential communication overhead of earlier threshold signing schemes, which required each of n parties to send messages to all others. Instead, Ika’s nodes broadcast messages via the consensus, achieving linear communication complexity O(n), and using batching and aggregation techniques to keep per-node costs almost constant even as N grows large. This represents a significant breakthrough in threshold cryptography: the Ika team replaced point-to-point “unicast” communication with efficient broadcast and aggregation, enabling the protocol to support hundreds or thousands of participants without slowing down.

Zero-knowledge integrations: At present, Ika’s security is achieved through threshold cryptography and BFT consensus rather than explicit zero-knowledge proofs. The system does not rely on zk-SNARKs or zk-STARKs in its core signing process. However, Ika uses on-chain state proofs (light client proofs) to verify events from other chains, which is a form of cryptographic verification (e.g. verifying Merkle proofs of block headers or state). The design leaves room for integrating zero-knowledge techniques in the future – for example, to validate cross-chain state or conditions without revealing sensitive data – but as of 2025 no specific zk-SNARK module is part of Ika’s published architecture. The emphasis is instead on the “zero-trust” principle (meaning no trust assumptions) via the 2PC-MPC scheme, rather than zero-knowledge proof systems.

Performance and Scalability​

A primary goal of Ika is to overcome the performance bottlenecks of prior MPC networks. Legacy threshold signature protocols (like Lindell’s 2PC ECDSA or GG20) struggled to support more than a handful of participants, often taking many seconds or minutes to produce a single signature. In contrast, Ika’s optimized protocol achieves sub-second latency for signing and can handle a very high throughput of signature requests in parallel. Benchmark claims indicate Ika can scale to around 10,000 signatures per second while maintaining security across a large node cluster. This is possible thanks to the aforementioned linear communication and heavy use of batching: many signatures can be generated concurrently by the network in one round of protocol, dramatically amortizing costs. According to the team, Ika can be “10,000× faster” than existing MPC networks under load. In practical terms, this means real-time, high-frequency transactions (such as trading or cross-chain DeFi operations) can be supported without the usual delays of threshold signing. Latency is on the order of sub-second finality, meaning a signature (and the corresponding cross-chain operation) can be completed almost instantly after a user’s request.

Equally important, Ika does this while scaling out the number of signers to enhance decentralization. Traditional MPC setups often used a fixed committee of maybe 10–20 nodes to avoid performance collapse. Ika’s architecture can expand to hundreds or even thousands of validators participating in the signing process without significant slowdown. This massive decentralization improves security (harder for an attacker to corrupt a majority) and network robustness. The underlying consensus is Byzantine fault tolerant, so the network can tolerate up to one-third of nodes being compromised or offline and still function correctly. In any given signing operation, only a threshold t-of-N of nodes (e.g. 67% of N) need to actively participate; by design, if too many nodes are down, the signature might be delayed, but the system is engineered to handle typical failure scenarios gracefully (similar to a blockchain’s consensus liveness and safety properties). In summary, Ika achieves both high throughput and high validator count, a combination that sets it apart from earlier MPC solutions that had to trade off decentralization for speed.

Developer Tooling and Integration​

The Ika network is built to be developer-friendly, especially for those already building on Sui. Developers do not write smart contracts on Ika itself (since Ika’s chain doesn’t run user-defined contracts), but instead interact with Ika from other chains. For example, a Sui Move contract can invoke Ika’s functionality to sign transactions on external chains. To facilitate this, Ika provides robust tooling and SDKs:

• TypeScript SDK: Ika offers a TypeScript SDK (Node.js library) that mirrors the style of the Sui SDK. This SDK allows builders to create and manage dWallets (decentralized wallets) and issue signing requests to Ika from their applications. Using the TS SDK, developers can generate keypairs, register user shares, and call Ika’s RPC to coordinate threshold signatures – all with familiar patterns from Sui’s API. The SDK abstracts away the complexity of the MPC protocol, making it as simple as calling a function to request (for example) a Bitcoin transaction signature, given the appropriate context and user approval.

• CLI and Local Network: For more direct interaction, a command-line interface (CLI) called dWallet CLI is available. Developers can run a local Ika node or even a local test network by forking the open-source repository. This is valuable for testing and integration in a development environment. The documentation guides through setting up a local devnet, getting testnet tokens (DWLT – the testnet token), and creating a first dWallet address.

• Documentation and Examples: Ika’s docs include step-by-step tutorials for common scenarios, such as “Your First dWallet”. These show how to establish a dWallet that corresponds to an address on another chain (e.g., a Bitcoin address controlled by Ika’s keys), how to encrypt the user’s key share for safekeeping, and how to initiate cross-chain transactions. Example code covers use cases like transferring BTC via a Sui smart contract call, or scheduling future transactions (a feature Ika supports whereby a transaction can be pre-signed under certain conditions).

• Sui Integration (Light Clients): Out-of-the-box, Ika is tightly integrated with the Sui blockchain. The Ika network runs a Sui light client internally to trustlessly read Sui on-chain data. This means a Sui smart contract can emit an event or call that Ika will recognize (via a state proof) as a trigger to perform an action. For instance, a Sui contract might instruct Ika: “when event X occurs, sign and broadcast a transaction on Ethereum”. Ika nodes will verify the Sui event using the light client proof and then collectively produce the signature for the Ethereum transaction. The signed payload can then be delivered to the target chain (possibly by an off-chain relayer or by the user) to execute the desired action. Currently, Sui is the first fully supported controller chain (given Ika’s origins on Sui), but the architecture is multi-chain by design. Support for other chains’ state proofs and integrations are on the roadmap – for example, the team has mentioned extending Ika to work with rollups in the Polygon Avail ecosystem (providing dWallet capabilities on rollups with Avail as a data layer) and other Layer-1s in the future.

• Supported Crypto Algorithms: Ika’s network can generate keys/signatures for virtually any blockchain’s signature scheme. Initially it supports ECDSA (the elliptic curve algorithm used by Bitcoin, Ethereum’s ECDSA accounts, BNB Chain, etc.). In the near term, it’s planned to support EdDSA (Ed25519, used by chains like Solana and some Cosmos chains) and Schnorr signatures (e.g. Bitcoin Taproot’s Schnorr keys). This broad support means an Ika dWallet can have an address on Bitcoin, an address on Ethereum, on Solana, and so on – all controlled by the same underlying distributed key. Developers on Sui or other platforms can thus integrate any of these chains into their dApps through one unified framework (Ika), instead of dealing with chain-specific bridges or custodians.

In summary, Ika offers a developer experience similar to interacting with a blockchain node or wallet, abstracting away the heavy cryptography. Whether via the TypeScript SDK or directly through Move contracts and light clients, it strives to make cross-chain logic “plug-and-play” for builders.

Security, Decentralization, and Fault Tolerance​

Security is paramount in Ika’s design. The zero-trust model means that no user has to trust the Ika network with unilateral control of assets at any point. If a user creates a dWallet (say a BTC address managed by Ika), that address’s private key is never held by any single party – not even the user alone. Instead, the user holds a secret share and the network collectively holds the other share. Both are required to sign any transaction. Thus, even if the worst-case scenario occurred (e.g. many Ika nodes were compromised by an attacker), they still could not move funds without the user’s secret key share. This property addresses a major risk in conventional bridges, where a quorum of validators could collude to steal locked assets. Ika eliminates that risk by fundamentally changing the access structure (the threshold is set such that the network alone is never enough – the threshold effectively includes the user). In the literature, this is a new paradigm: a non-collusive MPC network where the asset owner remains part of the signing quorum by design.

On the network side, Ika uses a delegated Proof-of-Stake model (inherited from Sui’s design) for selecting and incentivizing validators. IKA token holders can delegate stake to validator nodes; the top validators (weighted by stake) become the authorities for an epoch, and are Byzantine-fault-tolerant (2/3 honest) in each epoch. This means the system assumes <33% of stake is malicious to maintain safety. If a validator misbehaves (e.g. tries to produce an incorrect signature share or censor transactions), the consensus and MPC protocol will detect it – incorrect signature shares can be identified (they won’t combine to a valid signature), and a malicious node can be logged and potentially slashed or removed in future epochs. Meanwhile, liveness is maintained as long as enough nodes (>67%) participate; the consensus can continue to finalize operations even if many nodes crash or go offline unexpectedly. This fault tolerance ensures the service is robust – no single point of failure exists since hundreds of independent operators in different jurisdictions are participating. Decentralization is further reinforced by the sheer number of participants: Ika does not limit itself to a fixed small committee, so it can onboard more validators to increase security without sacrificing much performance. In fact, Ika’s protocol was explicitly designed to “transcend the node limit of MPC networks” and allow massive decentralization.

Finally, the Ika team has subjected their cryptography to external review. They published a comprehensive whitepaper in 2024 detailing the 2PC-MPC protocol, and they have undergone at least one third-party security audit so far. For example, in June 2024, an audit by Symbolic Software examined Ika’s Rust implementation of the 2PC-MPC protocol and related crypto libraries. The audit would have focused on validating the correctness of the cryptographic protocols (ensuring no flaw in the threshold ECDSA scheme, key generation, or share aggregation) and checking for potential vulnerabilities. The codebase is open-source (under the dWallet Labs GitHub), allowing the community to inspect and contribute to its security. As of the alpha testnet stage, the team also cautioned that the software was still experimental and not yet production-audited, but ongoing audits and security improvements were a top priority prior to mainnet launch. In summary, Ika’s security model is a combination of provable cryptographic guarantees (from threshold schemes) and blockchain-grade decentralization (from the PoS consensus and large validator set), reviewed by experts, to provide strong assurances against both external attackers and insider collusion.

Compatibility and Ecosystem Interoperability​

Ika is purpose-built to be an interoperability layer, initially for Sui but extensible to many ecosystems. On day one, its closest integration is with the Sui blockchain: it effectively acts as an add-on module to Sui, empowering Sui dApps with multi-chain capabilities. This tight alignment is by design – Sui’s Move contracts and object-centric model make it a good “controller” for Ika’s dWallets. For instance, a Sui DeFi application can use Ika to pull liquidity from Ethereum or Bitcoin on the fly, making Sui a hub for multi-chain liquidity. Sui Foundation’s support for Ika indicates a strategy to position Sui as “the base chain for every chain”, leveraging Ika to connect to external assets. In practice, when Ika mainnet is live, a Sui builder might create a Move contract that, say, accepts BTC deposits: behind the scenes, that contract would create a Bitcoin dWallet (an address) via Ika and issue instructions to move BTC when needed. The end user experiences this as if Bitcoin is just another asset managed within the Sui app, even though the BTC stays native on Bitcoin until a valid threshold-signed transaction moves it.

Beyond Sui, Ika’s architecture supports other Layer-1 blockchains, Layer-2s, and even off-chain systems. The network can host multiple light clients concurrently, so it can validate state from Ethereum, Solana, Avalanche, or others – enabling smart contracts on those chains (or their users) to also leverage Ika’s MPC network. While such capabilities might roll out gradually, the design goal is chain-agnostic. In the interim, even without deep on-chain integration, Ika can be used in a more manual way: for example, an application on Ethereum could call an Ika API (via an Oracle or off-chain service) to request a signature for an Ethereum tx or a message. Because Ika supports ECDSA, it could even be used to manage an Ethereum account’s key in a decentralized way, similarly to how Lit Protocol’s PKPs work (we discuss Lit later). Ika has also showcased use cases like controlling Bitcoin on rollups – an example being integrating with the Polygon Avail framework to allow rollup users to manage BTC without trusting a centralized custodian. This suggests Ika may collaborate with various ecosystems (Polygon/Avail, Celestia rollups, etc.) as a provider of decentralized key infrastructure.

In summary, from a technical standpoint Ika is compatible with any system that relies on digital signatures – which is essentially all blockchains. Its initial deployment on Sui is just the beginning; the long-term vision is a universal MPC layer that any chain or dApp can plug into for secure cross-chain operations. By supporting common cryptographic standards (ECDSA, Ed25519, Schnorr) and providing the needed light client verifications, Ika could become a kind of “MPC-as-a-service” network for all of Web3, bridging assets and actions in a trust-minimized way.

Business and Investment Perspective​

Founding Team and Background​

Ika was founded by a team of seasoned cryptography and blockchain specialists, primarily based in Israel. The project’s creator and CEO is Omer Sadika, an entrepreneur with a strong pedigree in the crypto security space. Omer previously co-founded the Odsy Network, another project centered on decentralized wallet infrastructure, and he is the Founder/CEO of dWallet Labs, the company behind Ika. His background includes training at Y Combinator (YC alum) and a focus on cybersecurity and distributed systems. Omer’s experience with Odsy and dWallet Labs directly informed Ika’s vision – in essence, Ika can be seen as an evolution of the “dynamic decentralized wallet” concept Odsy worked on, now implemented as an MPC network on Sui.

Ika’s CTO and co-founder is Yehonatan Cohen Scaly, a cryptography expert who co-authored the 2PC-MPC protocol. Yehonatan leads the R&D for Ika’s novel cryptographic algorithms and had previously worked in cybersecurity (possibly with academic research in cryptography). He has been quoted discussing the limitations of existing threshold schemes and how Ika’s approach overcomes them, reflecting deep expertise in MPC and distributed cryptographic protocols. Another co-founder is David Lachmish, who oversees product development. David’s role is to translate the core technology into developer-friendly products and real-world use cases. The trio of Omer, Yehonatan, and David – along with other researchers like Dr. Dolev Mutzari (VP of Research at dWallet Labs) – anchors Ika’s leadership. Collectively, the team’s credentials include prior startups, academic research contributions, and experience at the intersection of crypto, security, and blockchain. This depth is why Ika is described as being created by “some of the world’s leading cryptography experts”.

In addition to the founders, Ika’s broader team and advisors likely feature individuals with strong cryptography backgrounds. For instance, Dolev Mutzari (mentioned above) is a co-author of the technical paper and instrumental in the protocol design. The presence of such talent gives investors confidence that Ika’s complex technology is in capable hands. Moreover, having a founder (Omer) who already successfully raised funds and built a community around Odsy/dWallet concepts means Ika benefits from lessons learned in previous iterations of the idea. The team’s base in Israel – a country known for its cryptography and cybersecurity sector – also situates them in a rich talent pool for hiring developers and researchers.

Funding Rounds and Key Backers​

Ika (and its parent, dWallet Labs) has attracted significant venture funding and strategic investment since its inception. To date it has raised over $21 million across multiple rounds. The project’s initial seed round in August 2022 was $5M, which was remarkable given the bear market conditions at that time. That seed round included a wide array of well-known crypto investors and angels. Notable participants included Node Capital (lead), Lemniscap, Collider Ventures, Dispersion Capital, Lightshift Capital, Tykhe Block Ventures, Liquid2 Ventures, Zero Knowledge Ventures, and others. Prominent individual investors also joined, such as Naval Ravikant (AngelList co-founder and prominent tech investor), Marc Bhargava (co-founder of Tagomi), Rene Reinsberg (co-founder of Celo), and several other industry figures. Such a roster of backers underscored strong confidence in Ika’s approach to decentralized custody even at the idea stage.

In May 2023, Ika raised an additional ~$7.5M in what appears to be a Series A or strategic round, reportedly at a valuation around $250M. This round was led by Blockchange Ventures and Node Capital (again), with participation from Insignius Capital, Rubik Ventures, and others. By this point, the thesis of scalable MPC networks had gained traction, and Ika’s progress likely attracted these investors to double down. The $250M valuation for a relatively early-stage network reflected the market’s expectation that Ika could become foundational infrastructure in web3 (on par with L1 blockchains or major DeFi protocols in terms of value).

The most high-profile investment came in April 2025, when the Sui Foundation announced a strategic investment in Ika. This partnership with Sui’s ecosystem fund pushed Ika’s total funding above $21M and cemented a close alignment with the Sui blockchain. While the exact amount Sui Foundation invested wasn’t publicly disclosed, it’s clear this was a significant endorsement – likely on the order of several million USD. The Sui Foundation’s support is not just financial; it also means Ika gets strong go-to-market assistance within the Sui ecosystem (developer outreach, integration support, marketing, etc.). According to press releases, “Ika…announced a strategic investment from the Sui Foundation, pushing its total funding to over $21 million.” This strategic round, rather than a traditional VC equity round, highlights that Sui sees Ika as critical infrastructure for its blockchain’s future (similar to how Ethereum Foundation might directly back a Layer-2 or interoperability project that benefits Ethereum).

Aside from Sui, other backers worth noting are Node Capital (a China-based crypto fund known for early investments in infrastructure), Lemniscap (a crypto VC focusing on early protocol innovation), and Collider Ventures (Israel-based VC, likely providing local support). Blockchange Ventures leading the 2023 round is notable; Blockchange is a VC that has backed several crypto infrastructure plays and their lead suggests they saw Ika’s tech as potentially category-defining. Additionally, Digital Currency Group (DCG) and Node Capital led a $5M fundraise for dWallet Labs prior to Ika’s rebranding (according to a LinkedIn post by Omer) – DCG’s involvement (via an earlier round for the company) indicates even more support in the background.

In summary, Ika’s funding journey shows a mix of traditional VCs and strategic partners. The Sui Foundation’s involvement particularly stands out, as it not only provides capital but also an integrated ecosystem to deploy Ika’s technology. Investors are essentially betting that Ika will become the go-to solution for decentralized key management and bridging across many networks, and they have valued the project accordingly.

Tokenomics and Economic Model​

Ika will have a native utility token called $IKA, which is central to the network’s economics and security model. Uniquely, the IKA token is being launched on the Sui blockchain (as an SUI native asset), even though the Ika network itself is a separate chain. This means IKA will exist as a coin that can be held and transferred on Sui like any other Sui asset, and it will be used in a dual manner: within the Ika network for staking and fees, and on Sui for governance or access in dApps. The tokenomics can be outlined as follows:

• Gas Fees: Just as ETH is gas in Ethereum or SUI is gas in Sui, IKA serves as the gas/payment for MPC operations on the Ika network. When a user or a dApp requests a signature or dWallet operation, a fee in IKA is paid to the network. These fees compensate validators for the computation and communication work of running the threshold signing protocol. The whitepaper analogizes IKA’s role to Sui’s gas, confirming that all cross-chain transactions facilitated by Ika will incur a small IKA fee. The fee schedule is likely proportional to the complexity of the operation (e.g., a single signature might cost a baseline fee, while more complex multi-step workflows could cost more).

• Staking and Security: IKA is also a staking token. Validator nodes in the Ika network must be delegated a stake of IKA to participate in consensus and signing. The consensus follows a delegated proof-of-stake similar to Sui’s: token holders delegate IKA to validators, and the weight of each validator in the consensus (and thus in the threshold signature processes) is determined by stake. In each epoch, validators are chosen and their voting power is a function of stake, with the overall set being Byzantine fault tolerant (meaning if a validator set has total stake $X$, up to ~$X/3$ stake could be malicious without breaking the network’s guarantees). Stakers (delegators) are incentivized by staking rewards: Ika’s model likely includes distribution of the collected fees (and possibly inflationary rewards) to validators and their delegators at epoch ends. Indeed, documentation notes that all transaction fees collected are distributed to authorities, who may share a portion with their delegators as rewards. This mirrors the Sui model of rewarding service providers for throughput.

• Supply and Distribution: As of now (Q2 2025), details on IKA’s total supply, initial distribution, and inflation are not fully public. However, given the funding rounds, we can infer some structure. Likely, a portion of IKA is allocated to early investors (seed and series rounds) and the team, with a large part reserved for community and future incentives. There may be a community sale or airdrop planned, especially since Ika ran a notable NFT campaign raising 1.4M SUI as mentioned in news (this was an NFT art campaign on Sui that set a record; it’s possible participants in that campaign might get IKA rewards or early access). The NFT campaign suggests a strategy to involve the community and bootstrap token distribution to users, not just VCs.

• Token Launch Timing: The Sui Foundation’s October 2024 announcement indicated “The IKA token will launch natively on Sui, unlocking new functionality and utility in decentralized security”. Mainnet was slated for December 2024, so presumably the token generation event (TGE) would coincide or shortly follow. If mainnet launched on schedule, IKA tokens might have begun distribution in late 2024 or early 2025. The token would then start being used for gas on the Ika network and staking. Before that, on testnet, a temporary token (DWLT on testnet) was used for gas, which had no real value.

• Use Cases and Value Accrual: The value of IKA as an investment hinges on Ika network usage. As more cross-chain transactions flow through Ika, more fees are paid in IKA, creating demand. Additionally, if many want to run validators or secure the network, they must acquire and stake IKA, which locks up supply (reducing float). Thus IKA has a utility plus governance nature – utility in paying for services and staking, and likely governance in directing the future of the protocol (though governance isn’t explicitly mentioned yet, it’s common for such networks to eventually decentralize control via token voting). One can imagine IKA token holders voting on adding support for new chains, adjusting fee parameters, or other protocol upgrades in the future.

Overall, IKA’s tokenomics aim to balance network security with usability. By launching on Sui, they make it easy for Sui ecosystem users to obtain and use IKA (no separate chain onboarding needed for the token itself), which can jumpstart adoption. Investors will watch metrics like the portion of supply staked (indicating security), the fee revenue (indicating usage), and partnerships that drive transactions (indicating demand for the token).

Business Model and Go-to-Market Strategy​

Ika’s business model is that of an infrastructure provider in the blockchain ecosystem. It doesn’t offer a consumer-facing product; instead it offers a protocol service (decentralized key management and transaction execution) that other projects integrate. As such, the primary revenue (or value capture) mechanism is the fee for service – i.e., the gas fees in IKA for using the network. One can liken Ika to a decentralized AWS for key signing: any developer can plug in and use it, paying per use. In the long run, as the network decentralizes, dWallet Labs (the founding company) might capture value by holding a stake in the network and via token appreciation rather than charging SaaS-style fees off-chain.

Go-to-Market (GTM) Strategy: Early on, Ika is targeting blockchain developers and projects that need cross-chain functionality or custody solutions. The alignment with Sui gives a ready pool of such developers. Sui itself, being a newer L1, needs unique features to attract users – and Ika offers cross-chain DeFi, Bitcoin access, and more on Sui, which are compelling features. Thus, Ika’s GTM piggybacks on Sui’s growing ecosystem. Notably, even before mainnet, several Sui projects announced they are integrating Ika:

• Projects like Full Sail, Rhei, Aeon, Human Tech, Covault, Lucky Kat, Native, Nativerse, Atoma, and Ekko (all builders on Sui) have “announced their upcoming launches utilizing Ika”, covering use cases from DeFi to gaming. For example, Full Sail might be building an exchange that can trade BTC via Ika; Lucky Kat (a gaming studio) could use Ika to enable in-game assets that reside on multiple chains; Covault likely involves custody solutions, etc. By securing these partnerships early, Ika ensures that upon launch there will be immediate transaction volume and real applications showcasing its capabilities.

• Ika is also emphasizing institutional use-cases, such as decentralized custody for institutions. In press releases, they highlight “unmatched security for institutional and individual users” in custody via Ika. This suggests Ika could be marketed to crypto custodians, exchanges, or even TradFi players that want a more secure way to manage private keys (perhaps as an alternative or complement to Fireblocks or Copper, which use MPC but in a centralized enterprise setting). In fact, by being a decentralized network, Ika could allow competitors in custody to all rely on the same robust signing network rather than each building their own. This cooperative model could attract institutions that prefer a neutral, decentralized custodian for certain assets.

• Another angle is AI integrations: Ika mentions “AI Agent guardrails” as a use case. This is forward-looking, playing on the trend of AI autonomy (e.g., AI agents executing on blockchain). Ika can ensure an AI agent (say an autonomous economic agent given control of some funds) cannot run off with the funds because the agent itself isn’t the sole holder of the key – it would still need the user’s share or abide by conditions in Ika. Marketing Ika as providing safety rails for AI in Web3 is a novel angle to capture interest from that sector.

Geographically, the presence of Node Capital and others hints at an Asia focus as well, in addition to the Western market. Sui has a strong Asia community (especially in China). Ika’s NFT campaign on Sui (the art campaign raising 1.4M SUI) indicates a community-building effort – possibly engaging Chinese users who are avid in Sui NFT space. By doing NFT sales or community airdrops, Ika can cultivate a grassroots user base who hold IKA tokens and are incentivized to promote its adoption.

Over time, the business model could extend to offering premium features or enterprise integrations. For instance, while the public Ika network is permissionless, dWallet Labs could spin up private instances or consortium versions for certain clients, or provide consulting services to projects integrating Ika. They could also earn via running some of the validators early on (bootstrap phase) and thus collecting part of the fees.

In summary, Ika’s GTM is strongly tied to ecosystem partnerships. By embedding deeply into Sui’s roadmap (where Sui’s 2025 goals include cross-chain liquidity and unique use cases), Ika ensures it will ride the growth of that L1. Simultaneously, it positions itself as a generalized solution for multi-chain coordination, which can then be pitched to projects on other chains once a success on Sui is demonstrated. The backing from Sui Foundation and the early integration announcements give Ika a significant head start in credibility and adoption compared to if it launched in isolation.

Ecosystem Adoption, Partnerships, and Roadmap​

Even at its early stage, Ika has built an impressive roster of ecosystem engagements:

• Sui Ecosystem Adoption: As mentioned, multiple Sui-based projects are integrating Ika. This means upon Ika’s mainnet launch, we expect to see Sui dApps enabling features like “Powered by Ika” – for example, a Sui lending protocol that lets users deposit BTC, or a DAO on Sui that uses Ika to hold its treasury on multiple chains. The fact that names like Rhei, Atoma, Nativerse (likely DeFi projects) and Lucky Kat (gaming/NFT) are on board shows that Ika’s applicability spans various verticals.

• Strategic Partnerships: Ika’s most important partnership is with the Sui Foundation itself, which is both an investor and a promoter. Sui’s official channels (blog, etc.) have featured Ika prominently, effectively endorsing it as the interoperability solution for Sui. Additionally, Ika has likely been working with other infrastructure providers. For instance, given the mention of zkLogin (Sui’s Web2 login feature) alongside Ika, there could be a combined use-case where zkLogin handles user authentication and Ika handles cross-chain transactions, together providing a seamless UX. Also, Ika’s mention of Avail (Polygon) in its blogs suggests a partnership or pilot in that ecosystem: perhaps with Polygon Labs or teams building rollups on Avail to use Ika for bridging Bitcoin to those rollups. Another potential partnership domain is with custodians – for example, integrating Ika with wallet providers like Zengo (notable since ZenGo’s co-founder was Omer’s prior project) or with institutional custody tech like Fireblocks. While not confirmed, these would be logical targets (indeed Fireblocks has partnered with Sui elsewhere; one could imagine Fireblocks leveraging Ika for MPC on Sui).

• Community and Developer Engagement: Ika runs a Discord and likely hackathons to get developers building with dWallets. The technology is novel, so evangelizing it through education is key. The presence of “Use cases” and “Builders” sections on their site, plus blog posts explaining core concepts, indicates a push to get developers comfortable with the concept of dWallets. The more developers understand that they can build cross-chain logic without bridges (and without compromising security), the more organic adoption will grow.

• Roadmap: As of 2025, Ika’s roadmap included:

  • Alpha and Testnet (2023–2024): The alpha testnet launched in 2024 on Sui, allowing developers to experiment with dWallets and providing feedback. This stage was used to refine the protocol, fix bugs, and run internal audits.
  • Mainnet Launch (Dec 2024): Ika planned to go live on mainnet by end of 2024. If achieved, by now (mid-2025) Ika’s mainnet should be operational. Launch likely included initial support for a set of chains: at least Bitcoin and Ethereum (ECDSA chains) out of the gate, given those were heavily mentioned in marketing.
  • Post-Launch 2025 Goals: In 2025, we expect the focus to be on scaling usage (through Sui apps and possibly expanding to other chains). The team will work on adding Ed25519 and Schnorr support shortly after launch, enabling integration with Solana, Polkadot, and other ecosystems. They will also implement more light clients (perhaps Ethereum light client for Ika, Solana light client, etc.) to broaden the trustless control. Another roadmap item is likely permissionless validator expansion – encouraging more independent validators to join and decentralizing the network further. Since the code is a Sui fork, running an Ika validator is similar to running a Sui node, which many operators can do.
  • Feature Enhancements: Two interesting features hinted in blogs are Encrypted User Shares and Future Transaction signing. Encrypted user share means users can optionally encrypt their private share and store it on-chain (perhaps on Ika or elsewhere) in a way that only they can decrypt, simplifying recovery. Future transaction signing implies the ability to have Ika pre-sign a transaction that executes later when conditions are met. These features increase usability (users won’t have to be online for every action if they pre-approve certain logic, all while maintaining non-custodial security). Delivering these in 2025 would further differentiate Ika’s offering.
  • Ecosystem Growth: By end of 2025, Ika likely aims to have multiple chain ecosystems actively using it. We might see, for example, an Ethereum project using Ika via an oracle (if direct on-chain integration is not yet there) or collaborations with interchain projects like Wormhole or LayerZero, where Ika could serve as the signing mechanism for secure messaging.

The competitive landscape will also shape Ika’s strategy. It’s not alone in offering decentralized key management, so part of its roadmap will involve highlighting its performance edge and unique two-party security in contrast to others. In the next section, we compare Ika to its notable competitors Lit Protocol, Threshold Network, and Zama.

Competitive Analysis: Ika vs. Other MPC/Threshold Networks​

Ika operates in a cutting-edge arena of cryptographic networks, where a few projects are pursuing similar goals with varying approaches. Below is a summary comparison of Ika with Lit Protocol, Threshold Network, and Zama (each a representative competitor in decentralized key infrastructure or privacy computing):

Aspect	Ika (Parallel MPC Network)	Lit Protocol (PKI & Compute)	Threshold Network (tBTC & TSS)	Zama (FHE Network)
Launch & Status	Founded 2022; Testnet in 2024; Mainnet launched on Sui in Dec 2024 (early 2025). Token $IKA live on Sui.	Launched 2021; Lit nodes network live. Token $LIT (launched 2021). Building “Chronicle” rollup for scaling.	Network went live 2022 after Keep/NuCypher merger. Token $T governs DAO. tBTC v2 launched for Bitcoin bridging.	In development (no public network yet as of 2025). Raised large VC rounds for R&D. No token yet (FHE tools in alpha stage).
Core Focus/Use-Case	Cross-chain interoperability and custody: threshold signing to control native assets across chains (e.g. BTC, ETH) via dWallets. Enables DeFi, multi-chain dApps, etc.	Decentralized key management & access control: threshold encryption/decryption and conditional signing via PKPs (Programmable Key Pairs). Popular for gating content, cross-chain automation with JavaScript “Lit Actions”.	Threshold cryptography services: e.g. tBTC decentralized Bitcoin-to-Ethereum bridge; threshold ECDSA for digital asset custody; threshold proxy re-encryption (PRE) for data privacy.	Privacy-preserving computation: Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) to enable encrypted data processing and private smart contracts. Focus on confidentiality (e.g. private DeFi, on-chain ML) rather than cross-chain control.
Architecture	Fork of Sui blockchain (DAG consensus Mysticeti) modified for MPC. No user smart contracts on Ika; uses off-chain 2PC-MPC protocol among ~N validators + user share. High throughput (10k TPS) design.	Decentralized network + L2: Lit nodes run MPC and also a TEE-based JS runtime. “Chronicle” Arbitrum Rollup used to anchor state and coordinate nodes. Uses 2/3 threshold for consensus on key operations.	Decentralized network on Ethereum: Node operators are staked with $T and randomly selected into signing groups (e.g. 100 nodes for tBTC). Uses off-chain protocols (GG18, etc.) with on-chain Ethereum contracts for coordination and deposit handling.	FHE Toolkits atop existing chains: Zama’s tech (e.g. Concrete, TFHE libraries) enables FHE on Ethereum (fhEVM). Plans for a threshold key management system (TKMS) for FHE keys. Likely will integrate with L1s or run as Layer-2 for private computations.
Security Model	2PC-MPC, non-collusive: User’s key share + threshold of N validators (2/3 BFT) required for any signature. No single entity ever has full key. BFT consensus tolerates <33% malicious. Audited by Symbolic (2024).	Threshold + TEE: Requires 2/3 of Lit nodes to sign/decrypt. Uses Trusted Execution Environments on each node to run user-provided code (Lit Actions) securely. Security depends on node honesty and hardware security.	Threshold multi-party: e.g. for tBTC, a randomly selected group of ~100 nodes must reach a threshold (e.g. 51) to sign BTC transactions. Economic incentives ($T staking, slashing) to keep honest majority. DAO governed; security incidents would be handled via governance.	FHE-based: Security relies on cryptographic hardness of FHE (learning with errors, etc.) – data remains encrypted at all times. Zama’s TKMS indicates use of threshold cryptography to manage FHE keys as well. Not a live network yet; security under review by academics.
Performance	Sub-second latency, ~10,000 signatures/sec in theory. Scales to hundreds or thousands of nodes without major perf loss (broadcast & batching approach). Suitable for real-time dApp use (trading, gaming).	Moderate latency (heavier due to TEE and consensus overhead). Lit has ~50 nodes; uses “shadow splicing” to scale but large node count can degrade performance. Good for moderate-frequency tasks (opening access, occasional tx signing). Chronicle L2 helps batching.	Lower throughput, higher latency: tBTC minting can take minutes (waiting for Bitcoin confirmations + threshold signing) and uses small groups to sign. Threshold’s focus is quality (security) over quantity – fine for bridging transactions and access control, not designed for thousands TPS.	Heavy computation latency: FHE is currently much slower than plaintext computation (orders of magnitude). Zama is optimizing, but running private contracts will be slower and costlier than normal ones. Not aimed at high-frequency tasks; targeted at complex computations where privacy is paramount.
Decentralization	High – permissionless validator set, hundreds of validators possible. Delegated PoS (Sui-style) ensures open participation and decentralized governance over time. User always in the loop (can’t be bypassed).	Medium – currently ~30-50 core nodes run by Lit team and partners. Plans to decentralize further. Nodes do heavy tasks (MPC + TEE), so scaling out is non-trivial. Governance not fully decentralized yet (Lit DAO exists but early).	High – large pool of stakers; however actual signing done by selected groups (not entire network at once). The network is as decentralized as its stake distribution. Governed by Threshold DAO (token holder votes) – mature decentralization in governance.	N/A (for network) – Zama is more a company-driven project now. If fhEVM or networks launch, initially likely centralized or limited set of nodes (given complexity). Over time could decentralize execution of FHE transactions, but that’s uncharted territory in 2025.
Token and Incentives	$IKA (Sui-based) for gas fees, staking, and potentially governance. Incentive: earn fees for running validators; token appreciates with network usage. Sui Foundation backing gives it ecosystem value.	$LIT token – used for governance and maybe fees for advanced services. Lit Actions currently free to developers (no gas); long-term may introduce fee model. $LIT incentivizes node operation (stakers) but exact token economics evolving.	$T token – staked by nodes, governs the DAO treasury and protocol upgrades. Nodes earn in $T and fees (in ETH or tBTC fees). $T secures network (slashing for misbehavior). Also used in liquidity programs for tBTC adoption.	No token (yet) – Zama is VC-funded; might introduce a token if they launch a network service (could be used for paying for private computation or staking to secure networks running FHE contracts). Currently developers use Zama’s tools without a token.
Key Backers	Sui Foundation (strategic investor); VCs: Node Capital, Blockchange, Lemniscap, Collider; angels like Naval Ravikant. Strong support from Sui ecosystem.	Backed by 1kx, Pantera, Coinbase Ventures, Framework, etc. (Raised $13M in 2022). Has growing developer community via Lit DAO. Partnerships with Ceramic, NFT projects for access control.	Emerged from Keep & NuCypher communities (backed by a16z, Polychain in past). Threshold is run by DAO; no new VC funding post-merger (grants from Ethereum Community Fund, etc.). Partnerships: works with Curve, Aave (tBTC integrations).	Backed by a16z, SoftBank, Multicoin Capital (raised $73M Series A). Close ties with Ethereum Foundation research (Rand Hindi, CEO, is an outspoken FHE advocate in Ethereum). Collaborating with projects like Optalysys for hardware acceleration.

Ika’s Competitive Edge: Ika’s differentiators lie in its performance at scale and unique security model. Compared to Lit Protocol, Ika can support far more signers and much higher throughput, making it suitable for use cases (like high-volume trading or gaming) that Lit’s network would struggle with. Ika also does not rely on Trusted Execution Environments, which some developers are wary of (due to potential exploits in SGX); instead, Ika achieves trustlessness purely with cryptography and consensus. Against Threshold Network, Ika offers a more general-purpose platform. Threshold is largely focused on Bitcoin↔Ethereum bridging (tBTC) and a couple of cryptographic services like proxy re-encryption, whereas Ika is a flexible interoperability layer that can work with any chain and asset out-of-the-box. Also, Ika’s user-in-the-loop model means it doesn’t require over-collateralization or insurance for deposits (tBTC v2 uses a robust but complex economic model to secure BTC deposits, whereas in Ika the user never gives up control in the first place). Compared to Zama, Ika addresses a different problem – Zama targets privacy, while Ika targets interoperability. However, it’s conceivable that in the future the two could complement each other (e.g., using FHE on Ika-stored assets). For now, Ika has the advantage of being operational sooner in a niche with immediate demand (bridges and MPC networks are needed today, whereas FHE is still maturing).

One potential challenge for Ika is market education and trust. It’s introducing a novel way of doing cross-chain interactions (dWallets instead of traditional lock-and-mint bridges). It will need to demonstrate its security in practice over time to win the same level of trust that, say, the Threshold Network has gradually earned (Threshold had to prove out tBTC after an earlier version was paused due to risks). If Ika’s technology works as advertised, it effectively leapfrogs the competition by solving the trilemma of decentralization, security, and speed in the MPC space. The strong backing from Sui and the extensive audits/papers lend credibility.

In conclusion, Ika stands out among MPC networks for its ambitious scalability and user-centric security model. Investors see it as a bet on the future of cross-chain coordination – one where users can seamlessly move value and logic across many blockchains without ever giving up control of their keys. If Ika achieves broad adoption, it could become as integral to Web3 infrastructure as cross-chain messaging protocols or major Layer-1 blockchains themselves. The coming year (2025) will be critical as Ika’s mainnet and first use cases go live, proving whether this cutting-edge cryptography can deliver on its promises in real market conditions. The early signs – strong technical fundamentals, an active pipeline of integrations, and substantial investor support – suggest that Ika has a real shot at redefining blockchain interoperability with MPC.

Sources: Primary information was gathered from Ika’s official documentation and whitepaper, Sui Foundation announcements, press releases and funding news, as well as competitor technical docs and analyses for context (Lit Protocol’s Messari report, Threshold Network documentation, and Zama’s FHE descriptions). All information is up-to-date as of 2025.

Plume Network: Overview and Value Proposition​

Plume Network is a blockchain platform purpose-built for Real-World Assets (RWA). It is a public, Ethereum-compatible chain designed to tokenize a wide range of real-world financial assets – from private credit and real estate to carbon credits and even collectibles – and make them as usable as native crypto assets. In other words, Plume doesn’t just put assets on-chain; it allows users to hold and utilize tokenized real assets in decentralized finance (DeFi) – enabling familiar crypto activities like staking, lending, borrowing, swapping, and speculative trading on assets that originate in traditional finance.

The core value proposition of Plume is to bridge TradFi and DeFi by turning traditionally illiquid or inaccessible assets into programmable, liquid tokens. By integrating institutional-grade assets (e.g. private credit funds, ETFs, commodities) with DeFi infrastructure, Plume aims to make high-quality investments – which were once limited to large institutions or specific markets – permissionless, composable, and a click away for crypto users. This opens the door for crypto participants to earn “real yield” backed by stable real-world cash flows (such as loan interest, rental income, bond yields, etc.) rather than relying on inflationary token rewards. Plume’s mission is to drive “RWA Finance (RWAfi)”, creating a transparent and open financial system where anyone can access assets like private credit, real estate debt, or commodities on-chain, and use them freely in novel ways.

In summary, Plume Network serves as an “on-chain home for real-world assets”, offering a full-stack ecosystem that transforms off-chain assets into globally accessible financial tools with true crypto-native utility. Users can stake stablecoins to earn yields from top fund managers (Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone, etc.), loop and leverage RWA-backed tokens as collateral, and trade RWAs as easily as ERC-20 tokens. By doing so, Plume stands out as a platform striving to make alternative assets more liquid and programmable, bringing fresh capital and investment opportunities into Web3 without sacrificing transparency or user experience.

Technology and Architecture​

Plume Network is implemented as an EVM-compatible blockchain with a modular Layer-2 architecture. Under the hood, Plume operates similarly to an Ethereum rollup (comparable to Arbitrum’s technology), utilizing Ethereum for data availability and security. Every transaction on Plume is eventually batch-posted to Ethereum, which means users pay a small extra fee to cover the cost of publishing calldata on Ethereum. This design leverages Ethereum’s robust security while allowing Plume to have its own high-throughput execution environment. Plume runs a sequencer that aggregates transactions and commits them to Ethereum periodically, giving the chain faster execution and lower fees for RWA use-cases, but anchored to Ethereum for trust and finality.

Because Plume is EVM-compatible, developers can deploy Solidity smart contracts on Plume just as they would on Ethereum, with almost no changes. The chain supports the standard Ethereum RPC methods and Solidity operations, with only minor differences (e.g. Plume’s block number and timestamp semantics mirror Arbitrum’s conventions due to the Layer-2 design). In practice, this means Plume can easily integrate existing DeFi protocols and developer tooling. The Plume docs note that cross-chain messaging is supported between Ethereum (the “parent” chain) and Plume (the L2), enabling assets and data to move between the chains as needed.

Notably, Plume describes itself as a “modular blockchain” optimized for RWA finance. The modular approach is evident in its architecture: it has dedicated components for bridging assets (called Arc for bringing anything on-chain), for omnichain yield routing (SkyLink) across multiple blockchains, and for on-chain data feeds (Nexus, an “onchain data highway”). This suggests Plume is building an interconnected system where real-world asset tokens on Plume can interact with liquidity on other chains and where off-chain data (like asset valuations, interest rates, etc.) is reliably fed on-chain. Plume’s infrastructure also includes a custom wallet called Plume Passport (the “RWAfi Wallet”) which likely handles identity/AML checks necessary for RWA compliance, and a native stablecoin (pUSD) for transacting in the ecosystem.

Importantly, Plume’s current iteration is often called a Layer-2 or rollup chain – it is built atop Ethereum for security. However, the team has hinted at ambitious plans to evolve the tech further. Plume’s CTO noted that they started as a modular L2 rollup but are now pushing “down the stack” toward a fully sovereign Layer-1 architecture, optimizing a new chain from scratch with high performance, privacy features “comparable to Swiss banks,” and a novel crypto-economic security model to secure the next trillion dollars on-chain. While specifics are scant, this suggests that over time Plume may transition to a more independent chain or incorporate advanced features like FHE (Fully Homomorphic Encryption) or zk-proofs (the mention of zkTLS and privacy) to meet institutional requirements. For now, though, Plume’s mainnet leverages Ethereum’s security and EVM environment to rapidly onboard assets and users, providing a familiar but enhanced DeFi experience for RWAs.

Tokenomics and Incentives​

PLUME ($PLUME) is the native utility token of the Plume Network. The $PLUME token is used to power transactions, governance, and network security on Plume. As the gas token, $PLUME is required to pay transaction fees on the Plume chain (similar to how ETH is gas on Ethereum). This means all operations – trading, staking, deploying contracts – consume $PLUME for fees. Beyond gas, $PLUME has several utility and incentive roles:

• Governance: $PLUME holders can participate in governance decisions, presumably voting on protocol parameters, upgrades, or asset onboarding decisions.
• Staking/Security: The token can be staked, which likely supports the network’s validator or sequencer operations. Stakers help secure the chain and in return earn staking rewards in $PLUME. (Even as a rollup, Plume may use a proof-of-stake mechanism for its sequencer or for eventual decentralization of block production).
• Real Yield and DeFi utility: Plume’s docs mention that users can use $PLUME across dApps to “unlock real yield”. This suggests that holding or staking $PLUME might confer higher yields in certain RWA yield farms or access to exclusive opportunities in the ecosystem.
• Ecosystem Incentives: $PLUME is also used to reward community engagement – for example, users might earn tokens via community quests, referral programs, testnet participation (such as the “Take Flight” developer program or the testnet “Goons” NFTs). This incentive design is meant to bootstrap network effects by distributing tokens to those who actively use and grow the platform.

Token Supply & Distribution: Plume has a fixed total supply of 10 billion $PLUME tokens. At the Token Generation Event (mainnet launch), the initial circulating supply is 20% of the total (i.e. 2 billion tokens). The allocation is heavily weighted toward community and ecosystem development:

• 59% to Community, Ecosystem & Foundation – this large share is reserved for grants, liquidity incentives, community rewards, and a foundation pool to support the ecosystem’s long-term growth. This ensures a majority of tokens are available to bootstrap usage (and potentially signals commitment to decentralization over time).
• 21% to Early Backers – these tokens are allocated to strategic investors and partners who funded Plume’s development. (As we’ll see, Plume raised capital from prominent crypto funds; this allocation likely vests over time as per investor agreements.)
• 20% to Core Contributors (Team) – allocated to the founding team and core developers driving Plume. This portion incentivizes the team and aligns them with the network’s success, typically vesting over a multi-year period.

Besides $PLUME, Plume’s ecosystem includes a stablecoin called Plume USD (pUSD). pUSD is designed as the RWAfi ecosystem stablecoin for Plume. It serves as the unit of account and primary trading/collateral currency within Plume’s DeFi apps. Uniquely, pUSD is fully backed 1:1 by USDC – effectively a wrapped USDC for the Plume network. This design choice (wrapping USDC) was made to reduce friction for traditional institutions: if an organization is already comfortable holding and minting USDC, they can seamlessly mint and use pUSD on Plume under the same frameworks. pUSD is minted and redeemed natively on both Ethereum and Plume, meaning users or institutions can deposit USDC on Ethereum and receive pUSD on Plume, or vice versa. By tying pUSD 1:1 to USDC (and ultimately to USD reserves), Plume ensures its stablecoin remains fully collateralized and liquid, which is critical for RWA transactions (where predictability and stability of the medium of exchange are required). In practice, pUSD provides a common stable liquidity layer for all RWA apps on Plume – whether it’s buying tokenized bonds, investing in RWA yield vaults, or trading assets on a DEX, pUSD is the stablecoin that underpins value exchange.

Overall, Plume’s tokenomics aim to balance network utility with growth incentives. $PLUME ensures the network is self-sustaining (through fees and staking security) and community-governed, while large allocations to ecosystem funds and airdrops help drive early adoption. Meanwhile, pUSD anchors the financial ecosystem in a trustworthy stable asset, making it easier for traditional capital to enter Plume and for DeFi users to measure returns on real-world investments.

Founding Team and Backers​

Plume Network was founded in 2022 by a trio of entrepreneurs with backgrounds in crypto and finance: Chris Yin (CEO), Eugene Shen (CTO), and Teddy Pornprinya (CBO). Chris Yin is described as the visionary product leader of the team, driving the platform’s strategy and thought leadership in the RWA space. Eugene Shen leads the technical development as CTO (previously having worked on modular blockchain architectures, given his note about “customizing geth” and building from the ground up). Teddy Pornprinya, as Chief Business Officer, spearheads partnerships, business development, and marketing – he was instrumental in onboarding dozens of projects into the Plume ecosystem early on. Together, the founders identified the gap in the market for an RWA-optimized chain and quit their prior roles to build Plume, officially launching the project roughly a year after conception.

Plume has attracted significant backing from both crypto-native VCs and traditional finance giants, signaling strong confidence in its vision:

• In May 2023, Plume raised a $10 million seed round led by Haun Ventures (the fund of former a16z partner Katie Haun). Other participants in the seed included Galaxy Digital, Superscrypt (Temasek’s crypto arm), A Capital, SV Angel, Portal Ventures, and Reciprocal Ventures. This diverse investor base gave Plume a strong start, combining crypto expertise and institutional connections.

• By late 2024, Plume secured a $20 million Series A funding to accelerate its development. This round was backed by top-tier investors such as Brevan Howard Digital, Haun Ventures (returning), Galaxy, and Faction VC. The inclusion of Brevan Howard, one of the world’s largest hedge funds with a dedicated crypto arm, is especially notable and underscored the growing Wall Street interest in RWAs on blockchain.

• In April 2025, Apollo Global Management – one of the world’s largest alternative asset managers – made a strategic investment in Plume. Apollo’s investment was a seven-figure (USD) amount intended to help Plume scale its infrastructure and bring more traditional financial products on-chain. Apollo’s involvement is a strong validation of Plume’s approach: Christine Moy, Apollo’s Head of Digital Assets, said their investment “underscores Apollo’s focus on technologies that broaden access to institutional-quality products… Plume represents a new kind of infrastructure focused on digital asset utility, investor engagement, and next-generation financial solutions”. In other words, Apollo sees Plume as key infrastructure to make private markets more liquid and accessible via blockchain.

• Another strategic backer is YZi Labs, formerly Binance Labs. In early 2025, YZi (Binance’s venture arm rebranded) announced a strategic investment in Plume Network as well. YZi Labs highlighted Plume as a “cutting-edge Layer-2 blockchain designed for scaling real world assets”, and their support signals confidence that Plume can bridge TradFi and DeFi at a large scale. (It’s worth noting Binance Labs’ rebranding to YZi Labs indicates continuity of their investments in core infrastructure projects like Plume.)

• Plume’s backers also include traditional fintech and crypto institutions through partnerships (detailed below) – for example, Mercado Bitcoin (Latin America’s largest digital asset platform) and Anchorage Digital (a regulated crypto custodian) are ecosystem partners, effectively aligning themselves with Plume’s success. Additionally, Grayscale Investments – the world’s largest digital asset manager – has taken notice: in April 2025, Grayscale officially added $PLUME to its list of assets “Under Consideration” for future investment products. Being on Grayscale’s radar means Plume could potentially be included in institutional crypto trusts or ETFs, a major nod of legitimacy for a relatively new project.

In summary, Plume’s funding and support comes from a who’s-who of top investors: premier crypto VCs (Haun, Galaxy, a16z via GFI’s backing of Goldfinch, etc.), hedge funds and TradFi players (Brevan Howard, Apollo), and corporate venture arms (Binance/YZi). This mix of backers brings not just capital but also strategic guidance, regulatory expertise, and connections to real-world asset originators. It has also provided Plume with war-chest funding (at least $30M+ over seed and Series A) to build out its specialized blockchain and onboard assets. The strong backing serves as a vote of confidence that Plume is positioned as a leading platform in the fast-growing RWA sector.

Ecosystem Partners and Integrations​

Plume has been very active in forging ecosystem partnerships across both crypto and traditional finance, assembling a broad network of integrations even before (and immediately upon) mainnet launch. These partners provide the assets, infrastructure, and distribution that make Plume’s RWA ecosystem functional:

• Nest Protocol (Nest Credit): An RWA yield platform that operates on Plume, allowing users to deposit stablecoins into vaults and receive yield-bearing tokens backed by real-world assets. Nest is essentially a DeFi frontend for RWA yields, offering products like tokenized U.S. Treasury Bills, private credit, mineral rights, etc., but abstracting away the complexity so they “feel like crypto.” Users swap USDC (or pUSD) for Nest-issued tokens that are fully backed by regulated, audited assets held by custodians. Nest works closely with Plume – a testimonial from Anil Sood of Anemoy (a partner) highlights that “partnering with Plume accelerates our mission to bring institutional-grade RWAs to every investor… This collaboration is a blueprint for the future of RWA innovation.”. In practice, Nest is Plume’s native yield marketplace (sometimes called “Nest Yield” or RWA staking platform), and many of Plume’s big partnerships funnel into Nest vaults.

• Mercado Bitcoin (MB): The largest digital asset exchange in Latin America (based in Brazil) has partnered with Plume to tokenize ~$40 million of Brazilian real-world assets. This initiative, announced in Feb 2025, involves MB using Plume’s blockchain to issue tokens representing Brazilian asset-backed securities, consumer credit portfolios, corporate debt, and accounts receivable. The goal is to connect global investors with yield-bearing opportunities in Brazil’s economy – effectively opening up Brazilian credit markets to on-chain investors worldwide through Plume. These Brazilian RWA tokens will be available from day one of Plume’s mainnet on the Nest platform, providing stable on-chain returns backed by Brazilian small-business loans and credit receivables. This partnership is notable because it gives Plume a geographic reach (LATAM) and a pipeline of emerging-market assets, showcasing how Plume can serve as a hub connecting regional asset originators to global liquidity.

• Superstate: Superstate is a fintech startup founded by Robert Leshner (former founder of Compound), focused on bringing regulated U.S. Treasury fund products on-chain. In 2024, Superstate launched a tokenized U.S. Treasury fund (approved as a 1940 Act mutual fund) targeted at crypto users. Plume was chosen by Superstate to power its multi-chain expansion. In practice, this means Superstate’s tokenized T-bill fund (which offers stable yield from U.S. government bonds) is being made available on Plume, where it can be integrated into Plume’s DeFi ecosystem. Leshner himself said: “by expanding to Plume – the unique RWAfi chain – we can demonstrate how purpose-built infrastructure can enable great new use-cases for tokenized assets. We’re excited to build on Plume.”. This indicates Superstate will deploy its fund tokens (e.g., maybe an on-chain share of a Treasuries fund) on Plume, allowing Plume users to hold or use them in DeFi (perhaps as collateral for borrowing, or in Nest vaults for auto-yield). It is a strong validation that Plume’s chain is seen as a preferred home for regulated asset tokens like Treasuries.

• Ondo Finance: Ondo is a well-known DeFi project that pivoted into the RWA space by offering tokenized bonds and yield products (notably, Ondo’s OUSG token, which represents shares in a short-term U.S. Treasury fund, and USDY, representing an interest-bearing USD deposit product). Ondo is listed among Plume’s ecosystem partners, implying a collaboration where Ondo’s yield-bearing tokens (like OUSG, USDY) can be used on Plume. In fact, Ondo’s products align closely with Plume’s goals: Ondo established legal vehicles (SPVs) to ensure compliance, and its OUSG token is backed by BlackRock’s tokenized money market fund (BUIDL), providing ~4.5% APY from Treasuries. By integrating Ondo, Plume gains blue-chip RWA assets like U.S. Treasuries on-chain. Indeed, as of late 2024, Ondo’s RWA products had a market value around $600+ million, so bridging them to Plume adds significant TVL. This synergy likely allows Plume users to swap into Ondo’s tokens or include them in Nest vaults for composite strategies.

• Centrifuge: Centrifuge is a pioneer in RWA tokenization (operating its own Polkadot parachain for RWA pools). Plume’s site lists Centrifuge as a partner, suggesting collaboration or integration. This could mean that Centrifuge’s pools of assets (trade finance, real estate bridge loans, etc.) might be accessible from Plume, or that Centrifuge will use Plume’s infrastructure for distribution. For example, Plume’s SkyLink omnichain yield might route liquidity from Plume into Centrifuge pools on Polkadot, or Centrifuge could tokenize certain assets directly onto Plume for deeper DeFi composability. Given Centrifuge leads the private credit RWA category with ~$409M TVL in its pools, its participation in Plume’s ecosystem is significant. It indicates an industry-wide move toward interoperability among RWA platforms, with Plume acting as a unifying layer for RWA liquidity across chains.

• Credbull: Credbull is a private credit fund platform that partnered with Plume to launch a large tokenized credit fund. According to CoinDesk, Credbull is rolling out up to a $500M private credit fund on Plume, offering a fixed high yield to on-chain investors. This likely involves packaging private credit (loans to mid-sized companies or other credit assets) into a vehicle where on-chain stablecoin holders can invest for a fixed return. The significance is twofold: (1) It adds a huge pipeline of yield assets (~half a billion dollars) to Plume’s network, and (2) it exemplifies how Plume is attracting real asset managers to originate products on its chain. Combined with other pipeline assets, Plume said it planned to tokenize about $1.25 billion worth of RWAs by late 2024, including Credbull’s fund, plus $300M of renewable energy assets (solar farms via Plural Energy), ~$120M of healthcare receivables (Medicaid-backed invoices), and even oil & gas mineral rights. This large pipeline shows that at launch, Plume isn’t empty – it comes with tangible assets ready to go.

• Goldfinch: Goldfinch is a decentralized credit protocol that provided undercollateralized loans to fintech lenders globally. In 2023, Goldfinch pivoted to “Goldfinch Prime”, targeting accredited and institutional investors by offering on-chain access to top private credit funds. Plume and Goldfinch announced a strategic partnership to bring Goldfinch Prime’s offerings to Plume’s Nest platform, effectively marrying Goldfinch’s institutional credit deals with Plume’s user base. Through this partnership, institutional investors on Plume can stake stablecoins into funds managed by Apollo, Golub Capital, Aries, Stellus, and other leading private credit managers via Goldfinch’s integration. The ambition is massive: collectively these managers represent over $1 trillion in assets, and the partnership aims to eventually make portions of that available on-chain. In practical terms, a user on Plume could invest in a diversified pool that earns yield from hundreds of real-world loans made by these credit funds, all tokenized through Goldfinch Prime. This not only enhances Plume’s asset diversity but also underscores Plume’s credibility to partner with top-tier RWA platforms.

• Infrastructure Partners (Custody and Connectivity): Plume has also integrated key infrastructure players. Anchorage Digital, a regulated crypto custodian bank, is a partner – Anchorage’s involvement likely means institutional users can custody their tokenized assets or $PLUME securely in a bank-level custody solution (a must for big money). Paxos is another listed partner, which could relate to stablecoin infrastructure (Paxos issues USDP stablecoin and also provides custody and brokerage services – possibly Paxos could be safeguarding the reserves for pUSD or facilitating asset tokenization pipelines). LayerZero is mentioned as well, indicating Plume uses LayerZero’s interoperability protocol for cross-chain messaging. This would allow assets on Plume to move to other chains (and vice versa) in a trust-minimized way, complementing Plume’s rollup bridge.

• Other DeFi Integrations: Plume’s ecosystem page cites 180+ protocols, including RWA specialists and mainstream DeFi projects. For instance, names like Nucleus Yield (a platform for tokenized yields), and possibly on-chain KYC providers or identity solutions, are part of the mix. By the time of mainnet, Plume had over 200 integrated protocols in its testnet environment – meaning many existing dApps (DEXs, money markets, etc.) have deployed or are ready to deploy on Plume. This ensures that once real-world assets are tokenized, they have immediate utility: e.g., a tokenized solar farm revenue stream could be traded on an order-book exchange, or used as collateral for a loan, or included in an index – because the DeFi “money lego” pieces (DEXs, lending platforms, asset management protocols) are available on the chain from the start.

In summary, Plume’s ecosystem strategy has been aggressive and comprehensive: secure anchor partnerships for assets (e.g. funds from Apollo, BlackRock via Superstate/Ondo, private credit via Goldfinch and Credbull, emerging market assets via Mercado Bitcoin), ensure infrastructure and compliance in place (Anchorage custody, Paxos, identity/AML tooling), and port over the DeFi primitives to allow a flourishing of secondary markets and leverage. The result is that Plume enters 2025 as potentially the most interconnected RWA network in Web3 – a hub where various RWA protocols and real-world institutions plug in. This “network-of-networks” effect could drive significant total value locked and user activity, as indicated by early metrics (Plume’s testnet saw 18+ million unique wallets and 280+ million transactions in a short span, largely due to incentive campaigns and the breadth of projects testing the waters).

Roadmap and Development Milestones​

Plume’s development has moved at a rapid clip, with a phased approach to scaling up real-world assets on-chain:

• Testnet and Community Growth (2023): Plume launched its incentivized testnet (code-named “Miles”) in mid-late 2023. The testnet campaign was extremely successful in attracting users – over 18 million testnet wallet addresses were created, executing 280 million+ transactions. This was likely driven by testnet “missions” and an airdrop campaign (Season 1 of Plume’s airdrop was claimed by early users). The testnet also onboarded over 200 protocols and saw 1 million NFTs (“Goons”) minted, indicating a vibrant trial ecosystem. This massive testnet was a milestone proving out Plume’s tech scalability and generating buzz (and a large community: Plume now counts ~1M Twitter followers and hundreds of thousands in Discord/Telegram).

• Mainnet Launch (Q1 2025): Plume targeted the end of 2024 or early 2025 for mainnet launch. Indeed, by February 2025, partners like Mercado Bitcoin announced their tokenized assets would go live “from the first day of Plume’s mainnet launch.”. This implies Plume mainnet went live or was scheduled to go live around Feb 2025. Mainnet launch is a crucial milestone, bringing the testnet’s lessons to production along with the initial slate of real assets (~$1B+ worth) ready to be tokenized. The launch likely included the release of Plume’s core products: the Plume Chain (mainnet), Arc for asset onboarding, pUSD stablecoin, and Plume Passport wallet, as well as initial DeFi dApps (DEXs, money markets) deployed by partners.

• Phased Asset Onboarding: Plume has indicated a “phased onboarding” strategy for assets to ensure a secure, liquid environment. In early phases, simpler or lower-risk assets (like fully backed stablecoins, tokenized bonds) come first, alongside controlled participation (perhaps whitelisted institutions) to build trust and liquidity. Each phase then unlocks more use cases and asset classes as the ecosystem proves itself. For example, Phase 1 might focus on on-chain Treasuries and private credit fund tokens (relatively stable, yield-generating assets). Subsequent phases could bring more esoteric or higher-yield assets like renewable energy revenue streams, real estate equity tokens, or even exotic assets (the docs amusingly mention “GPUs, uranium, mineral rights, durian farms” as eventual on-chain asset possibilities). Plume’s roadmap thus expands the asset menu over time, parallel with developing the needed market depth and risk management on-chain.

• Scaling and Decentralization: Following mainnet, a key development goal is to decentralize the Plume chain’s operations. Currently, Plume has a sequencer model (likely run by the team or a few nodes). Over time, they plan to introduce a robust validator/sequencer set where $PLUME stakers help secure the network, and possibly even transition to a fully independent consensus. The founder’s note about building an optimized L1 with a new crypto-economic model hints that Plume might implement a novel Proof-of-Stake or hybrid security model to protect high-value RWAs on-chain. Milestones in this category would include open-sourcing more of the stack, running incentivized testnet for node operators, and implementing fraud proofs or zk-proofs (if moving beyond an optimistic rollup).

• Feature Upgrades: Plume’s roadmap also includes adding advanced features demanded by institutions. This could involve:

  • Privacy enhancements: e.g., integrating zero-knowledge proofs for confidential transactions or identity, so that sensitive financial details of RWAs (like borrower info or cashflow data) can be kept private on a public ledger. The mention of FHE and zkTLS suggests research in enabling private yet verifiable asset handling.
  • Compliance and Identity: Plume already has AML screening and compliance modules, but future work will refine on-chain identity (perhaps DID integration in Plume Passport) so that RWA tokens can enforce transfer restrictions or only be held by eligible investors when required.
  • Interoperability: Further integrations with cross-chain protocols (expanding on LayerZero) and bridges so that Plume’s RWA liquidity can seamlessly flow into major ecosystems like Ethereum mainnet, Layer-2s, and even other app-chains. The SkyLink omnichain yield product is likely part of this, enabling users on other chains to tap yields from Plume’s RWA pools.

• Growth Targets: Plume’s leadership has publicly stated goals like “tokenize $3 billion+ in assets by Q4 2024” and eventually far more. While $1.25B was the short-term pipeline at launch, the journey to $3B in tokenized RWAs is an explicit milestone. Longer term, given the trillions in institutional assets potentially tokenizable, Plume will measure success in how much real-world value it brings on-chain. Another metric is TVL and user adoption: by April 2025 the RWA tokenization market crossed $20B in TVL overall, and Plume aspires to capture a significant share of that. If its partnerships mature (e.g., if even 5% of that $1 trillion Goldfinch pipeline comes on-chain), Plume’s TVL could grow exponentially.

• Recent Highlights: By spring 2025, Plume had several noteworthy milestones:

  • The Apollo investment (Apr 2025) – which not only brought funding but also the opportunity to work with Apollo’s portfolio (Apollo manages $600B+ including credit, real estate, and private equity assets that could eventually be tokenized).
  • Grayscale consideration (Apr 2025) – being added to Grayscale’s watchlist is a milestone in recognition, potentially paving the way for a Plume investment product for institutions.
  • RWA Market Leadership: Plume’s team frequently publishes the “Plumeberg” Newsletters noting RWA market trends. In one, they celebrated RWA protocols surpassing $10B TVL and noted Plume’s key role in the narrative. They have positioned Plume as core infrastructure as the sector grows, which suggests a milestone of becoming a reference platform in the RWA conversation.

In essence, Plume’s roadmap is about scaling up and out: scale up in terms of assets (from hundreds of millions to billions tokenized), and scale out in terms of features (privacy, compliance, decentralization) and integrations (connecting to more assets and users globally). Each successful asset onboarding (be it a Brazilian credit deal or an Apollo fund tranche) is a development milestone in proving the model. If Plume can maintain momentum, upcoming milestones might include major financial institutions launching products directly on Plume (e.g., a bank issuing a bond on Plume), or government entities using Plume for public asset auctions – all part of the longer-term vision of Plume as a global on-chain marketplace for real-world finance.

Metrics and Traction​

While still early, Plume Network’s traction can be gauged by a combination of testnet metrics, partnership pipeline, and the overall growth of RWA on-chain:

• Testnet Adoption: Plume’s incentivized testnet (2023) saw extraordinary participation. 18 million+ unique addresses and 280 million transactions were recorded – numbers rivaling or exceeding many mainnets. This was driven by an enthusiastic community drawn by Plume’s airdrop incentives and the allure of RWAs. It demonstrates a strong retail interest in the platform (though many may have been speculators aiming for rewards, it nonetheless seeded a large user base). Additionally, over 200 DeFi protocols deployed contracts on the testnet, signaling broad developer interest. This effectively primed Plume with a large user and developer community even before launch.

• Community Size: Plume quickly built a social following in the millions (e.g., 1M followers on X/Twitter, 450k in Discord, etc.). They brand their community members as “Goons” – over 1 million “Goon” NFTs were minted as a part of testnet achievements. Such gamified growth reflects one of the fastest community buildups in recent Web3 memory, indicating that the narrative of real-world assets resonates with a wide audience in crypto.

• Ecosystem and TVL Pipeline: At mainnet launch, Plume projected having over $1 billion in real-world assets tokenized or available on day one. In a statement, co-founder Chris Yin highlighted proprietary access to high-yield, privately held assets that are “exclusively” coming to Plume. Indeed, specific assets lined up included:

  • $500M from a Credbull private credit fund,
  • $300M in solar energy farms (Plural Energy),
  • $120M in healthcare (Medicaid receivables),
  • plus mineral rights and other esoteric assets. These sum to ~$1B, and Yin stated the aim to reach $3B tokenized by end of 2024. Such figures, if realized, would place Plume among the top chains for RWA TVL. By comparison, the entire RWA sector’s on-chain TVL was about $20B as of April 2025, so $3B on one platform would be a very significant share.

• Current TVL / Usage: Since mainnet launch is recent, concrete TVL figures on Plume aren’t yet publicly reported like on DeFiLlama. However, we know several integrated projects bring their own TVL:

  • Ondo’s products (OUSG, etc.) had $623M in market value around early 2024 – some of that may now reside or be mirrored on Plume.
  • The tokenized assets via Mercado Bitcoin (Brazil) add $40M pipeline.
  • Goldfinch Prime’s pool could attract large deposits (Goldfinch’s legacy pools originated ~$100M+ of loans; Prime could scale higher with institutions).
  • If Nest vaults aggregate multiple yields, that could quickly accumulate nine-figure TVL on Plume as stablecoin holders seek 5-10% yields from RWAs. As a qualitative metric, demand for RWA yields has been high even in bear markets – for instance, tokenized Treasury funds like Ondo’s saw hundreds of millions in a few months. Plume, concentrating many such offerings, could see a rapid uptick in TVL as DeFi users rotate into more “real” yields.

• Transactions and Activity: We might anticipate relatively lower on-chain transaction counts on Plume compared to say a gaming chain, because RWA transactions are higher-value but less frequent (e.g., moving millions in a bond token vs. many micro-transactions). That said, if secondary trading picks up (on an order book exchange or AMM on Plume), we could see steady activity. The presence of 280M test txns suggests Plume can handle high throughput if needed. With Plume’s low fees (designed to be cheaper than Ethereum) and composability, it encourages more complex strategies (like looping collateral, automated yield strategies by smart contracts) which could drive interactions.

• Real-World Impact: Another “metric” is traditional participation. Plume’s partnership with Apollo and others means institutional AuM (Assets under Management) connected to Plume is in the tens of billions (just counting Apollo’s involved funds, BlackRock’s BUIDL fund, etc.). While not all that value is on-chain, even a small allocation from each could quickly swell Plume’s on-chain assets. For example, BlackRock’s BUIDL fund (tokenized money market) hit $1B AUM within a year. Franklin Templeton’s on-chain government money fund reached $368M. If similar funds launch on Plume or existing ones connect, those figures reflect potential scale.

• Security/Compliance Metrics: It’s worth noting Plume touts being fully onchain 24/7, permissionless yet compliant. One measure of success will be zero security incidents or defaults in the initial cohorts of RWA tokens. Metrics like payment yields delivered to users (e.g., X amount of interest paid out via Plume smart contracts from real assets) will build credibility. Plume’s design includes real-time auditing and on-chain verification of asset collateral (some partners provide daily transparency reports, as Ondo does for USDY). Over time, consistent, verified yield payouts and perhaps credit ratings on-chain could become key metrics to watch.

In summary, early indicators show strong interest and a robust pipeline for Plume. The testnet numbers demonstrate crypto community traction, and the partnerships outline a path to significant on-chain TVL and usage. As Plume transitions to steady state, we will track metrics like how many asset types are live, how much yield is distributed, and how many active users (especially institutional) engage on the platform. Given that the entire RWA category is growing fast (over $22.4B TVL as of May 2025, with a 9.3% monthly growth rate), Plume’s metrics should be viewed in context of this expanding pie. There is a real possibility that Plume could emerge as a leading RWA hub capturing a multi-billion-dollar share of the market if it continues executing.

---

Real-World Assets (RWA) in Web3: Overview and Significance​

Real-World Assets (RWAs) refer to tangible or financial assets from the traditional economy that are tokenized on blockchain – in other words, digital tokens that represent ownership or rights to real assets or cash flows. These can include assets like real estate properties, corporate bonds, trade invoices, commodities (gold, oil), stocks, or even intangible assets like carbon credits and intellectual property. RWA tokenization is arguably one of the most impactful trends in crypto, because it serves as a bridge between traditional finance (TradFi) and decentralized finance (DeFi). By bringing real-world assets on-chain, blockchain technology can inject transparency, efficiency, and broader access into historically opaque and illiquid markets.

The significance of RWAs in Web3 has grown dramatically in recent years:

• They unlock new sources of collateral and yield for the crypto ecosystem. Instead of relying on speculative token trading or purely crypto-native yield farming, DeFi users can invest in tokens that derive value from real economic activity (e.g., revenue from a real estate portfolio or interest from loans). This introduces “real yield” and diversification, making DeFi more sustainable.
• For traditional finance, tokenization promises to increase liquidity and accessibility. Assets like commercial real estate or loan portfolios, which typically have limited buyers and cumbersome settlement processes, can be fractionalized and traded 24/7 on global markets. This can reduce financing costs and democratize access to investments that were once restricted to banks or large funds.
• RWAs also leverage blockchain’s strengths: transparency, programmability, and efficiency. Settlement of tokenized securities can be near-instant and peer-to-peer, eliminating layers of intermediaries and reducing settlement times from days to seconds. Smart contracts can automate interest payments or enforce covenants. Additionally, the immutable audit trail of blockchains enhances transparency – investors can see exactly how an asset is performing (especially when coupled with oracle data) and trust that the token supply matches real assets (with on-chain proofs of reserve, etc.).
• Importantly, RWA tokenization is seen as a key driver of the next wave of institutional adoption of blockchain. Unlike the largely speculative DeFi summer of 2020 or the NFT boom, RWAs appeal directly to the finance industry’s core, by making familiar assets more efficient. A recent report by Ripple and BCG projected that the market for tokenized assets could reach **$18.9 trillion** by 2033, underscoring the vast addressable market. Even nearer term, growth is rapid – as of May 2025, RWA projects’ TVL was $22.45B (up ~9.3% in one month) and projected to hit ~$50B by end of 2025. Some estimates foresee **$1–$3 trillion tokenized by 2030**, with upper scenarios as high as $30T if adoption accelerates.

In short, RWA tokenization is transforming capital markets by making traditional assets more liquid, borderless, and programmable. It represents a maturation of the crypto industry – moving beyond purely self-referential assets toward financing the real economy. As one analysis put it, RWAs are “rapidly shaping up to be the bridge between traditional finance and the blockchain world”, turning the long-hyped promise of blockchain disrupting finance into a reality. This is why 2024–2025 has seen RWAs touted as the growth narrative in Web3, attracting serious attention from big asset managers, governments, and Web3 entrepreneurs alike.

Key Protocols and Projects in the RWA Space​

The RWA landscape in Web3 is broad, comprising various projects each focusing on different asset classes or niches. Here we highlight some key protocols and platforms leading the RWA movement, along with their focus areas and recent progress:

Project / Protocol	Focus & Asset Types	Blockchain	Notable Metrics / Highlights
Centrifuge	Decentralized securitization of private credit – tokenizing real-world payment assets like invoices, trade receivables, real estate bridge loans, royalties, etc. via asset pools (Tinlake). Investors earn yield from financing these assets.	Polkadot parachain (Centrifuge Chain) with Ethereum dApp (Tinlake) integration	TVL ≈ $409M in pools; pioneered RWA DeFi with MakerDAO (Centrifuge pools back certain DAI loans). Partners with institutions like New Silver and FortunaFi for asset origination. Launching Centrifuge V3 for easier cross-chain RWA liquidity.
Maple Finance	Institutional lending platform – initially undercollateralized crypto loans (to trading firms), now pivoted to RWA-based lending. Offers pools where accredited lenders provide USDC to borrowers (now often backed by real-world collateral or revenue). Launched a Cash Management Pool for on-chain U.S. Treasury investments and Maple Direct for overcollateralized BTC/ETH loans.	Ethereum (V2 & Maple 2.0), previously Solana (deprecated)	$2.46B in total loans originated to date; shifted to fully collateralized lending after defaults in unsecured lending. Maple’s new Treasury pool allows non-US investors to earn ~5% on T-Bills via USDC. Its native token MPL (soon converting to SYRUP) captures protocol fees; Maple ranks #2 in private credit RWA TVL and is one of few with a liquid token.
Goldfinch	Decentralized private credit – originally provided undercollateralized loans to fintech lenders in emerging markets (Latin America, Africa, etc.) by pooling stablecoin from DeFi investors. Now launched Goldfinch Prime, targeting institutional investors to provide on-chain access to multi-billion-dollar private credit funds (managed by Apollo, Ares, Golub, etc.) in one diversified pool. Essentially brings established private debt funds on-chain for qualified investors.	Ethereum	Funded ~$100M in loans across 30+ borrowers since inception. Goldfinch Prime (2023) is offering exposure to top private credit funds (Apollo, Blackstone, T. Rowe Price, etc.) with thousands of underlying loans. Backed by a16z, Coinbase Ventures, etc. Aims to merge DeFi capital with proven TradFi credit strategies, with yields often 8-10%. GFI token governs the protocol.
Ondo Finance	Tokenized funds and structured products – pivoted from DeFi services to focusing on on-chain investment funds. Issuer of tokens like OUSG (Ondo Short-Term Government Bond Fund token – effectively tokenized shares of a U.S. Treasury fund) and OSTB/OMMF (money market fund tokens). Also offers USDY (tokenized deposit yielding ~5% from T-bills + bank deposits). Ondo also built Flux, a lending protocol to allow borrowing against its fund tokens.	Ethereum (tokens also deployed on Polygon, Solana, etc. for accessibility)	$620M+ in tokenized fund AUM (e.g. OUSG, USDY, etc.). OUSG is one of the largest on-chain Treasury products, at ~$580M AUM providing ~4.4% APY. Ondo’s funds are offered under SEC Reg D/S exemptions via a broker-dealer, ensuring compliance. Ondo’s approach of using regulated SPVs and partnering with BlackRock’s BUIDL fund has set a model for tokenized securities in the US. ONDO token (governance) has a ~$2.8B FDV with 15% in circulation (indicative of high investor expectations).
MakerDAO (RWA Program)	Decentralized stablecoin issuer (DAI) that has increasingly allocated its collateral to RWA investments. Maker’s RWA effort involves vaults that accept real-world collateral (e.g. loans via Huntingdon Valley Bank, or tokens like CFG (Centrifuge) pools, DROP tokens, and investments into short-term bonds through off-chain structures with partners like BlockTower and Monetalis). Maker essentially invests DAI into RWA to earn yield, which shores up DAI’s stability.	Ethereum	As of late 2023, Maker had over $1.6B in RWA exposure, including >$1B in U.S. Treasury and corporate bonds and hundreds of millions in loans to real estate and banks (Maker’s Centrifuge vaults, bank loans, and Société Générale bond vault). This now comprises a significant portion of DAI’s collateral, contributing real yield (~4-5% on those assets) to Maker. Maker’s pivot to RWA (part of “Endgame” plan) has been a major validation for RWA in DeFi. However, Maker does not tokenize these assets for broader use; it holds them in trust via legal entities to back DAI.
TruFi & Credix	(Grouping two similar credit protocols) TruFi – a protocol for uncollateralized lending to crypto and TradFi borrowers, with a portion of its book in real-world loans (e.g. lending to fintechs). Credix – a Solana-based private credit marketplace connecting USDC lenders to Latin American credit deals (often receivables and SME loans, tokenized as bonds). Both enable underwriters to create loan pools that DeFi users can fund, thus bridging to real economy lending.	Ethereum (TruFi), Solana (Credix)	TruFi facilitated ~$500M in loans (crypto + some RWA) since launch, though faced defaults; its focus is shifting to credit fund tokenization. Credix has funded tens of millions in receivables in Brazil/Colombia, and in 2023 partnered with Circle and VISA on a pilot to convert receivables to USDC for faster financing. These are notable but smaller players relative to Maple/Goldfinch. Credix’s model influenced Goldfinch’s design.
Securitize & Provenance (Figure)	These are more CeFi-oriented RWA platforms: Securitize provides tokenization technology for enterprises (it tokenized private equity funds, stocks, and bonds for clients, operating under full compliance; recently partnered with Hamilton Lane to tokenzie parts of its $800M funds). Provenance Blockchain (Figure), built by Figure Technologies, is a fintech platform mainly for loan securitization and trading (they’ve done HELOC loans, mortgage-backed securities, etc. on their private chain).	Private or permissioned chains (Provenance is a Cosmos-based chain; Securitize issues tokens on Ethereum, Polygon, etc.)	Figure’s Provenance has facilitated over $12B in loan originations on-chain (mostly between institutions) and is arguably one of the largest by volume (it is the “Figure” noted as top in private credit sector). Securitize has tokenized multiple funds and even enabled retail to buy tokenized equity in companies like Coinbase pre-IPO. They aren’t “DeFi” platforms but are key bridges for RWAs – often working with regulated entities and focusing on compliance (Securitize is a registered broker-dealer/transfer agent). Their presence underscores that RWA tokenization spans both decentralized and enterprise realms.

(Table sources: Centrifuge TVL, Maple transition and loan volume, Goldfinch Prime description, Ondo stats, Ondo–BlackRock partnership, Maker & market projection, Maple rank.)

Centrifuge: Often cited as the first RWA DeFi protocol (launched 2019), Centrifuge allows asset originators (like financing companies) to pool real-world assets and issue ERC-20 tokens called DROP (senior tranche) and TIN (junior tranche) representing claims on the asset pool. These tokens can be used as collateral in MakerDAO or held for yield. Centrifuge operates its own chain for efficiency but connects to Ethereum for liquidity. It currently leads the pack in on-chain private credit TVL (~$409M), demonstrating product-market fit in areas like invoice financing. A recent development is Centrifuge partnering with Clearpool’s upcoming RWA chain (Ozea) to expand its reach, and working on Centrifuge V3 which will enable assets to be composable across any EVM chain (so Centrifuge pools could be tapped by protocols on chains like Ethereum, Avalanche, or Plume).

Maple Finance: Maple showed the promise and perils of undercollateralized DeFi lending. It provided a platform for delegate managers to run credit pools lending to market makers and crypto firms on an unsecured basis. After high-profile defaults in 2022 (e.g. Orthogonal Trading’s collapse related to FTX) which hit Maple’s liquidity, Maple chose to reinvent itself with a safer model. Now Maple’s focus is twofold: (1) RWA “cash management” – giving stablecoin lenders access to Treasury yields, and (2) overcollateralized crypto lending – requiring borrowers to post liquid collateral (BTC/ETH). The Treasury pool (in partnership with Icebreaker Finance) was launched on Solana in 2023, then on Ethereum, enabling accredited lenders to earn ~5% on USDC by purchasing short-duration U.S. Treasury notes. Maple also introduced Maple Direct pools that lend to institutions against crypto collateral, effectively becoming a facilitator for more traditional secured lending. The Maple 2.0 architecture (launched Q1 2023) improved transparency and control for lenders. Despite setbacks, Maple has facilitated nearly $2.5B in loans cumulatively and remains a key player, now straddling both crypto and RWA lending. Its journey underscores the importance of proper risk management and has validated the pivot to real-world collateral for stability.

Goldfinch: Goldfinch’s innovation was to allow “borrower pools” where real-world lending businesses (like microfinance institutions or fintech lenders) could draw stablecoin liquidity from DeFi without posting collateral, instead relying on the “trust-through-consensus” model (where backers stake junior capital to vouch for the borrower). It enabled loans in places like Kenya, Nigeria, Mexico, etc., delivering yields often above 10%. However, to comply with regulations and attract larger capital, Goldfinch introduced KYC gating and Prime. Now with Goldfinch Prime, the protocol is basically onboarding well-known private credit fund managers and letting non-US accredited users provide capital to them on-chain. For example, rather than lending to a single fintech lender, a Goldfinch Prime user can invest in a pool that aggregates many senior secured loans managed by Ares or Apollo – essentially investing in slices of those funds (which off-chain are massive, e.g. Blackstone’s private credit fund is $50B+). This moves Goldfinch upmarket: it’s less about frontier market fintech loans and more about giving crypto investors an entry to institutional-grade yield (with lower risk). Goldfinch’s GFI token and governance remain, but the user base and pool structures have shifted to a more regulated stance. This reflects a broader trend: RWA protocols increasingly working directly with large TradFi asset managers to scale.

Ondo Finance: Ondo’s transformation is a case study in adapting to demand. When DeFi degen yields dried up in the bear market, the thirst for safe yield led Ondo to tokenize T-bills and money market funds. Ondo set up a subsidiary (Ondo Investments) and registered offerings so that accredited and even retail (in some regions) could buy regulated fund tokens. Ondo’s flagship OUSG token is effectively tokenized shares of a short-term US Treasuries ETF; it grew quickly to over half a billion in circulation, confirming huge demand for on-chain Treasuries. Ondo also created USDY, which takes a step further by mixing T-bills and bank deposits to approximate a high-yield savings account on-chain. At ~4.6% APY and a low $500 entry, USDY aims for mass market within crypto. To complement these, Ondo’s Flux protocol lets holders of OUSG or USDY borrow stablecoins against them (solving liquidity since these tokens might otherwise be lockups). Ondo’s success has made it a top-3 RWA issuer by TVL. It’s a prime example of working within regulatory frameworks (SPVs, broker-dealers) to bring traditional securities on-chain. It also collaborates (e.g., using BlackRock’s fund) rather than competing with incumbents, which is a theme in RWA: partnership over disruption.

MakerDAO: While not a standalone RWA platform, Maker deserves mention because it effectively became one of the largest RWA investors in crypto. Maker realized that diversifying DAI’s collateral beyond volatile crypto could both stabilize DAI and generate revenue (through real-world yields). Starting with small experiments (like a loan to a U.S. bank, and vaults for Centrifuge pool tokens), Maker ramped up in 2022-2023 by allocating hundreds of millions of DAI to buy short-term bonds and invest in money market funds via custody accounts. By mid-2023 Maker had allocated $500M to a BlackRock-managed bond fund and a similar amount to a startup (Monetalis) to invest in Treasuries – these are analogous to Ondo’s approach but done under Maker governance. Maker also onboarded loans like the Societe Generale $30M on-chain bond, and vaults for Harbor Trade’s Trade Finance pool, etc. The revenue from these RWA investments has been substantial – by some reports, Maker’s RWA portfolio generates tens of millions in annualized fees, which has made DAI’s system surplus grow (and MKR token started buybacks using those profits). This RWA strategy is central to Maker’s “Endgame” plan, where eventually Maker might spin out specialized subDAOs to handle RWA. The takeaway is that even a decentralized stablecoin protocol sees RWA as key to sustainability, and Maker’s scale (with DAI ~$5B supply) means it can materially impact real-world markets by deploying liquidity there.

Others: There are numerous other projects in the RWA space, each carving out a niche:

• Tokenized Commodities: Projects like Paxos Gold (PAXG) and Tether Gold (XAUT) have made gold tradable on-chain (combined market cap of ~$1.4B). These tokens give the convenience of crypto with the stability of gold and are fully backed by physical gold in vaults.
• Tokenized Stocks: Firms like Backed Finance and Synthesized (formerly Mirror, etc.) have issued tokens mirroring equity like Apple (bAAPL) or Tesla. Backed’s tokens (e.g., bNVDA for Nvidia) are 100% collateralized by shares held by a custodian and available under EU regulatory sandbox exemptions, enabling 24/7 trading of stocks on DEXs. The total for tokenized stocks is still small (~$0.46B), but growing as interest in around-the-clock trading and fractional ownership picks up.
• Real Estate Platforms: Lofty AI (Algorand-based) allows fractional ownership of rental properties with tokens as low as $50 per fraction. RealT (Ethereum) offers tokens for shares in rental homes in Detroit and elsewhere (paying rental income as USDC dividends). Real estate is a huge market ($300T+ globally), so even a fraction coming on-chain could dwarf other categories; projections see $3–4 Trillion in tokenized real estate by 2030-2035 if adoption accelerates. While current on-chain real estate is small, pilots are underway (e.g., Hong Kong’s government sold tokenized green bonds; Dubai is running a tokenized real estate sandbox).
• Institutional Funds: Beyond Ondo, traditional asset managers are launching tokenized versions of their funds. We saw BlackRock’s BUIDL (a tokenized money market fund that grew from $100M to $1B AUM in one year). WisdomTree issued 13 tokenized ETFs by 2025. Franklin Templeton’s government money fund (BENJI token on Polygon) approached $370M AUM. These efforts indicate that large asset managers view tokenization as a new distribution channel. It also means competition for crypto-native issuers, but overall it validates the space. Many of these tokens target institutional or accredited investors initially (to comply with securities laws), but over time could open to retail as regulations evolve.

Why multiple approaches? The RWA sector has a diverse cast because the space “real-world assets” is extremely broad. Different asset types have different risk, return, and regulatory profiles, necessitating specialized platforms:

• Private credit (Maple, Goldfinch, Centrifuge) focuses on lending and debt instruments, requiring credit assessment and active management.
• Tokenized securities/funds (Ondo, Backed, Franklin) deal with regulatory compliance to represent traditional securities on-chain one-to-one.
• Real estate involves property law, titles, and often local regulations – some platforms work on REIT-like structures or NFTs that confer ownership of an LLC that owns a property.
• Commodities like gold have simpler one-to-one backing models but require trust in custody and audits.

Despite this fragmentation, we see a trend of convergence and collaboration: e.g., Centrifuge partnering with Clearpool, Goldfinch partnering with Plume (and indirectly Apollo), Ondo’s assets being used by Maker and others, etc. Over time, we may get interoperability standards (perhaps via projects like RWA.xyz, which is building a data aggregator for all RWA tokens).

Common Asset Types Being Tokenized​

Almost any asset with an income stream or market value can, in theory, be tokenized. In practice, the RWA tokens we see today largely fall into a few categories:

• Government Debt (Treasuries & Bonds): This has become the largest category of on-chain RWA by value. Tokenized U.S. Treasury bills and bonds are highly popular as they carry low risk and ~4-5% yield – very attractive to crypto holders in a low DeFi yield environment. Multiple projects offer this: Ondo’s OUSG, Matrixdock’s treasury token (MTNT), Backed’s TBILL token, etc. As of May 2025, government securities dominate tokenized assets with ~$6.79B TVL on-chain, making it the single biggest slice of the RWA pie. This includes not just U.S. Treasuries, but also some European government bonds. The appeal is global 24/7 access to a safe asset; e.g., a user in Asia can buy a token at 3 AM that effectively puts money in U.S. T-Bills. We also see central banks and public entities experimenting: e.g., the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) ran Project Guardian to explore tokenized bonds and forex; Hong Kong’s HSBC and CSOP launched a tokenized money market fund. Government bonds are likely the “killer app” of RWA to date.

• Private Credit & Corporate Debt: These include loans to businesses, invoices, supply chain finance, consumer loans, etc., as well as corporate bonds and private credit funds. On-chain private credit (via Centrifuge, Maple, Goldfinch, Credix, etc.) is a fast-growing area and forms over 50% of the RWA market by count of projects (though not by value due to Treasuries being big). Tokenized private credit often offers higher yields (8-15% APY) because of higher risk and less liquidity. Examples: Centrifuge tokens (DROP/TIN) backed by loan portfolios; Goldfinch’s pools of fintech loans; Maple’s pools to market makers; JPMorgan’s private credit blockchain pilot (they did intraday repo on-chain); and startups like Flowcarbon (tokenizing carbon credit-backed loans). Even trade receivables from governments (Medicaid claims) are being tokenized (as Plume highlighted). Additionally, corporate bonds are being tokenized: e.g., European Investment Bank issued digital bonds on Ethereum; companies like Siemens did a €60M on-chain bond. There’s about $23B of tokenized “global bonds” on-chain as of early 2025 – a figure that’s still small relative to the $100+ trillion bond market, but the trajectory is upward.

• Real Estate: Tokenized real estate can mean either debt (e.g., tokenized mortgages, real estate loans) or equity/ownership (fractional ownership of properties). Thus far, more activity has been in tokenized debt (because it fits into DeFi lending models easily). For instance, parts of a real estate bridge loan might be turned into DROP tokens on Centrifuge and used to generate DAI. On the equity side, projects like Lofty have tokenized residential rental properties (issuing tokens that entitle holders to rental income and a share of sale proceeds). We’ve also seen a few REIT-like tokens (RealT’s properties, etc.). Real estate is highly illiquid traditionally, so tokenization’s promise is huge – one could trade fractions of a building on Uniswap, or use a property token as collateral for a loan. That said, legal infrastructure is tricky (you often need each property in an LLC and the token represents LLC shares). Still, given projections of $3-4 Trillion tokenized real estate by 2030-35, many are bullish that this sector will take off as legal frameworks catch up. A notable example: RedSwan tokenized portions of commercial real estate (like student housing complexes) and raised millions via token sales to accredited investors.

• Commodities: Gold is the poster child here. Paxos Gold (PAXG) and Tether Gold (XAUT) together have over $1.4B market cap, offering investors on-chain exposure to physical gold (each token = 1 fine troy ounce stored in vault). These have become popular as a way to hedge in crypto markets. Other commodities tokenized include silver, platinum (e.g., Tether has XAGT, XAUT, etc.), and even oil to some extent (there were experiments with tokens for oil barrels or hash-rate futures). Commodity-backed stablecoins like Ditto’s eggs or soybean tokens have popped up, but gold remains dominant due to its stable demand. We can also include carbon credits and other environmental assets: tokens like MCO2 (Moss Carbon Credit) or Toucan’s nature-based carbon tokens had a wave of interest in 2021 as corporates looked at on-chain carbon offsets. In general, commodities on-chain are straightforward as they’re fully collateralized, but they require trust in custodians and auditors.

• Equities (Stocks): Tokenized stocks allow 24/7 trading and fractional ownership of equities. Platforms like Backed (out of Switzerland) and DX.Exchange / FTX (earlier) issued tokens mirroring popular stocks (Tesla, Apple, Google, etc.). Backed’s tokens are fully collateralized (they hold the actual shares via a custodian and issue ERC-20 tokens representing them). These tokens can be traded on DEXs or held in DeFi wallets, which is novel since conventional stock trading is weekdays only. As of 2025, about $460M of tokenized equities are circulating – still a tiny sliver of the multi-trillion stock market, but it’s growing. Notably, in 2023, MSCI launched indices tracking tokenized assets including tokenized stocks, signaling mainstream monitoring. Another angle is synthetic equities (Mirroring stock price via derivatives without holding the stock, as projects like Synthetix did), but regulatory pushback (they can be seen as swaps) made the fully backed approach more favored now.

• Stablecoins (fiat-backed): It’s worth mentioning that fiat-backed stablecoins like USDC, USDT are essentially tokenized real-world assets (each USDC is backed by $1 in bank accounts or T-bills). In fact, stablecoins are the largest RWA by far – over $200B in stablecoins outstanding (USDT, USDC, BUSD, etc.), mostly backed by cash, Treasury bills, or short-term corporate debt. This has often been cited as the first successful RWA use-case in crypto: tokenized dollars became the lifeblood of crypto trading and DeFi. However, in the RWA context, stablecoins are usually considered separately, because they are currency tokens, not investment products. Still, the existence of stablecoins has paved the way for other RWA tokens (and indeed, projects like Maker and Ondo effectively channel stablecoin capital into real assets).

• Miscellaneous: We are starting to see even more exotic assets:

  • Fine Art and Collectibles: Platforms like Maecenas and Masterworks explored tokenizing high-end artworks (each token representing a share of a painting). NFTs have proven digital ownership, so it’s conceivable real art or luxury collectibles can be fractionalized similarly (though legal custody and insurance are considerations).
  • Revenue-Sharing Tokens: e.g., CityDAO and other DAOs experimented with tokens that give rights to a revenue stream (like a cut of city revenue or business revenue). These blur the line between securities and utility tokens.
  • Intellectual Property and Royalties: There are efforts to tokenize music royalties (so fans can invest in an artist’s future streaming income) or patents. Royalty Exchange and others have looked into this, allowing tokens that pay out when, say, a song is played (using smart contracts to distribute royalties).
  • Infrastructure and Physical assets: Companies have considered tokenizing things like data center capacity, mining hashpower, shipping cargo space, or even infrastructure projects (some energy companies looked at tokenizing ownership in solar farms or oil wells – Plume itself mentioned “uranium, GPUs, durian farms” as possibilities). These remain experimental but show the broad range of what could be brought on-chain.

In summary, virtually any asset that can be legally and economically ring-fenced can be tokenized. The current focus has been on financial assets with clear cash flows or store-of-value properties (debt, commodities, funds) because they fit well with investor demand and existing law (e.g., an SPV can hold bonds and issue tokens relatively straightforwardly). More complex assets (like direct property ownership or IP rights) will likely take longer due to legal intricacies. But the tide is moving in that direction, as the technology proves itself with simpler assets first and then broadens.

It’s also important to note that each asset type’s tokenization must grapple with how to enforce rights off-chain: e.g., if you hold a token for a property, how do you ensure legal claim on that property? Solutions involve legal wrappers (LLCs, trust agreements) that recognize token holders as beneficiaries. Standardization efforts (like the ERC-1400 standard for security tokens or initiatives by the Interwork Alliance for tokenized assets) are underway to make different RWA tokens more interoperable and legally sound.

Recent Trends, Innovations, and Challenges in RWA​

Trends & Innovations:

• Institutional Influx: Perhaps the biggest trend is the entrance of major financial institutions and asset managers into the RWA blockchain space. In the past two years, giants like BlackRock, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, WisdomTree, and Apollo have either invested in RWA projects or launched tokenization initiatives. For example, BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink publicly praised “the tokenization of securities” as the next evolution. BlackRock’s own tokenized money market fund (BUIDL) reaching $1B AUM in one year is a proof-point. WisdomTree creating 13 tokenized index funds by 2025 shows traditional ETFs coming on-chain. Apollo not only invested in Plume but also partnered on tokenized credit (Apollo and Hamilton Lane worked with Figure’s Provenance to tokenize parts of their funds). The involvement of such institutions has a flywheel effect: it legitimizes RWA in the eyes of regulators and investors and accelerates development of compliant platforms. It’s telling that surveys show 67% of institutional investors plan to allocate an average 5.6% of their portfolio to tokenized assets by 2026. High-net-worth individuals similarly are showing ~80% interest in exposure via tokenization. This is a dramatic shift from the 2017-2018 ICO era, as now the movement is institution-led rather than purely grassroots crypto-led.

• Regulated On-Chain Funds: A notable innovation is bringing regulated investment funds directly on-chain. Instead of creating new instruments from scratch, some projects register traditional funds with regulators and then issue tokens that represent shares. Franklin Templeton’s OnChain U.S. Government Money Fund is a SEC-registered mutual fund whose share ownership is tracked on Stellar (and now Polygon) – investors buy a BENJI token which is effectively a share in a regulated fund, subject to all the usual oversight. Similarly, ARB ETF (Europe) launched a fully regulated digital bond fund on a public chain. This trend of tokenized regulated funds is crucial because it marries compliance with blockchain’s efficiency. It basically means the traditional financial products we know (funds, bonds, etc.) can gain new utility by existing as tokens that trade anytime and integrate with smart contracts. Grayscale’s consideration of $PLUME and similar moves by other asset managers to list crypto or RWA tokens in their offerings also indicates convergence of TradFi and DeFi product menus.

• Yield Aggregation and Composability: As more RWA yield opportunities emerge, DeFi protocols are innovating to aggregate and leverage them. Plume’s Nest is one example of aggregating multiple yields into one interface. Another example is Yearn Finance beginning to deploy vaults into RWA products (Yearn considered investing in Treasuries through protocols like Notional or Maple). Index Coop created a yield index token that included RWA yield sources. We are also seeing structured products like tranching on-chain: e.g., protocols that issue a junior-senior split of yield streams (Maple explored tranching pools to offer safer vs. riskier slices). Composability means you could one day do things like use a tokenized bond as collateral in Aave to borrow a stablecoin, then use that stablecoin to farm elsewhere – complex strategies bridging TradFi yield and DeFi yield. This is starting to happen; for instance, Flux Finance (by Ondo) lets you borrow against OUSG and then you could deploy that into a stablecoin farm. Leveraged RWA yield farming may become a theme (though careful risk management is needed).

• Real-Time Transparency & Analytics: Another innovation is the rise of data platforms and standards for RWA. Projects like RWA.xyz aggregate on-chain data to track the market cap, yields, and composition of all tokenized RWAs across networks. This provides much-needed transparency – one can see how big each sector is, track performance, and flag anomalies. Some issuers provide real-time asset tracking: e.g., a token might be updated daily with NAV (net asset value) data from the TradFi custodian, and that can be shown on-chain. The use of oracles is also key – e.g., Chainlink oracles can report interest rates or default events to trigger smart contract functions (like paying out insurance if a debtor defaults). The move towards on-chain credit ratings or reputations is also starting: Goldfinch experimented with off-chain credit scoring for borrowers, Centrifuge has models to estimate pool risk. All of this is to make on-chain RWAs as transparent (or more so) than their off-chain counterparts.

• Integration with CeFi and Traditional Systems: We see more blending of CeFi and DeFi in RWA. For instance, Coinbase introduced “Institutional DeFi” where they funnel client funds into protocols like Maple or Compound Treasury – giving institutions a familiar interface but yield sourced from DeFi. Bank of America and others have discussed using private blockchain networks to trade tokenized collateral with each other (for faster repo markets, etc.). On the retail front, fintech apps may start offering yields that under the hood come from tokenized assets. This is an innovation in distribution: users might not even know they’re interacting with a blockchain, they just see better yields or liquidity. Such integration will broaden the reach of RWA beyond crypto natives.

Challenges:

Despite the excitement, RWA tokenization faces several challenges and hurdles:

• Regulatory Compliance and Legal Structure: Perhaps the number one challenge. By turning assets into digital tokens, you often turn them into securities in the eyes of regulators (if they weren’t already). This means projects must navigate securities laws, investment regulations, money transmitter rules, etc. Most RWA tokens (especially in the US) are offered under Reg D (private placement to accredited investors) or Reg S (offshore) exemptions. This limits participation: e.g., retail US investors usually cannot buy these tokens legally. Additionally, each jurisdiction has its own rules – what’s allowed in Switzerland (like Backed’s stock tokens) might not fly in the US without registration. There’s also the legal enforceability angle: a token is a claim on a real asset; ensuring that claim is recognized by courts is crucial. This requires robust legal structuring (LLCs, trusts, SPVs) behind the scenes. It’s complex and costly to set up these structures, which is why many RWA projects partner with legal firms or get acquired by existing players with licenses (for example, Securitize handles a lot of heavy lifting for others). Compliance also means KYC/AML: unlike DeFi’s permissionless nature, RWA platforms often require investors to undergo KYC and accreditation checks, either at token purchase or continuously via whitelists. This friction can deter some DeFi purists and also means these platforms can’t be fully open to “anyone with a wallet” in many cases.

• Liquidity and Market Adoption: Tokenizing an asset doesn’t automatically make it liquid. Many RWA tokens currently suffer from low liquidity/low trading volumes. For instance, if you buy a tokenized loan, there may be few buyers when you want to sell. Market makers are starting to provide liquidity for certain assets (like stablecoins or Ondo’s fund tokens on DEXes), but order book depth is a work in progress. In times of market stress, there’s concern that RWA tokens could become hard to redeem or trade, especially if underlying assets themselves aren’t liquid (e.g., a real estate token might effectively only be redeemable when the property is sold, which could take months/years). Solutions include creating redemption mechanisms (like Ondo’s funds allow periodic redemptions through the Flux protocol or directly with the issuer), and attracting a diverse investor base to trade these tokens. Over time, as more traditional investors (who are used to holding these assets) come on-chain, liquidity should improve. But currently, fragmentation across different chains and platforms also hinders liquidity – efforts to standardize and maybe aggregate exchanges for RWA tokens (perhaps a specialized RWA exchange or more cross-listings on major CEXes) are needed.

• Trust and Transparency: Ironically for blockchain-based assets, RWAs often require a lot of off-chain trust. Token holders must trust that the issuer actually holds the real asset and won’t misuse funds. They must trust the custodian holding collateral (in case of stablecoins or gold). They also must trust that if something goes wrong, they have legal recourse. There have been past failures (e.g., some earlier “tokenized real estate” projects that fizzled, leaving token holders in limbo). So, building trust is key. This is done through audits, on-chain proof-of-reserve, reputable custodians (e.g., Coinbase Custody, etc.), and insurance. For example, Paxos publishes monthly audited reports of PAXG reserves, and USDC publishes attestations of its reserves. MakerDAO requires overcollateralization and legal covenants when engaging in RWA loans to mitigate risk of default. Nonetheless, a major default or fraud in a RWA project could set the sector back significantly. This is why, currently, many RWA protocols focus on high-credit quality assets (government bonds, senior secured loans) to build a track record before venturing into riskier territory.

• Technological Integration: Some challenges are technical. Integrating real-world data on-chain requires robust oracles. For example, pricing a loan portfolio or updating NAV of a fund requires data feeds from traditional systems. Any lag or manipulation in oracles can lead to incorrect valuations on-chain. Additionally, scalability and transaction costs on mainnets like Ethereum can be an issue – moving potentially thousands of real-world payments (think of a pool of hundreds of loans, each with monthly payments) on-chain can be costly or slow. This is partly why specialized chains or Layer-2 solutions (like Plume, or Polygon for some projects, or even permissioned chains) are being used – to have more control and lower cost for these transactions. Interoperability is another technical hurdle: a lot of RWA action is on Ethereum, but some on Solana, Polygon, Polkadot, etc. Bridging assets between chains securely is still non-trivial (though projects like LayerZero, as used by Plume, are making progress). Ideally, an investor shouldn’t have to chase five different chains to manage a portfolio of RWAs – smoother cross-chain operability or a unified interface will be important.

• Market Education and Perception: Many crypto natives originally were skeptical of RWAs (seeing them as bringing “off-chain risk” into DeFi’s pure ecosystem). Meanwhile, many TradFi people are skeptical of crypto. There is an ongoing need to educate both sides about the benefits and risks. For crypto users, understanding that a token is not just another meme coin but a claim on a legal asset with maybe lock-up periods, etc., is crucial. We’ve seen cases where DeFi users got frustrated that they couldn’t instantly withdraw from a RWA pool because off-chain loan settlements take time – managing expectations is key. Similarly, institutional players often worry about issues like custody of tokens (how to hold them securely), compliance (avoiding wallets that interact with sanctioned addresses, etc.), and volatility (ensuring the token technology is stable). Recent positive developments, like Binance Research showing RWA tokens have lower volatility and even considered “safer than Bitcoin” during certain macro events, help shift perception. But broad acceptance will require time, success stories, and likely regulatory clarity that holding or issuing RWA tokens is legally safe.

• Regulatory Uncertainty: While we covered compliance, a broader uncertainty is regulatory regimes evolving. The U.S. SEC has not yet given explicit guidance on many tokenized securities beyond enforcing existing laws (which is why most issuers use exemptions or avoid U.S. retail). Europe introduced MiCA (Markets in Crypto Assets) regulation which mostly carves out how crypto (including asset-referenced tokens) should be handled, and launched a DLT Pilot Regime to let institutions trade securities on blockchain with some regulatory sandboxes. That’s promising but not permanent law yet. Countries like Singapore, UAE (Abu Dhabi, Dubai), Switzerland are being proactive with sandboxes and digital asset regulations to attract tokenization business. A challenge is if regulations become too onerous or fragmented: e.g., if every jurisdiction demands a slightly different compliance approach, it adds cost and complexity. On the flip side, regulatory acceptance (like Hong Kong’s recent encouragement of tokenization or Japan exploring on-chain securities) could be a boon. In the U.S., a positive development is that certain tokenized funds (like Franklin’s) got SEC approval, showing that it’s possible within existing frameworks. But the looming question: will regulators eventually allow wider retail access to RWA tokens (perhaps through qualified platforms or raising the caps on crowdfunding exemptions)? If not, RWAfi might remain predominantly an institutional play behind walled gardens, which limits the “open finance” dream.

• Scaling Trustlessly: Another challenge is how to scale RWA platforms without introducing central points of failure. Many current implementations rely on a degree of centralization (an issuer that can pause token transfers to enforce KYC, a central party that handles asset custody, etc.). While this is acceptable to institutions, it’s philosophically at odds with DeFi’s decentralization. Over time, projects will need to find the right balance: e.g., using decentralized identity solutions for KYC (so it’s not one party controlling the whitelist but a network of verifiers), or using multi-sig/community governance to control issuance and custody operations. We’re seeing early moves like Maker’s Centrifuge vaults where MakerDAO governance approves and oversees RWA vaults, or Maple decentralizing pool delegate roles. But full “DeFi” RWA (where even legal enforcement is trustless) is a hard problem. Eventually, maybe smart contracts and real-world legal systems will interface directly (for example, a loan token smart contract that can automatically trigger legal action via a connected legal API if default occurs – this is futuristic but conceivable).

In summary, the RWA space is rapidly innovating to tackle these challenges. It’s a multi-disciplinary effort: requiring savvy in law, finance, and blockchain tech. Each success (like a fully repaid tokenized loan pool, or a smoothly redeemed tokenized bond) builds confidence. Each challenge (like a regulatory action or an asset default) provides lessons to strengthen the systems. The trajectory suggests that many of these hurdles will be overcome: the momentum of institutional involvement and the clear benefits (efficiency, liquidity) mean tokenization is likely here to stay. As one RWA-focused newsletter put it, “tokenized real-world assets are emerging as the new institutional standard… the infrastructure is finally catching up to the vision of on-chain capital markets.”

Regulatory Landscape and Compliance Considerations​

The regulatory landscape for RWAs in crypto is complex and still evolving, as it involves the intersection of traditional securities/commodities laws with novel blockchain technology. Key points and considerations include:

• Securities Laws: In most jurisdictions, if an RWA token represents an investment in an asset with an expectation of profit (which is often the case), it is deemed a security. For example, in the U.S., tokens representing fractions of income-generating real estate or loan portfolios squarely fall under the definition of investment contracts (Howey Test) or notes, and thus must be registered or offered under an exemption. This is why nearly all RWA offerings to date in the U.S. use private offering exemptions (Reg D 506(c) for accredited investors, Reg S for offshore, Reg A+ for limited public raises, etc.). Compliance with these means restricting token sales to verified investors, implementing transfer restrictions (tokens can only move between whitelisted addresses), and providing necessary disclosures. For instance, Ondo’s OUSG and Maple’s Treasury pool required investors to clear KYC/AML and accreditation checks, and tokens are not freely transferable to unapproved wallets. This creates a semi-permissioned environment, quite different from open DeFi. Europe under MiFID II/MiCA similarly treats tokenized stocks or bonds as digital representations of traditional financial instruments, requiring prospectuses or using the DLT Pilot regime for trading venues. Bottom line: RWA projects must integrate legal compliance from day one – many have in-house counsel or work with legal-tech firms like Securitize, because any misstep (like selling a security token to the public without exemption) could invite enforcement.

• Consumer Protection and Licensing: Some RWA platforms may need additional licenses. For example, if a platform holds customer fiat to convert into tokens, it might need a money transmitter license or equivalent. If it provides advice or brokerage (matching borrowers and lenders), it might need broker-dealer or ATS (Alternative Trading System) licensing (this is why some partner with broker-dealers – Securitize, INX, Oasis Pro etc., which have ATS licenses to run token marketplaces). Custody of assets (like real estate deeds or cash reserves) might require trust or custody licenses. Anchorage being a partner to Plume is significant because Anchorage is a qualified custodian – institutions feel more at ease if a licensed bank is holding the underlying asset or even the private keys of tokens. In Asia and the Middle East, regulators have been granting specific licenses for tokenization platforms (e.g., the Abu Dhabi Global Market’s FSRA issues permissions for crypto assets including RWA tokens, MAS in Singapore gives project-specific approvals under its sandbox).

• Regulatory Sandboxes and Government Initiatives: A positive trend is regulators launching sandboxes or pilot programs for tokenization. The EU’s DLT Pilot Regime (2023) allows approved market infrastructures to test trading tokenized securities up to certain sizes without full compliance with every rule – this has led to several European exchanges piloting blockchain bond trading. Dubai announced a tokenization sandbox to boost its digital finance hub. Hong Kong in 2023-24 made tokenization a pillar of its Web3 strategy, with Hong Kong’s SFC exploring tokenized green bonds and art. The UK in 2024 consulted on recognizing digital securities under English law (they already recognize crypto as property). Japan updated its laws to allow security tokens (they call them “electronically recorded transferable rights”) and several tokenized securities have been issued there under that framework. These official programs indicate a willingness by regulators to modernize laws to accommodate tokenization – which could eventually simplify compliance (e.g., creating special categories for tokenized bonds that streamline approval).

• Travel Rule / AML: Crypto’s global nature triggers AML laws. FATF’s “travel rule” requires that when crypto (including tokens) above a certain threshold is transferred between VASPs (exchanges, custodians), identifying info travels with it. If RWA tokens are mainly transacted on KYC’ed platforms, this is manageable, but if they enter the wider crypto ecosystem, compliance gets tricky. Most RWA platforms currently keep a tight grip: transfers are often restricted to whitelisted addresses whose owners have done KYC. This mitigates AML concerns (as every holder is known). Still, regulators will expect robust AML programs – e.g., screening wallet addresses against sanctions (OFAC lists, etc.). There was a case of a tokenized bond platform in the UK that had to unwind some trades because a token holder became a sanctioned entity – such scenarios will test protocols’ ability to comply. Many platforms build in pause or freeze functions to comply with law enforcement requests (this is controversial in DeFi, but for RWA it’s often non-negotiable to have the ability to lock tokens tied to wrongdoing).

• Taxation and Reporting: Another compliance consideration: how are these tokens taxed? If you earn yield from a tokenized loan, is it interest income? If you trade a tokenized stock, do wash sale rules apply? Tax authorities have yet to issue comprehensive guidance. In the interim, platforms often provide tax reports to investors (e.g., a Form 1099 in the US for interest or dividends earned via tokens). The transparency of blockchain can help here, as every payment can be recorded and categorized. But cross-border taxation (if someone in Europe holds a token paying US-source interest) can be complex – requiring things like digital W-8BEN forms, etc. This is more of an operational challenge than a roadblock, but it adds friction that automated compliance tech will need to solve.

• Enforcement and Precedents: We’ve not yet seen many high-profile enforcement actions specifically for RWA tokens – likely because most are trying to comply. However, we have seen enforcement in adjacent areas: e.g., the SEC’s actions against crypto lending products (BlockFi, etc.) underscore that offering yields without registering can be a violation. If an RWA platform slipped up and, say, allowed retail to buy security tokens freely, it could face similar action. There’s also the question of secondary trading venues: If a decentralized exchange allows trading of a security token between non-accredited investors, is that unlawful? Likely yes in the US. This is why a lot of RWA tokens are not listed on Uniswap or are wrapped in a way that restricts addresses. It’s a fine line to walk between DeFi liquidity and compliance – many are erring on the side of compliance, even if it reduces liquidity.

• Jurisdiction and Conflict of Laws: RWAs by nature connect to specific jurisdictions (e.g., a tokenized real estate in Germany falls under German property law). If tokens trade globally, there can be conflicts of law. Smart contracts might need to encode which law governs. Some platforms choose friendly jurisdictions for incorporation (e.g., the issuer entity in the Cayman Islands and the assets in the U.S., etc.). It’s complex but solvable with careful legal structuring.

• Investor Protection and Insurance: Regulators will also care about investor protection: ensuring that token holders have clear rights. For example, if a token is supposed to be redeemable for a share of asset proceeds, the mechanism for that must be legally enforceable. Some tokens represent debt securities that can default – what disclosures were given about that risk? Platforms often publish offering memorandums or prospectuses (Ondo did for its tokens). Over time, regulators might require standardized risk disclosures for RWA tokens, much like mutual funds provide. Also, insurance might be mandated or at least expected – for instance, insuring a building in a real estate token, or having crime insurance for a custodian holding collateral.

• Decentralization vs Regulation: There’s an inherent tension: the more decentralized and permissionless you make an RWA platform, the more it rubs against current regulations which assume identifiable intermediaries. One evolving strategy is to use Decentralized Identities (DID) and verifiable credentials to square this circle. E.g., a wallet could hold a credential that proves the owner is accredited without revealing their identity on-chain, and smart contracts could check for that credential before allowing transfer – making compliance automated and preserving some privacy. Projects like Xref (on XDC network) and Astra Protocol are exploring this. If successful, regulators might accept these novel approaches, which could allow permissionless trading among vetted participants. But that’s still in nascent stages.

In essence, regulation is the make-or-break factor for RWA adoption. The current landscape shows regulators are interested and cautiously supportive, but also vigilant. The RWA projects that thrive will be those that proactively embrace compliance yet innovate to make it as seamless as possible. Jurisdictions that provide clear, accommodative rules will attract more of this business (we’ve seen significant tokenization activity gravitate to places like Switzerland, Singapore, and the UAE due to clarity there). Meanwhile, the industry is engaging with regulators – for instance, by forming trade groups or responding to consultations – to help shape sensible policies. A likely outcome is that regulated DeFi will emerge as a category: platforms like those under Plume’s umbrella could become Alternative Trading Systems (ATS) or registered digital asset securities exchanges for tokenized assets, operating under licenses but with blockchain infrastructure. This hybrid approach may satisfy regulators’ objectives while still delivering the efficiency gains of crypto rails.

Investment and Market Size Data​

The market for tokenized real-world assets has grown impressively and is projected to explode in the coming years, reaching into the trillions of dollars if forecasts hold true. Here we’ll summarize some key data points on market size, growth, and investment trends:

• Current On-Chain RWA Market Size: As of mid-2025, the total on-chain Real-World Asset market (excluding traditional stablecoins) is in the tens of billions. Different sources peg slightly different totals depending on inclusion criteria, but a May 2025 analysis put it at $22.45 billion in Total Value Locked. This figure was up ~9.3% from the previous month, showcasing rapid growth. The composition of that ~$22B (as previously discussed) includes around $6.8B in government bonds, $1.5B in commodity tokens, $0.46B in equities, $0.23B in other bonds, and a few billion in private credit and funds. For perspective, this is still small relative to the broader crypto market (which is ~$1.2T in market cap as of 2025, largely driven by BTC and ETH), but it’s the fastest-growing segment of crypto. It’s also worth noting stablecoins (~$226B) if counted would dwarf these numbers, but usually they’re kept separate.

• Growth Trajectory: The RWA market has shown a 32% annual growth rate in 2024. If we extrapolate or consider accelerating adoption, some estimate $50B by end of 2025 as plausible. Beyond that, industry projections become very large:

  • BCG and others (2030+): The often-cited BCG/Ripple report projected $16 trillion by 2030 (and ~$19T by 2033) in tokenized assets. This includes broad tokenization of financial markets (not just DeFi-centric usage). This figure would represent about 10% of all assets tokenized, which is aggressive but not unthinkable given tokenization of cash (stablecoins) is already mainstream.
  • Citi GPS Report (2022) talked about $4–5 trillion tokenized by 2030 as a base case, with higher scenarios if institutional adoption is faster.
  • The LinkedIn analysis we saw noted projections ranging from $1.3 trillion to $30 trillion by 2030 – indicating a lot of uncertainty but consensus that trillions are on the table.
  • Even the conservative end (say $1-2T by 2030) would mean a >50x increase from today’s ~$20B level, which gives a sense of the strong growth expectations.

• Investment into RWA Projects: Venture capital and investment is flowing into RWA startups:

  • Plume’s own funding ($20M Series A, etc.) is one example of VC conviction.
  • Goldfinch raised ~$25M (led by a16z in 2021). Centrifuge raised ~$4M in 2021 and more via token sales; it’s also backed by Coinbase and others.
  • Maple raised $10M Series A in 2021, then additional in 2022.
  • Ondo raised $20M in 2022 (from Founders Fund and Pantera) and more recently did a token sale.
  • There’s also new dedicated funds: e.g., a16z’s crypto fund and others earmarked portions for RWA; Franklin Templeton in 2022 joined a $20M round for a tokenization platform; Matrixport launched a $100M fund for tokenized Treasuries.
  • Traditional finance is investing: Nasdaq Ventures invested in a tokenization startup (XYO Network), London Stock Exchange Group acquired TORA (with tokenization capabilities), etc.
  • We see mergers too: Securitize acquired Distributed Technology Markets to get a broker-dealer; INX (token exchange) raising money to expand offerings.

  Overall, tens of millions have been invested into the leading RWA protocols, and larger financial institutions are acquiring stakes or forming joint ventures in this arena. Apollo’s direct investment in Plume and Hamilton Lane partnering with Securitize to tokenize funds (with Hamilton Lane’s funds being multi-billion themselves) show that this is not just VC bets but real money engagement.

• Notable On-Chain Assets and Performance: Some data on specific tokens can illustrate traction:

  • Ondo’s OUSG: launched early 2023, by early 2025 it had >$580M outstanding, delivering ~4-5% yield. It rarely deviates in price because it’s fully collateralized and redeemable.
  • Franklin’s BENJI: by mid-2023 reached $270M, and by 2024 ~$368M. It’s one of the first instances of a major US mutual fund being reflected on-chain.
  • MakerDAO’s RWA earnings: Maker, through its ~$1.6B RWA investments, was earning on the order of $80M+ annualized in yield by late 2023 (mostly from bonds). This turned Maker’s finances around after crypto yields dried up.
  • Maple’s Treasury pool: in its pilot, raised ~$22M for T-bill investments from <10 participants (institutions). Maple’s total lending after restructuring is smaller now (~$50-100M active loans), but it’s starting to tick up as trust returns.
  • Goldfinch: funded ~$120M loans and repaid ~$90M with ~<$1M in defaults (they had one notable default from a lender in Kenya but recovered partially). GFI token once peaked at a $600M market cap in late 2021, now much lower (~$50M), indicating market re-rating of risk but still interest.
  • Centrifuge: about 15 active pools. Some key ones (like ConsolFreight’s invoice pool, New Silver’s real estate rehab loan pool) each in the $5-20M range. Centrifuge’s token (CFG) has a market cap around $200M in 2025.
  • Overall RWA Returns: Many RWA tokens offer yields in the 4-10% range. For example, Aave’s yield on stablecoins might be ~2%, whereas putting USDC into Goldfinch’s senior pool yields ~8%. This spread draws DeFi capital gradually into RWA. During crypto market downturns, RWA yields looked especially attractive as they were stable, leading analysts to call RWAs a “safe haven” or “hedge” in Web3.

• Geographical/Market Segments: A breakdown by region: A lot of tokenized Treasuries are US-based assets offered by US or global firms (Ondo, Franklin, Backed). Europe’s contributions are in tokenized ETFs and bonds (several German and Swiss startups, and big banks like Santander and SocGen doing on-chain bond issues). Asia: Singapore’s Marketnode platform is tokenizing bonds; Japan’s SMBC tokenized some credit products. The Middle East: Dubai’s DFSA approved a tokenized fund. Latin America: a number of experiments, e.g., Brazil’s central bank is tokenizing a portion of bank deposits (as part of their CBDC project, they consider tokenizing assets). Africa: projects like Kotani Pay looked at tokenized micro-asset financing. These indicate tokenization is a global trend, but the US remains the biggest source of underlying assets (due to Treasuries and large credit funds) while Europe is leading on regulatory clarity for trading.

• Market Sentiment: The narrative around RWAs has shifted very positively in 2024-2025. Crypto media, which used to focus mostly on pure DeFi, now regularly reports on RWA milestones (e.g., “RWA market surpasses $20B despite crypto downturn”). Ratings agencies like Moody’s are studying on-chain assets; major consulting firms (BCG, Deloitte) publish tokenization whitepapers. The sentiment is that RWAfi could drive the next bull phase of crypto by bringing in trillions of value. Even Grayscale considering a Plume product suggests investor appetite for RWA exposure packaged in crypto vehicles. There’s also recognition that RWA is partly counter-cyclical to crypto – when crypto yields are low, people seek RWAs; when crypto booms, RWA provides stable diversification. This makes many investors view RWA tokens as a way to hedge crypto volatility (e.g., Binance research found RWA tokens remained stable and even considered “safer than Bitcoin” during certain macro volatility).

To conclude this section with hard numbers: $20-22B on-chain now, heading to $50B+ in a year or two, and potentially $1T+ within this decade. Investment is pouring in, with dozens of projects collectively backed by well over $200M in venture funding. Traditional finance is actively experimenting, with over $2-3B in real assets already issued on public or permissioned chains by big institutions (including multiple $100M+ bond issues). If even 1% of the global bond market (~$120T) and 1% of global real estate (~$300T) gets tokenized by 2030, that’d be several trillion dollars – which aligns with those bullish projections. There are of course uncertainties (regulation, interest rate environments, etc. can affect adoption), but the data so far supports the idea that tokenization is accelerating. As Plume’s team noted, “the RWA sector is now leading Web3 into its next phase” – a phase where blockchain moves from speculative assets to the backbone of real financial infrastructure. The deep research and alignment of heavyweights behind RWAs underscore that this is not a fleeting trend but a structural evolution of both crypto and traditional finance.

---

Sources:

• Plume Network Documentation and Blog
• News and Press: CoinDesk, The Block, Fortune (via LinkedIn)
• RWA Market Analysis: RWA.xyz, LinkedIn RWA Report
• Odaily/ChainCatcher Analysis
• Goldfinch and Prime info, Ondo info, Centrifuge info, Maple info, Apollo quote, Binance research mention, etc.

RiseWorks is a global payroll platform enabling companies to hire and pay international contractors in fiat or crypto. User feedback reveals a range of pain points across different user types – HR professionals, freelancers/contractors (including funded traders), startups, and businesses – touching on onboarding, pricing, support, features, integrations, ease of use, and performance. Below is a detailed report of recurring issues (with direct user quotes) and how sentiments have evolved over time.

Onboarding Experience​

RiseWorks touts automated onboarding and compliance checks (KYC/AML) to streamline bringing on contractors. HR teams appreciate not having to manually handle contractor paperwork, and the platform claims a 94% approval rate with a 17-second median ID verification time. This suggests most users get verified almost instantly, which is a positive for quick onboarding.

However, some freelancers find the identity verification (KYC) process tedious. New contractors must provide extensive details (e.g. personal info, tax ID, proof of address) as part of registration. A few users encountered KYC issues (one even created a YouTube guide on fixing RiseWorks KYC rejections), indicating that when the automated process fails, it can be confusing to resolve. In general, though, there haven’t been widespread complaints about the sign-up itself – most frustration arises later during payouts. Overall, onboarding is thorough but typical for a compliance-focused payroll system: it front-loads some effort to ensure legal and tax requirements are met, which some users accept as necessary, while others feel could be smoother.

Pricing and Fees​

RiseWorks uses a dual pricing model: either a flat $50 per contractor per month or a 3% fee on payment volume, with an Employer-of-Record option (~$399 per employee) for full-time international hires. For freelancers (contractors), the platform itself is free to sign up – they can send invoices and receive payments without subscribing. Startups and businesses choose between paying per contractor vs. a percentage of payouts depending on which is more cost-effective for their team size and payout amounts.

Pain points around pricing have not been the center of user complaints (operational issues overshadow cost concerns). However, some companies note that 3% of large payouts can become hefty, while $50/month for each contractor might be steep if you have many small engagements. As a point of comparison, Rise’s own marketing claims its fees are lower than competitors like Deel. One independent review also highlighted that Rise offers crypto payouts with minimal fees (only ~$2.50 on-chain fees, or free on layer-2 networks), which can be appealing for cost-conscious crypto-native businesses.

In summary, pricing feedback is mixed: startups and HR managers appreciate the transparency of a flat fee or percentage choice, but they must calculate which model is affordable for them. So far, no major outcry on “hidden fees” or unfair pricing has appeared in user reviews. The main caution is for businesses to weigh the flat vs. percent model – e.g. a $10,000 contractor payment would incur $300 fee under the 3% plan, which might prompt choosing the flat monthly rate instead. Proper guidance on selecting plans could improve satisfaction here.

Customer Support​

Customer support is one of the most significant pain points echoed by users across the board. RiseWorks advertises 24/7 multilingual support and multiple contact channels (in-app chat, email, even a Google form). In practice, however, user feedback paints a very different picture.

Freelancers and traders have reported extremely poor response times. One user lamented that **“they have no customer support. You’ll get 1 automated message and no replies after that. I don’t even know how to get my funds back lol.”*. Others similarly describe support as virtually non-existent. For example, a funded forex trader who tried RiseWorks for a payout warned: “Don’t try it… I withdrew with them and [am] failing to get my cash, support is very poor, they don’t respond at all despite having received my cash. I have 2 days now still trying to withdraw but I wish I hadn’t selected this crap of service.” This kind of feedback – no response to urgent withdrawal issues – is alarming for users expecting help.

HR professionals and business owners also find this troubling. If their contractors can’t get assistance or funds, it reflects poorly on the company. Some HR users note that while their account managers set up the service, ongoing support is hard to reach when issues arise. This has been a recurring theme: “terrible CS” (customer service) is mentioned alongside negative Trustpilot reviews. In social media forums and groups, users shared Trustpilot links and warned others to “beware of Rise” due to support and payout problems.

It’s worth noting that RiseWorks appears aware of support shortcomings and has provided more contact methods (the Google form, etc.). But as of the past year, the predominant user sentiment is frustration with support responsiveness. Quick, helpful support is critical in payroll (especially when money is in limbo), so this is a key area where RiseWorks is currently failing its users. Both freelancers and companies are demanding more reliable, real-time support to address payment issues.

Features and Functionality​

RiseWorks is a feature-rich platform, especially appealing to crypto and Web3 companies. Users appreciate some of its unique capabilities, but also point out a few missing or immature features given the company’s relative youth (founded 2019).

Notable features praised by users (mostly businesses and crypto-savvy freelancers) include:

• Hybrid payouts (fiat & crypto): Rise supports 90+ local currencies and 100+ cryptocurrencies, allowing companies and contractors to mix and match payout methods. This flexibility is a standout feature – for example, a contractor can choose to receive part of their pay in local currency and part in USDC. For Web3-native workers, this is a big plus.
• Compliance automation: The platform handles drafting compliant contracts, tax form generation, and local law compliance for international contractors. HR professionals value this “all-in-one” aspect, as it reduces legal risk. One external review noted Rise “navigates international tax laws and regulations” to keep things compliant for every contractor.
• Crypto finance extras: Freelancers on Rise can access built-in features like high-yield DeFi accounts for their earnings (as mentioned on Rise’s site) and secure storage via Rise’s smart contract wallet. These novel features aren’t common in traditional payroll software.

Despite these strengths, users have identified some functionality pain points:

• Lack of certain integrations or features standard in mature platforms: Because RiseWorks is “newer to the payroll industry (5 years old)”, some advanced features are still catching up. For instance, recruiters note that Rise doesn’t yet have robust reporting/analytics on spend or automatic general ledger integrations. A startup comparing options found that while Rise covers the basics, it lacked some bells and whistles (like time-tracking or invoice generation for clients) that they had to handle separately.
• Mobile app availability: A few contractors wished for a dedicated mobile app. Currently, RiseWorks is accessed via web; the interface is responsive, but an app for on-the-go access (to check payment status or upload documents) would enhance usability. Competing services often have mobile apps, so this is a minor gripe from the freelancer side.
• New feature stability: As Rise adds features (for example, they recently introduced direct EUR/GBP bank payouts with conversion), some early adopters experienced bugs. One user mentioned initial hiccups setting up a “RiseID” (a Web3 identity feature) – the concept is promising, but the setup failed for them until support (eventually) resolved it. This suggests that cutting-edge features sometimes need more polish.

In summary, RiseWorks’ feature set is powerful but still evolving. Tech-forward users love the crypto integration and compliance automation, while some traditional users miss features they’re accustomed to in older, more established payroll systems. The core functionality is solid (global payments in multiple currencies), yet the platform would benefit from continuing to refine new features and perhaps adding more business-oriented tools (reports, integrations) as it matures.

Integrations​

Integration capabilities are a mixed bag and depend on the user’s context:

• For Web3 and crypto users, RiseWorks shines by integrating with popular blockchain tools. It connects to widely used crypto wallets and chains, offering flexibility in funding and withdrawing. For example, it supports direct integration with Ethereum and Polygon networks, and wallets like MetaMask and Gnosis Safe. This means companies can fund payroll from a crypto treasury or contractors can withdraw to their personal crypto wallet seamlessly. One user pointed out they chose Rise specifically so they could pay a team in stablecoins without manual transfers – a big convenience over piecing together exchanges and bank wires.
• For traditional businesses/HR systems, however, RiseWorks’ integrations are limited. It does not yet natively integrate with common HR or accounting software (such as Workday, QuickBooks, or ERP systems). An HR manager noted that data from Rise (e.g. payment records, contractor details) had to be exported and input into their accounting system manually. The platform does provide an API for custom integrations, but this requires technical effort. In contrast, some competitors offer plug-and-play integrations with popular software, so this is an area of improvement.

Another integration pain point mentioned by users in certain countries is with local banks and payment networks. RiseWorks ultimately relies on partner banks or services to deliver local currency. In one case, an Indian freelancer’s bank (Axis Bank) rejected the incoming transfer after 18 hours, possibly due to the intermediary or crypto-related origin, causing payout delays. This suggests integration with local banking systems can be hit-or-miss depending on region. Users in places with strict bank policies may need alternative payout methods (or for Rise to partner with different processors).

To summarize integration feedback: Great for crypto connectivity, lacking for traditional software ecosystems. Startups and freelancers in the crypto space laud how well RiseWorks plugs into blockchain workflows. Meanwhile, HR teams at traditional firms view the lack of out-of-the-box integration with their existing tools as a friction point, requiring workarounds. As Rise expands, adding integrations (or even simple CSV import/exports) for major payroll/accounting systems could alleviate this pain for business users.

Ease of Use and Interface​

On the whole, users find the RiseWorks interface modern and relatively intuitive, but certain processes can be confusing especially when issues arise. The onboarding guide for funded traders (from a partner prop firm) shows the platform steps clearly – e.g. the dashboard to “easily submit invoices” for your earnings and withdraw in your chosen currency. Contractors have reported that basic tasks like creating an invoice or adding a withdrawal method are straightforward through the guided workflow. The design is clean and tailored to both non-crypto users (who can simply choose a bank transfer) and crypto users (who connect a wallet).

However, ease of use drops when something goes wrong. The user experience for exception cases (like a KYC verification failure, a withdrawal stuck in processing, or needing to contact support) is frustrating. Because support lagged, users ended up seeking help on forums or trying to troubleshoot on their own – which speaks to a lack of in-app guidance for resolving issues. For instance, a user whose payout was in limbo couldn’t find status details or next steps in the UI, leading them to post “How do I even get my money?” on Reddit out of confusion. This indicates the platform might not surface clear error messages or actionable info when payments are delayed (an area to improve UX).

From an HR perspective, the admin interface for onboarding and managing contractors is decent, but could be more feature-rich for ease of use. HR users would like to see, for example, a single view of all contractor statuses (KYC pending, payment in process, etc.) and maybe a bulk action tool. Currently, the platform’s focus is on individual contractor workflows, which is simple but at scale can become a bit click-heavy for HR teams managing dozens of contractors.

In summary, RiseWorks is easy to use for standard operations, but its user-friendliness falters in edge cases. New users generally have little trouble navigating the system for intended tasks. The interface is comparable to other modern SaaS products and even first-time freelancers can figure out how to get set up and invoice their client through Rise. On the flip side, when users encounter an unusual scenario (like a delay or a need to update submitted info), the platform offers limited guidance – causing confusion and reliance on external support. Smoother handling of those scenarios and more proactive communication in-app would greatly enhance the overall user experience.

Performance and Reliability​

Performance, in terms of payment processing speed and reliability, has been the most critical issue for many users. The platform’s technical performance (site uptime, page loading) hasn’t drawn complaints – the website and app generally load fine. It’s the operational performance of getting money from point A to B that shows problems.

Payout Delays: Numerous users have reported that bank withdrawals take far longer than expected. In several cases, contractors waited weeks for funds that were supposed to arrive in days. One trader shared that “my payout has been stuck in withdrawal phase with them for 2 weeks now”. Another user similarly posted about a withdrawal pending for days without updates. Such delays leave freelancers in limbo, unsure if or when they will receive their earnings. This is a severe reliability concern – on a payroll platform, timely payment is fundamental. Some affected users even voiced fears that they had been scammed when money didn’t show up on time. While RiseWorks eventually did fulfill many of these payouts, the lack of communication during the delay exacerbated the frustration.

Crypto vs. Bank Transfer Performance: Interestingly, feedback indicates that crypto payouts are much faster and smoother than traditional bank transfers on RiseWorks. Contractors who opted to withdraw in cryptocurrency (like USDC) often received their funds quickly – sometimes within minutes if on a crypto wallet. A customer feedback analysis noted “quick crypto withdrawals” as a positive theme, contrasted with “delayed bank transfers” for fiat. This suggests that Rise’s crypto infrastructure is robust, but its banking partnerships or processes may be a bottleneck. For users, this created a divide: tech-savvy freelancers learned to prefer crypto to avoid delays, whereas those needing local currency had to endure waiting periods.

System Stability: Aside from payment timing, there were a few instances of system glitches. In mid-2024, a handful of users encountered errors like being unable to initiate a withdrawal or the platform showing a “processing” status indefinitely. These might have been one-off bugs or related to the KYC/documents not being fully approved behind the scenes. There isn’t evidence of widespread outages, but even isolated cases of hung transactions erode trust. RiseWorks does have a status page, yet some users weren’t aware of it or it didn’t reflect their specific issue.

Trust and Perceived Reliability: Early on, RiseWorks struggled with user trust. In mid-2024 when it was relatively new to many, it had an average Trustpilot rating around 3.3 out of 5 (an “Average” score) with very few reviews. Comments about missing money and poor support led some to label it untrustworthy. One third-party scam monitoring site even flagged riseworks.io with a “very low trust score”, cautioning it might be risky. This shows how performance issues (like payout failures) directly impacted its reputation.

However, by 2025 there are signs of improvement. More users have successfully used the service, and satisfied voices have somewhat balanced out the detractors. According to an aggregate review report, the overall Trustpilot rating for RiseWorks climbed to 4.4/5 as of April 2025. This suggests that many users eventually did get paid and had a decent experience, possibly leaving positive feedback. The increase in rating could mean the company addressed some early bugs and delays, or that users who utilize the crypto payout (which works reliably) gave high scores. Regardless, the presence of happy customers alongside the unhappy ones now indicates mixed experiences – not uniformly bad as the initial feedback might have implied.

In conclusion on reliability: RiseWorks has proven reliable for some (especially via crypto), but inconsistent for others (especially via banks). The platform’s performance has been patchy, which is a major pain point because payroll is all about trust and timing. Freelancers and businesses need to know payments will arrive as promised. Until Rise can ensure bank transfers are as prompt as their crypto payments, this will remain a concern. The trend in recent months is somewhat positive (fewer horror stories, better ratings), but cautious optimism is warranted – users still frequently advise each other to “be careful and have a backup” when using Rise, reflecting lingering concerns about its reliability.

Summary of Recurring Themes and Patterns​

Across user types, a few recurring pain points stand out clearly on the RiseWorks platform:

• Payout Delays and Unreliability: This is the number one issue raised by freelancers (especially funded traders and contractors). Early users in 2023-2024 often experienced significant delays in receiving funds, with some waiting weeks and fearing they might never get paid. This pattern seems to be improving in 2025, but delays (particularly for fiat transfers) are still reported. The contrast between slow bank transfers and fast crypto payouts is a recurring theme – indicating the platform’s traditional payment rails need improvement.
• Poor Customer Support: Nearly every negative review or forum post cites the lack of responsive support. Users across the spectrum (HR admins and contractors alike) have been frustrated by either no replies or generic, unhelpful responses when they reach out for help. This has been consistent from the platform’s early days up to recent times, though the company claims 24/7 support availability. It’s a critical pain point because it compounds other issues; when a payment is delayed, not getting timely support makes the experience far worse.
• Trust and Transparency Issues: In the platform’s initial rollout to new communities (like prop trading firms’ users), there was skepticism due to the above issues. RiseWorks had to battle perceptions of being a “scam” or unreliable. Over time, as more users successfully received payments, some trust is being earned back (reflected in improved ratings). Still, trust remains fragile – new users often seek out reviews and ask others if RiseWorks is safe before committing their earnings to it. Businesses considering RiseWorks also evaluate its short track record and sometimes express hesitation to rely on a relatively young company for something as sensitive as payroll.
• Value Proposition vs. Execution: Users acknowledge that RiseWorks is tackling a valuable problem – global contractor payments with crypto options – and many want it to work. HR professionals and startup founders like the idea of a one-stop solution for international compliance, and freelancers like having more ways to get paid (especially in crypto with low fees). When the platform works as intended, these benefits are realized, and users are pleased. For instance, a few Trustpilot comments (per summary reports) praise how easy it was to withdraw in their local currency, or how convenient it is to not worry about tax forms. The pain point is that the execution hasn’t been consistent. The concept is strong, but the company is still ironing out operational kinks. As one community member aptly put it, “Rise has potential, but they need to sort out their payout system and support if they want people to stick with it.” This encapsulates the sentiment that many early adopters have: cautiously hopeful but currently disappointed in key areas.

Below is a summary table of pain points by category, with highlights of what users have reported:

Aspect	Pain Points Reported	Supporting User Feedback
Onboarding	Some friction with KYC (ID verification, document upload) process, especially if information isn’t accepted on first try.	“Comprehensive Automation… including automated onboarding” (Pros); Some needed external help for KYC issues (e.g. YouTube tutorials – implies process could be clearer).
Pricing & Fees	Pricing model ($50/contractor or 3% volume) must be chosen carefully; high volume payouts can incur large fees. Contractors sometimes bear fees (e.g. ~0.95% on certain transfers).	Rise claims to undercut competitors on fees. Few direct complaints on cost – one reason is other issues took precedence. Startups do note to “mind the 3% if doing large payouts” (community advice).
Customer Support	Very slow or no responses to support queries; lack of live resolution. Users felt abandoned when issues arose.	“They have no customer support. [You’ll] get 1 automated message and no replies…”; “Support is very poor, they don’t respond at all…crap service”.
Features	Missing some advanced features (time tracking, integrations, detailed reporting). New features (RiseID, etc.) have occasional bugs.	“Newer to the payroll industry (5 years old)” – still adding features. Users appreciate crypto payout feature, but note it’s a basic payroll tool lacking extras that older systems have.
Integrations	Limited integration with external business software; no native sync with HRIS or accounting systems. Some issues interfacing with certain local banks.	“Rise integrates with… widely used [blockchain] wallets” (crypto integration is a plus). But traditional integration is manual (CSV exports/API). One user’s local bank refused a Rise transfer, causing delays.
Ease of Use	Generally user-friendly UI, but poor guidance when errors occur. Users unsure what to do when a payout is stuck or KYC needs re-submission.	“The Rise dashboard lets you easily submit invoices…withdraw in local currency or supported cryptocurrencies.” (intuitive for normal tasks). Lacks in-app alerts or tips when something goes wrong, leading to user confusion.
Performance	Payout processing is inconsistent – fast for crypto, but slow for fiat. Some payouts stuck for days/weeks. Reliability concerns and anxiety over whether money will arrive.	“Delayed bank transfers” and “funds seem to be in limbo”; multiple Reddit threads about waiting weeks. In contrast, “quick crypto withdrawals” reported by others.

Patterns Over Time: Early feedback (late 2022 and 2023) was largely negative, centering on unmet basic expectations (money not arriving, no support). This created a narrative in forums that “RiseWorks is not delivering”. Over 2024 and into 2025, the company appears to have taken steps to address these issues: expanding payment corridors (adding EU/UK local transfers), providing more support channels, and likely resolving many individual cases. Consequently, we see a more mixed set of reviews recently – some users reporting smooth experiences alongside those who still hit snags. The Trustpilot score rising to 4.4/5 by April 2025 (from ~3/5 a year prior) exemplifies this shift. It suggests that a number of users are now satisfied (or at least the happy customers increased), perhaps due to successful crypto payouts or improved processes.

That said, key pain points persist in 2025: delays in certain payouts and subpar support are mentioned in recent discussions, meaning RiseWorks hasn’t fully escaped those problems. The improvement in average ratings could reflect proactive measures, but also possibly efforts to encourage positive reviews. It’s important to note that even with a 4.4 average, the negative experiences were very severe for those who had them, and those narratives continue to circulate in user communities (Reddit, prop trading forums, etc.). New users often explicitly ask if others have had issues, indicating the caution that still surrounds the platform’s reputation.

Conclusion​

In conclusion, RiseWorks addresses a real need for global payroll (especially bridging crypto and fiat payments), but user experiences show a gap between promise and reality. HR professionals and businesses love the concept of compliant, automated contractor payments in any currency, yet they worry about reliability when they see freelancers struggling to get paid. Freelancers and funded traders are excited by flexible payout options and low fees, but many have encountered unacceptable delays and silence when they needed help. Over time there are signs of improvement – some users now report positive outcomes – but the recurring themes of payout delays and poor support remain the biggest pain points holding RiseWorks back.

For RiseWorks to fully win over all user types, it will need to significantly improve its customer support responsiveness and ensure timely payments consistently. If those core issues are fixed, much of the historical negativity would likely fade, as the underlying service offering is strong and innovative. Until then, user feedback will likely continue to be mixed: with startups and crypto-native users praising features and cost, and others cautioning about support and speed. As one user summarized on social media, RiseWorks has great potential but must “deliver on the basics” – a sentiment that encapsulates the platform’s current standing in the eyes of its users.

Sources:

• User discussions on Reddit (r/Forex, r/Daytrading, r/buhaydigital) highlighting payout delays and support issues
• Trustpilot summary via TradersUnion/Kimola reports (mixed reviews: “delayed bank transfers, lack of customer support, and quick crypto withdrawals”)
• RiseWorks marketing and documentation (pricing page, integrations, and competitor comparisons)
• Community posts (Facebook group for prop firm traders) warning about missing bank payouts
• PipFarm user guide for RiseWorks, outlining onboarding steps and contractor experience
• Medium review on RiseWorks (Coinmonks) for feature overview and pricing details.

We're thrilled to announce a significant expansion to BlockEden.xyz's API Marketplace with the addition of three cutting-edge blockchain networks: Base, Berachain, and Blast. These new offerings reflect our commitment to providing developers with comprehensive access to the most innovative blockchain infrastructures, enabling seamless development across multiple ecosystems.

Base: Coinbase's Ethereum L2 Solution​

Base is an Ethereum Layer 2 (L2) solution developed by Coinbase, designed to bring millions of users into the onchain ecosystem. As a secure, low-cost, developer-friendly Ethereum L2, Base combines the robust security of Ethereum with the scalability benefits of optimistic rollups.

Our new Base API endpoint lets developers:

• Access Base's infrastructure without managing their own nodes
• Leverage high-performance RPC connections with 99.9% uptime
• Build applications that benefit from Ethereum's security with lower fees
• Seamlessly interact with Base's expanding ecosystem of applications

Base is particularly appealing for developers looking to create consumer-facing applications that require Ethereum's security but at a fraction of the cost.

Berachain: Performance Meets EVM Compatibility​

Berachain brings a unique approach to blockchain infrastructure, combining high performance with complete Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) compatibility. As an emerging network gaining significant attention from developers, Berachain offers:

• EVM compatibility with enhanced throughput
• Advanced smart contract capabilities
• A growing ecosystem of innovative DeFi applications
• Unique consensus mechanisms optimized for transaction speed

Our Berachain API provides developers with immediate access to this promising network, allowing teams to build and test applications without the complexity of managing infrastructure.

Blast: The First Native Yield L2​

Blast stands out as the first Ethereum L2 with native yield for ETH and stablecoins. This innovative approach to yield generation makes Blast particularly interesting for DeFi developers and applications focused on capital efficiency.

Key benefits of our Blast API include:

• Direct access to Blast's native yield mechanisms
• Support for building yield-optimized applications
• Simplified integration with Blast's unique features
• High-performance RPC connections for seamless interactions

Blast's focus on native yield represents an exciting direction for Ethereum L2 solutions, potentially setting new standards for capital efficiency in the ecosystem.

Seamless Integration Process​

Getting started with these new networks is straightforward with BlockEden.xyz:

1. Visit our API Marketplace and select your desired network
2. Create an API key through your BlockEden.xyz dashboard
3. Integrate the endpoint into your development environment using our comprehensive documentation
4. Start building with confidence, backed by our 99.9% uptime guarantee

Why Choose BlockEden.xyz for These Networks?​

BlockEden.xyz continues to distinguish itself through several core offerings:

• High Availability: Our infrastructure maintains 99.9% uptime across all supported networks
• Developer-First Approach: Comprehensive documentation and support for seamless integration
• Unified Experience: Access multiple blockchain networks through a single, consistent interface
• Competitive Pricing: Our compute unit credit (CUC) system ensures cost-effective scaling

Looking Forward​

The addition of Base, Berachain, and Blast to our API Marketplace represents our ongoing commitment to supporting the diverse and evolving blockchain ecosystem. As these networks continue to mature and attract developers, BlockEden.xyz will be there to provide the reliable infrastructure needed to build the next generation of decentralized applications.

We invite developers to explore these new offerings and provide feedback as we continue to enhance our services. Your input is invaluable in helping us refine and expand our API marketplace to meet your evolving needs.

Ready to start building on Base, Berachain, or Blast? Visit BlockEden.xyz API Marketplace today and create your access key to begin your journey!

For the latest updates and announcements, connect with us on Twitter or join our community on Discord.

Introduction​

Stablecoins – digital currencies pegged to stable assets like fiat – are emerging as tools to bridge the financial inclusion gap. By combining the stability of traditional money with the efficiency of blockchain, stablecoins enable low-cost, near-instant transactions without requiring full access to banks. This is especially powerful for the 1.4 billion unbanked adults globally who lack basic accounts. Importantly, many stablecoin applications can operate within existing financial regulations, making them easier to deploy in the real world. Developers worldwide are exploring use cases – from cross-border remittances to digital savings – that comply with laws while serving underserved populations. The following report provides a deep analysis of such use cases, highlights jurisdictions with clear regulatory frameworks, showcases successful pilot programs, and surveys development tools (SDKs/APIs) and blockchain platforms suited for inclusive stablecoin solutions. We also identify partnerships and grant programs supporting innovation in this space.

Legally Compliant Stablecoin Use Cases​

Certain stablecoin use cases have both high impact potential for unbanked communities and relatively straightforward compliance pathways. Key examples include cross-border remittances, humanitarian aid distribution, and digital savings/financial services. Each can be structured to meet existing regulations (e.g. anti-money-laundering, money transmitter laws) while delivering essential services in underserved regions. Below we detail these use cases and why they are attractive for developers focusing on regulated, high-impact fintech solutions.

Remittances and Cross-Border Payments​

Remittances – money sent by migrants to family back home – incur high fees and slow speeds in traditional channels (5–7% fees and days of waiting are common). Stablecoins offer a compliant alternative: regulated fintech providers can handle KYC/AML and convert cash to digital dollars, which then move across borders in seconds at minimal cost. Studies show stablecoin remittances could cut costs by up to 80%, saving billions for low-income families. For example, in the UK–Nigeria corridor, stablecoin-based transfers reduced average fees from 8.5% to ~3%, while still maintaining compliance (verifying users and following AML rules). Major money transfer companies are embracing this: MoneyGram’s partnership with Stellar allows users to convert cash to USDC (USD Coin) and vice versa without a bank account, using MoneyGram’s licensed network for cash handling. This service settles nearly instantly and complies with money transmission regulations by working within MoneyGram’s regulatory framework. The impact is significant – faster, cheaper remittances directly increase disposable income for underserved households and encourage a shift from costly informal channels to safer, transparent ones.

Humanitarian Aid and Cash Assistance​

Stablecoins are gaining traction for humanitarian aid distribution, where NGOs and agencies must deliver funds to people in crisis zones or underbanked areas. Traditional aid often relies on cash or hawala networks, leading to leakage, delays, and oversight challenges. Stablecoins can digitize aid with end-to-end transparency and speed, all while remaining within legal bounds for humanitarian exceptions. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, aid workers and NGOs leveraged stablecoins like USDC to send emergency funds globally, saving ~35% in fees compared to bank wires. In 2022, the UN’s refugee agency (UNHCR) piloted sending aid to Ukrainian refugees via USDC on Stellar through the Vibrant wallet, providing a “blueprint” for faster, more accountable aid. Recipients got digital dollars that could be cashed out as needed, ensuring funds reached the right people quickly. The UNHCR’s treasurer noted this method “makes sure the money goes exactly where it’s supposed to go…and [that] they need money right now”. Compliance is handled by registering recipients and monitoring disbursements, similar to traditional cash aid but with far greater control. Recent pilots by NGOs like Mercy Corps in conflict zones demonstrate up to 62% faster aid delivery with 10.8% cost savings, reaching more beneficiaries by streamlining compliance and reducing intermediaries. These examples show that with proper oversight and KYC for end-recipients, stablecoin aid can operate within existing legal frameworks (e.g. sanctioned-country humanitarian exemptions) while vastly improving efficiency and transparency.

Digital Savings and Financial Services​

For unbanked and underbanked populations, stablecoins can provide a safe digital savings option and gateway to basic financial services. In many developing countries, people face volatile local currencies or lack access to banks; holding money in a USD-pegged stablecoin can protect value and enable transactions. Crucially, individuals using self-custodied stablecoin wallets generally do not violate regulations – holding or spending stablecoins is legal in most jurisdictions, akin to holding foreign currency or a digital voucher. Fintech apps that custody stablecoins for users may need e-money or money service licenses, but several jurisdictions now offer clarity on this (as discussed in the next section). The impact potential is high: Stablecoins act as “digital dollars” that shield savings from inflation and enable everyday transactions for those without bank accounts. According to UBS research, consumers in high-inflation economies are adopting stablecoins as “a trustworthy and transparent alternative… used for everything from savings to transactions,” largely because of lower risk of government seizure or devaluation. In Argentina, for example, citizens have turned to USD-pegged stablecoins like USDC and DAI to preserve wealth amidst inflation, operating within existing currency rules by using regulated crypto exchanges or P2P transfers. Developers have built digital wallets with stablecoin savings features that comply with KYC/AML by integrating third-party compliance APIs. For instance, the Latin American wallet Airtm (a registered U.S. MSB) holds client funds in USDC and lets users seamlessly swap to local currency when needed. This kind of digital savings tool, delivered via a smartphone app, can empower unbanked users to store, send, and receive money globally. By designing apps to be non-custodial or by partnering with licensed custodians, developers can navigate regulations while providing unbanked users a stable store of value and access to payments.

Merchant Payments and Local Commerce​

Another emerging use case is enabling underserved merchants and micro-businesses to accept payments via stablecoins. Many small merchants in cash-driven economies cannot easily access credit card networks or digital payments. Stablecoins offer a way to accept digital payments with low fees, settled instantly to a USD-equivalent balance. In practice, this can be set up in compliance by using licensed payment processors or exchange platforms as intermediaries for cash-in/out. For example, fintech providers in Southeast Asia have integrated stablecoin payments for merchants using regulated on/off ramps – customers pay in stablecoin and merchants can immediately convert to local currency through an exchange that follows local regulations. Large payment processors are also moving in: Shopify now allows merchants to accept stablecoins for online sales, leveraging partner services that handle compliance and conversion. The impact for unbanked merchants is promising: they can tap into e-commerce and digital sales without traditional bank merchant accounts, expanding their customer base. In day-to-day retail, stablecoin payment apps (often using QR codes on mobile) have been piloted in markets like Kenya and Nigeria, letting customers pay a shopkeeper in, say, USDC or a local currency stablecoin. Because transactions are on-chain, records are transparent which can help with tax and legal compliance. Many such solutions are in early stages, but as stablecoin payments yield lower fees than cards (often mere cents) and no chargebacks, they address a pain point for small vendors. Regulators generally treat merchant-facing stablecoin services as they would any digital payment service, requiring registration or licensing of the service provider but not burdening the end-user. This means developers can create merchant payment platforms that plug into existing licensed exchanges or payment gateways to handle the regulatory parts, while the user experience remains a simple wallet app for the merchant. The potential to increase financial inclusion by bringing cash-only businesses into the digital economy is substantial, all while using stablecoins under compliance guardrails.

Summary of Key Use Cases, Regulatory Ease, and Impact: The table below highlights how these use cases rank in terms of ease of regulatory compliance and their potential impact on underserved populations:

Stablecoin Use Case	Regulatory Compliance Ease	Impact Potential (Unbanked)
Cross-Border Remittances	Generally fits into existing money transfer laws – can partner with or obtain MSB/e-money licenses. Stablecoin issuers (e.g. USDC) are regulated, aiding trust.	Very High: Reduces fees (up to 80% savings) and speeds up transfers, directly benefiting low-income families. Enables migrants to support unbanked relatives with instant digital cash.
Humanitarian Aid Distribution	Often permitted under humanitarian exemptions even in sanctioned regions. NGOs coordinate with regulators; KYC for recipients ensures AML compliance. Non-custodial wallets (e.g. Stellar’s Vibrant) avoid needing local banking licenses.	Very High: Gets aid to crisis victims faster (payments 62% quicker) with lower overhead, meaning more relief reaches people. Digital traceability increases transparency and prevents theft/misuse.
Digital Savings & Wallets	Individuals holding stablecoins face minimal regulatory hurdles in most countries. Fintechs offering custodial wallets comply via e-money or trust licenses (as in EU MiCA or NYDFS guidance). Clear redemption and reserve rules for issuers protect consumers.	High: Provides a safe store of value in unstable economies, protecting earnings from inflation. Brings unbanked users into a digital financial system where they can save, send, and eventually access credit or insurance.
Merchant Payments	Treated similar to digital payment processors: providers must register and ensure tax compliance, but transacting in stablecoins is legal. Some jurisdictions recognize stablecoin payments under existing payment laws.	Medium-High: Helps micro-merchants and informal businesses join the digital economy without bank accounts. Reduces payment fees and fraud for merchants, potentially increasing profits and enabling new customer sales (including online).
Payroll & Gig Economy	Requires compliance on the paying company’s side (e.g. use a platform like Airtm which is a licensed MSB). Stablecoins themselves are just the payout medium. Clear record-keeping and reporting make it easy to stay compliant with tax and labor laws.	High: Allows companies to pay unbanked freelancers or workers worldwide in USD-equivalent value instantly. This opens up global job opportunities for underbanked talent and ensures workers can actually receive wages in reliable currency.

Each of these use cases demonstrates a balance of regulatory feasibility and social impact. Developers can choose the segment that aligns with their mission, knowing that current laws (with the right partnerships or licenses) do accommodate these activities. In particular, remittances and aid stand out for their significant humanitarian impact, and regulators have shown willingness to allow innovation here, provided consumer protection and AML measures are in place.

Regulatory Clarity and Favorable Jurisdictions​

Global regulators have increasingly turned their attention to stablecoins, and some jurisdictions now provide favorable clarity that makes development easier. Generally, regulators focus on reserve backing, redemption rights, transparency, and licensing of stablecoin issuers – all of which, when clearly defined, reduce uncertainty for developers building on those stablecoins. Below are examples of frameworks and regions leading in regulatory clarity:

• European Union (MiCA): The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation (taking effect 2024–2025) explicitly covers stablecoins (termed “e-money tokens” if fiat-pegged). MiCA requires 100% reserve backing, regular audits/disclosures, and redeemability at par. Notably, stablecoins under MiCA cannot pay interest (to distinguish from bank deposits). Large issuers face transaction volume caps (e.g. daily transaction limits) to protect monetary stability. For developers, MiCA provides a clear legal category for stablecoins – if you integrate a Euro or USD stablecoin that complies with MiCA, you know it’s legally recognized across the EU as electronic money. This makes it easier to launch apps (remittance services, etc.) in Europe using stablecoins, as long as you partner with a MiCA-licensed issuer or obtain necessary registrations. MiCA’s standardized rules are seen as a global blueprint, giving confidence that a Euro stablecoin, for example, is fully regulated and safe for consumers.

• United States (State-Level and Pending Federal Law): The US lacks a unified federal stablecoin law as of 2025, but there is growing momentum. State regulators have stepped in – e.g. the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) issued guidance that any USD-backed stablecoin under its supervision must be fully reserved at all times, with clear redemption policies and monthly audits. This is why NYDFS-regulated coins like Paxos’s USDP and Gemini’s GUSD have explicit rules on backing and redemption. Circle’s USDC, while not under NYDFS, voluntarily provides similar transparency (monthly attestations) and is licensed as a money transmitter in numerous states. For developers, this patchwork means it is legal to use stablecoins like USDC or USDP in the US, and these coins are already compliant via their issuers’ licensing. Any app facilitating stablecoin payments in the US will typically register as a Money Services Business (MSB) and follow FinCEN guidelines – a known regulatory path. On the federal horizon, proposals such as the Stablecoin TRUST Act and the GENIUS Act are being discussed, aiming to federalize oversight (Federal Reserve for banks, OCC for non-banks, etc.). While not yet law, the expectation of 2025 legislation indicates the US is moving toward clearer rules, likely resembling NYDFS standards nationwide. In short, U.S. developers currently work under state compliance, but the use of established stablecoins is generally permitted and increasingly encouraged by regulators’ public statements.

• Singapore and Hong Kong: These Asian financial hubs have crafted comprehensive stablecoin regimes. In Singapore, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) finalized a framework in August 2023 for single-currency stablecoins pegged to SGD or G10 currencies. The rules allow banks and non-banks to issue stablecoins, but with strict requirements: reserves must be high-quality and segregated, issuers must meet capital and liquidity minimums, 1:1 redemption must be guaranteed within 5 days, and transparency is mandated. This effectively integrates stablecoins into Singapore’s trusted e-money system. Hong Kong’s regulators similarly (in 2023) announced that only fully backed, licensed stablecoins will be allowed, focusing initially on fiat-backed types and prohibiting algorithmic versions. Both jurisdictions are known as innovation sandboxes – they invite fintech projects to test under supervision. The clear criteria in these markets (e.g. needing a license but then being able to operate widely) mean developers targeting Asian markets can incorporate stablecoins with confidence in legal acceptance. For example, a remittance startup in Singapore can use a stablecoin that MAS has within its framework, ensuring regulators view it as legitimate digital cash equivalent.

• United Kingdom: The UK is in the process of integrating stablecoins into its payments regime. The Treasury has signaled that certain stablecoins will be regulated under existing e-money and payments laws, treating stablecoin payments with the same rigor as bank payments for stability and consumer protection. A proposal calls for issuers to hold reserves at the Bank of England or equivalent protection, and similarly to MiCA, not offer interest. While full legislation is pending, the direction is that the UK will allow stablecoins as a recognized form of payment. The Bank of England is also set to oversee systemic stablecoin firms. This favorable stance (assuming compliance with operational standards) suggests the UK will be a friendly jurisdiction for stablecoin-based financial services.

• Other Notables: Switzerland has been treating stablecoins under existing laws (e.g. as deposits or securities depending on structure) and was an early adopter of crypto regulation, offering clarity through FINMA licensing. Japan passed a law effective 2023 that legalizes stablecoins but restricts issuance to banks, trusts, and licensed agents – a conservative but clear approach that assures any stablecoin in Japan (once approved) is bank-grade. United Arab Emirates (incl. Dubai’s VARA): UAE has embraced crypto innovation; its guidance requires stablecoins to be fully reserved and audited monthly, and the country actively attracts crypto companies with its regulatory certainty. Brazil is drafting rules as well – notably, a proposal would disallow unlicensed stablecoin issuers from enabling self-custody transfers, aiming to force usage through regulated entities for transparency. This shows some emerging markets seek to harness stablecoins but within strict channels.

In summary, jurisdictions like the EU, Singapore, Hong Kong, UAE, and (soon) the UK and US are providing the legal clarity needed for stablecoins to thrive responsibly. This means developers have options to launch pilots or products in environments where the rules of the road are known. For instance, a fintech team might choose to issue a stablecoin-based remittance app in Europe under MiCA compliance or in Singapore under MAS guidelines, thereby reassuring investors and users of its legality. This regulatory clarity reduces compliance costs and uncertainties, enabling smoother cross-border operation as well. As regulations converge on principles of backing and transparency, we see a trend toward global alignment that will further simplify development and adoption. Developers should still be mindful of differences – e.g. licensing processes – but overall the climate is increasingly favorable for legally compliant stablecoin innovation.

Case Studies and Pilot Programs​

Real-world deployments of stablecoins in service of the unbanked are growing in number. These case studies demonstrate both the feasibility (navigating regulatory and logistical challenges) and the benefits achieved. Below are several notable examples across remittances, aid, and savings initiatives:

• Airtm (Cross-Border Payouts in Latin America): Airtm is a digital wallet platform used widely in Latin America for dollar savings and payments. Registered as a U.S. Money Service Business, Airtm integrated USDC stablecoin to help gig workers and professionals receive payments from abroad. Businesses that use Airtm to pay workers achieved ~35% cost savings on cross-border payouts versus traditional methods. This is because stablecoin transfers cut out multiple intermediaries and unfavorable exchange rates. As a case, Airtm shows that a compliant entity (they follow KYC and US regulations) can leverage stablecoins to benefit users: over 160,000 monthly active users transact in USDC on Airtm, many of whom are in countries like Venezuela or Argentina with unstable currencies. Users receive dollars in minutes and can convert to local cash the same day through Airtm’s network of human tellers. This model has empowered people who previously struggled with delayed or expensive international payments. Airtm’s success, enabled by Circle’s transparent USDC reserves and compliance, illustrates a sustainable, legal path for stablecoin use in emerging markets.

• UNHCR & Stellar Aid Assist (Refugee Cash Assistance): In December 2022, the UN Refugee Agency launched Stellar Aid Assist, a blockchain-based aid disbursement system, to send aid to Ukrainian refugees in need. Through this program, UNHCR distributes aid in the form of USDC (a fully reserved, regulated stablecoin) on the Stellar network. Recipients use the Vibrant wallet app to receive and hold funds, and can cash out USDC for local currency at MoneyGram locations (leveraging the Stellar–MoneyGram integration). This pilot was groundbreaking: the UN became “the largest global entity to legitimize the use case” of stablecoins in aid, according to industry observers. The choice of Stellar was deliberate – Stellar’s low fees and partnership with MoneyGram for last-mile cash payout were essential to reach people with no bank accounts or cards. Critically, the program remained compliant by KYC-ing recipients (refugees were registered) and working with regulated entities (MoneyGram, Circle) for currency exchange and issuance. The result is that refugees could get aid instantly and securely on their phones, rather than waiting weeks for wire transfers or handling insecure cash vouchers. UNHCR reported that this method “ensures the money goes exactly where it’s supposed to go” while not putting people at additional risk. This case has inspired other NGOs to consider stablecoins for cash assistance in crises, given its success in speed and accountability.

• Mercy Corps – Syria and Kenya Pilots: Mercy Corps Ventures, the impact investment arm of the NGO Mercy Corps, has actively piloted stablecoin solutions for financial inclusion. In Northeast Syria (2024–25), Mercy Corps launched a pilot to pay smallholder farmers and agribusinesses using a USD stablecoin, circumventing Syria’s collapsed banking system and expensive hawala brokers. Working with local partners and a fintech (HesabPay), they delivered funds via mobile wallets backed by stablecoins, drastically reducing transfer costs and improving security for participants in a sanctioned, conflict-torn economy. This pilot had to carefully navigate compliance – even though humanitarian transactions are exempt from sanctions, Mercy Corps ensured all actors were vetted and that the stablecoin (likely USDC or similar) was handled through a compliant platform. Early results indicate farmers received payments faster and more reliably than before, validating the approach. In Kenya (2025), Mercy Corps partnered with Ripple and startup Dvara to aid pastoralist herders suffering from drought. They delivered relief in the form of a Ripple-issued USD stablecoin (RLUSD) on Ethereum, using smart contract triggers (based on drought index data) to automate payouts. Over 500 herders are targeted to receive ~$75 each when drought conditions hit thresholds. This innovative program shows stablecoins enabling “parametric aid” – funds released on objective criteria – which increases trust and efficiency. Again, compliance was ensured by involving Mercy Corps and using a known stablecoin issuer (Ripple’s entity) under controlled conditions. These Mercy Corps pilots underscore stablecoins’ versatility in humanitarian finance: from conflict zones to climate disasters, they can deliver timely assistance at lower cost, working within legal allowances for aid.

• Latin America Grassroots Adoption (Savings and Commerce): In countries like Argentina, Venezuela, and Nigeria, individuals and small businesses have organically adopted stablecoins as a lifeline. While not a single “program,” this bottom-up case is instructive. For example, Argentina’s high inflation (over 50% annually) drove many locals to convert pesos into DAI or USDC stablecoins as a hedge. Startup apps like Buenbit and Reserve enabled Argentines to save in stablecoins and spend via prepaid cards, operating under local fintech licenses. In Venezuela, where banking was impaired by hyperinflation and sanctions, people turned to dollar stablecoins for everyday transactions – even retail stores in Caracas reportedly started accepting USDT (Tether) for groceries. Such usage often began peer-to-peer and somewhat in legal gray areas, but has become more normalized. In Nigeria, ranked among the top in crypto adoption, stablecoins are used to bypass strict forex controls to pay for imports or tuition abroad. One Nigerian remittance startup in the MIT Solve program used stablecoins to cut remittance costs drastically on UK–Nigeria transfers. Regulators in these countries have taken various approaches (from tacit acceptance to pushing users toward official eNaira in Nigeria’s case), but importantly, no major bans on stablecoins themselves – allowing this usage to flourish for lack of better alternatives. The impact is observed in personal stories: a Venezuelan family preserving their nest egg in USDC instead of bolivar, or a Nigerian student receiving school money via a stablecoin instead of an exorbitant wire. For developers, these cases show an unmet need – and an opportunity to provide user-friendly, compliant interfaces to what people are already doing informally with stablecoins. For instance, developing a Latin America-focused savings app with proper KYC and links to banking partners could formalize and scale the grassroots adoption that’s proven demand.

• MoneyGram Access & Circle’s Partnerships: On the private sector side, partnerships are validating stablecoins in mainstream finance. MoneyGram’s Crypto-to-Cash service (launched 2022–2023) uses Stellar USDC to allow cash pickup of remittances sent as USDC in around 300,000 locations worldwide. This pilot, now expanding, essentially turned stablecoins into an intermediary currency for remittances. Users in, say, the USA can convert cash to USDC (through MoneyGram’s licensed service) and the recipient in the Philippines can receive that USDC and instantly cash it out in pesos at a MoneyGram shop – no bank needed on either side. This program has been successful enough that MoneyGram integrated it into their retail offering, and it serves as a model for leveraging existing compliance infrastructure (MoneyGram is licensed in all jurisdictions it operates) to deliver a crypto-powered service. Similarly, Circle (issuer of USDC) has engaged in partnerships for social impact – working with Airtm (as noted) and also with NGOs. Circle’s initiative “Cross-Border Payments for COVID relief” demonstrated that global aid to medical workers could be done via USDC faster and cheaper. Circle also has a program with Bolivian microfinance app (via Airtm) and others to spread dollar access in unstable economies. These case studies from industry show that when fintech companies collaborate with humanitarian or remittance specialists, stablecoins become a powerful backend that still respects front-end regulations and user experience.

Each of the above case studies reinforces a common theme: stablecoin solutions can be deployed now, in real-world contexts, with regulatory approval and tangible benefits. Whether it’s a global organization like the UN, an NGO like Mercy Corps, or a fintech like MoneyGram or Airtm, the pattern is to integrate stablecoins into existing legal frameworks (registering as needed, partnering with compliant entities) and then leveraging the technology to reach people previously left out. The success of these pilots is encouraging more investment and expansion in this space.

Development Platforms and Tools for Stablecoin Solutions​

From a developer’s standpoint, choosing the right blockchain platform and tooling is crucial for building stablecoin-based applications that are efficient, secure, and compliant. Different blockchains offer different advantages in terms of speed, cost, and ecosystem support. Moreover, there are numerous open-source SDKs, APIs, and platforms that simplify the integration of stablecoins into new applications. Below we survey major blockchain platforms commonly used in fintech and stablecoin projects – including Ethereum, Solana, Polygon, Stellar, and others – and highlight the development tools and opportunities they provide.

Ethereum (and EVM Chains)​

Ethereum is the pioneer of stablecoins – most major stablecoins (USDT, USDC, DAI, etc.) were initially launched as ERC-20 tokens on Ethereum. For developers, Ethereum offers a mature environment with extensive tooling: well-known libraries like web3.js / ethers.js, Truffle/Hardhat for smart contracts, and standards like ERC-20 that ensure any stablecoin token can be easily integrated. The OpenZeppelin library provides audited contracts for issuing tokens, which can be used to create new stablecoins or interact with existing ones safely. While Ethereum’s mainnet has high fees at times, the rise of Layer-2 networks (like Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon PoS) allows stablecoin transactions with much lower cost, widening access. An example of developer tooling is Circle’s APIs and SDKs: Circle provides a set of APIs that abstract blockchain complexity and let developers accept or send USDC via simple API calls. Using Circle’s developer platform, one can implement stablecoin payments in an app “in just a few hundred lines of code”, handling addresses and confirmations through their SDK. This significantly lowers the barrier to integrating USDC on Ethereum and several other supported chains. Additionally, projects like Zero Hash and Fireblocks offer APIs for stablecoin conversion and custody that handle compliance, so developers can plug stablecoin functionality into fintech apps without directly managing private keys. Ethereum’s vast DeFi ecosystem also provides composability – for instance, a developer building a savings app can tap into lending protocols to offer interest on stablecoin deposits (though offering yield might introduce regulatory considerations like securities laws). Overall, Ethereum’s strengths are its network effects and rich tools, making it a default choice for many stablecoin use cases, especially when on-chain liquidity and composability are needed. The downside is ensuring affordability (hence using Layer-2 or sidechains) and scalability, but ongoing protocol upgrades and L2 adoption are continually improving that.

Solana​

Solana is a high-performance blockchain known for its low latency and low fees, which are attractive qualities for payment use cases. Solana has become a hub for stablecoin transactions – in fact, by 2024 it emerged as “the most used blockchain for stablecoin transfers” by volume. Major stablecoins like USDC are native on Solana, and even PayPal chose Solana as a chain for its PYUSD stablecoin due to its speed and throughput. For developers, Solana offers a different stack (programming in Rust for on-chain programs) and a growing array of tools. The Solana SDK and client libraries in Rust, C++, Python, TypeScript, etc., allow interacting with the chain. Unique to Solana, Solana Pay is a toolkit and protocol specifically for merchant payments using stablecoins (or any SPL token). Solana Pay provides a SDK for point-of-sale and e-commerce integration, enabling merchants to request payments via QR codes or web links that customers approve with their Solana wallet. This is open-source and designed to facilitate adoption of stablecoins in retail. Furthermore, Solana’s design includes features like “token extensions” which allow compliance functionalities at the token level. For example, Confidential Transfers (to hide amounts but still allow audits) and Transfer Hooks (to embed compliance checks or logic on transfers) are built into Solana’s token program and are being used by stablecoins like PYUSD. This means developers building regulated applications have ready-made tools for ensuring privacy or adding KYC logic on Solana, without needing external systems. Solana’s ecosystem also includes wallets like Phantom and Sollet, and infrastructure like Metaplex for tokens, which can be leveraged for user-friendly experiences. With Solana’s high throughput (tens of thousands of TPS), it’s possible to scale to nationwide payment levels – something that has drawn interest from fintech companies. The recent addition of PayPal’s PYUSD to Solana is a testament: “Solana’s speed and scalability make it the ideal blockchain for global financial institutions to create new payment solutions”. Developers targeting mass-market payments or micropayments (e.g. pay-per-use services for unbanked users) may find Solana fits well, given its focus on performance and its support from major payment players.

Polygon and Other EVM Sidechains​

Polygon (POS chain) has become a popular network for stablecoin applications due to its EVM-compatibility (it’s basically an extension of Ethereum) and low fees. Many Ethereum-based stablecoin projects have deployed on Polygon to serve users cost-effectively. For instance, Stripe’s crypto payout pilot in 2022 used Polygon to pay freelancers in USDC because transactions cost pennies and confirm quickly – ideal for frequent small payouts to people in emerging markets. Developers on Polygon can use all the familiar Ethereum tools (Solidity, web3 libraries, Metamask, etc.), which lowers the learning curve. Polygon’s ecosystem also offers specific tools: Polygon SDK for building one’s own sidechain or enterprise chain, and APIs from providers like Alchemy or Infura that support Polygon. The network is secured by a set of validators and periodically checkpoints to Ethereum. For compliance-focused development, one advantage is that any smart contracts or security audits done on Ethereum can be reused on Polygon. Moreover, Polygon ID is a new identity framework on Polygon that can allow privacy-preserving KYC credentials – something a developer could integrate to ensure only verified users access certain stablecoin services. Another advantage: stablecoins on Polygon often have liquidity bridges to Ethereum, so users can on-ramp via Ethereum and then operate on Polygon for cheaper transactions. Polygon’s adoption in developing markets is notable as well – for example, some microfinance and donation platforms choose Polygon to avoid burdening beneficiaries with gas fees. Additionally, Polygon’s enterprise arm has engaged with governments and companies (like in India) for blockchain solutions, potentially smoothing regulatory acceptance of apps built on Polygon. Other EVM-compatible chains like BNB Chain or Avalanche similarly host stablecoins and offer grant programs for developers, but Polygon stands out due to its early focus on inclusion and big partnerships (e.g. Meta, Reddit, and fintechs using it for NFTs and payments). In summary, developers wanting the solidity/Ethereum experience but with user-friendly costs often opt for Polygon, and they can leverage a wealth of open-source code and SDKs that carry over from Ethereum.

Stellar​

Stellar is a blockchain network expressly designed for payments and financial access, making it a natural choice for stablecoin use cases. Stellar was built to connect financial institutions, with built-in support for issuing fiat-backed tokens (“assets”) and a decentralized exchange for forex between tokens. Many regulated stablecoins have launched on Stellar (for example, Circle’s USDC is on Stellar, as are stablecoins for currencies like the Nigerian NGN and Argentine peso via local anchors). For developers, Stellar offers easy-to-use SDKs in multiple languages (JavaScript, Python, Java, etc.) and a RESTful API through Horizon, its API server. The network’s design abstracts much of the blockchain complexity: you can create accounts and send payments with simple function calls. Stellar also has a rich set of Stellar Ecosystem Protocols (SEPs) – basically application-layer standards – that cover things like KYC info transfer, fiat on/off-ramp integration, and multi-signature coordination. For example, SEP-24 and SEP-6 define how wallets can interact with anchors (entities that issue fiat tokens) for deposit/withdrawal. This is very relevant to compliance: a developer building a remittance app on Stellar can integrate an anchor that handles KYC and fiat custody, using the SEP standards to pass user info securely. The Stellar Development Foundation (SDF) provides extensive documentation and even support programs for developers. As noted in MoneyGram’s pilot, Stellar’s open-source resources made integration straightforward. SDF has open-source reference implementations for wallets and anchor servers, which developers can fork to bootstrap their projects. Notably, Stellar’s fee is tiny (fractions of a cent) and it reaches consensus in ~5 seconds, so it’s optimized for high-volume, low-value transactions – exactly the profile of many inclusion use cases (remittances, aid disbursements, micropayments). A significant development is Stellar Aid Assist, which as mentioned, provides a template for NGOs to bulk distribute aid via stablecoins. This platform is available for others to use – meaning developers working with NGOs could tap into that solution rather than reinventing it. In terms of community, Stellar has an active developer community and Community Fund grants, as well as an upcoming smart contract layer (Soroban) which might allow more complex compliance logic on-chain in the future. For now, Stellar’s simplicity and focus on compliance-friendly features (like tags on transactions for memos, whitelisting accounts if needed, etc.) make it a top choice for applications like cross-border payments and currency exchange for the unbanked.

Celo​

Celo is a platform with a mission aligned to financial inclusion. It is a mobile-first, EVM-compatible blockchain that also issues its own stablecoins (cUSD, cEUR, etc., backed by a crypto reserve). Celo’s unique angle is phone number identity and lightweight client syncing, which aims to make using a Celo dApp as easy as a mobile app even on low-end devices. For developers, Celo provides the Celo SDK, composed of ContractKit and DAppKit, which streamlines building mobile dApps. With DAppKit, a developer can easily connect their React Native (Expo) mobile app to the user’s Celo mobile wallet for signing transactions, simplifying the UX for mobile users. ContractKit (a JavaScript/TypeScript SDK) makes it easy to interact with Celo’s core contracts and stablecoin primitives – for example, adding a few lines to transfer Celo Dollars or query balances. Celo was specifically designed to reach the “1 in 3 adults without a bank account,” as their SDK introduction states. This ethos is reflected in features like allowing users to pay transaction fees in stablecoins (so they don’t need to hold the native token for gas). For compliance, while Celo is permissionless like Ethereum, they have an alliance of partners (the Celo Alliance for Prosperity) including many NGOs and local financial institutions, which helps ensure Celo-based projects engage with local regulators and communities. The Celo Foundation and cLabs support developers through initiatives like Celo Camp (an accelerator) and various grant programs. An example case study is Kotani Pay in Kenya, which used Celo to provide a USSD-interface wallet for users without smartphones, enabling them to receive stablecoins that could be converted to mobile money. Celo’s design – ultralight mobile clients and identity mapping – is beneficial for rural or low-infrastructure areas. With Celo joining the broader Ethereum Layer-2 ecosystem (plans underway to transition Celo to an L2 on Ethereum for greater security while keeping costs low), developers can expect even easier interoperability. To summarize, Celo offers a focused toolkit for building user-friendly, mobile-centric stablecoin apps and comes with a supportive community aimed at real-world deployments in developing regions.

Hedera Hashgraph​

Hedera is an enterprise-focused public ledger governed by a council of large corporations and institutions. It introduced a purpose-built toolkit for stablecoins called Stablecoin Studio – an open-source SDK that provides an end-to-end solution for issuing and managing stablecoins on Hedera. This toolkit allows developers (particularly those working with banks or enterprises) to configure a stablecoin with built-in compliance features like oracle-based proof-of-reserves and integration with custody providers. Essentially, it abstracts the heavy lifting of writing smart contracts; Stablecoin Studio uses Hedera’s native token service and consensus service to handle token issuance and transactions with high throughput and finality. One notable use case: Standard Bank (the largest bank in Africa and a Hedera governing council member) used Stablecoin Studio in a proof-of-concept for cross-border remittances within Africa. They praised that the toolkit “speeds up development…allowing businesses to focus on delivering benefits to customers”, highlighting that it prioritizes regulatory compliance and security from the ground up. Hedera’s advantages for developers include fast transactions (seconds) with very low fees ($0.0001 range), and a predictable governance and legal framework (the council model). For those building stablecoin apps for banks or governments, Hedera might appeal because of its controlled and audited environment – for instance, Shinhan Bank of South Korea piloted international remittances using won and rupiah stablecoins on Hedera (an example of a bank-issued stablecoin trial). The existence of grant programs and an active developer community via the HBAR Foundation can provide funding and support. The main difference is that Hedera is not EVM-based (though it supports Solidity smart contracts now), so developers may use its Java/JavaScript SDKs or the Stablecoin Studio CLI rather than Ethereum tools. Still, for many straightforward payment use cases, one might not even need custom smart contracts – Hedera’s native token functionality can cover it. In summary, Hedera offers a enterprise-grade, turnkey approach to stablecoins, suitable for developers working closely with legacy financial institutions who require strong assurances of compliance (e.g. audit trails, account KYC tagging) and performance.

Of course, there are other platforms (Algorand, TRON, Ripple’s XRP Ledger, etc.) where stablecoins live and developers might find opportunity. Algorand has been used for some national digital currency pilots and also hosts USDC; it’s known for a solid tech with quick finality and has developer grants via the Algorand Foundation. TRON, while more associated with retail crypto usage, carries a huge volume of Tether (USDT) transactions at very low cost and has been a de facto network for informal remittances in some Asian and African corridors. Tron’s developer tools are similar to Ethereum’s (as it uses Solidity), but one should be mindful that Tron’s regulatory standing is less clear (the company behind it faced scrutiny). Ripple’s XRP Ledger now supports issuing stablecoins and some projects (like Palau’s USD-backed digital currency pilot) are happening there; Ripple provides tools for issuing tokens on XRP Ledger and has a large financial industry network. Each platform has its pros and cons, but the common trend is that developer tooling is maturing across the board – whether it’s easy-to-use SDKs, comprehensive documentation, or built-in compliance features, it’s becoming simpler to build stablecoin applications on most major chains.

To consolidate the comparison, the table below summarizes major chains and the developer tools and platforms available:

Blockchain Platform	Key Stablecoins & Features	Developer Tools & Platforms	Notable Programs/Integrations
Ethereum (Mainnet & Layer-2)	USDT, USDC, DAI (ERC-20) – largest stablecoin liquidity and DeFi integration. High security but mainnet gas fees can be high.	Web3 libraries (ethers.js, web3.py), Truffle/Hardhat for smart contracts. OpenZeppelin contracts for token standards. Circle API/SDK for USDC payments integration. Extensive docs and developer community support (StackExchange, etc.).	Most DeFi protocols (MakerDAO, Aave) support stablecoins – enabling savings/loans. Layer-2 networks (Arbitrum, Optimism) used for lower-cost stablecoin txns. Stripe’s payout API uses Polygon (EVM sidechain) for USDC. Numerous hackathons/grants via Ethereum Foundation and others.
Solana	USDC (native), USDT, and now PayPal’s PYUSD on Solana. Very fast (~400ms block) and ~$0.0001 fees, good for real-time payments. Token programs support advanced features (memos, transfer hooks) for compliance.	Solana SDKs in Rust, C++, TS, etc. Solana Pay SDK for merchant payment integration. Developer-friendly APIs via Serum, Solana Beach, etc. Good documentation on Solana.dev.	PayPal’s PYUSD on Solana (for fast settlement). Shopify and Helium/Helio integration for Solana Pay (allowing stablecoin checkout). Solana Foundation runs hackathons and grants (Solana Grant DAO) emphasizing payments and fintech.
Polygon (EVM Chain)	USDC, USDT, DAI all on Polygon with robust usage. Low fee (pennies) and ~2s block time. Inherits Ethereum security via checkpoints. Popular for fintech due to EVM compatibility.	Same tools as Ethereum (Solidity, Remix, Metamask). Polygon POS SDK for custom chains. Alchemy/Infura RPC support. Polygon ID for integrating decentralized identity/KYC.	Stripe crypto payouts (pilot to Latin America) used Polygon USDC. Many remittance startups (e.g. Xend Finance) build on Polygon for cost efficiency. Polygon has grants (Polygon Village) and partners with centers like UNICEF CryptoFund (which funded some Polygon projects).
Stellar	Native support for fiat tokens (multiple stablecoins: USD (USDC), EURT, NGNT, etc. issued by anchors). Near-zero fees and 5s finality. Built-in DEX for currency conversion.	Horizon API (REST) for easy network queries/tx submissions. SDKs in JavaScript, Python, Java, Go, etc.. Stellar Ecosystem Protocols (SEP) for KYC and fiat on/off (SEP-6, SEP-24). Tools for multi-sig, batching, etc. Provided by SDF with thorough docs.	MoneyGram Access API – allows apps to plug into MoneyGram’s cash network via Stellar. Stellar Community Fund grants for projects. Stellar Aid Assist platform available for NGOs to use. Partnerships with fintechs (Flutterwave, Tempo) provide anchors in Africa and Europe.
Celo	cUSD, cEUR (stablecoins native to Celo with reserve backing), plus supports USDC. Ultra-mobile-friendly (phone number mapping, lightweight client). Carbon-negative chain (PoS).	Celo SDK (ContractKit & DAppKit) – open source tools to easily add Celo stablecoin functionality into mobile apps. EVM compatible, so Solidity smart contracts and Ethereum dev tools work. Valora wallet open-sourced for reference.	Celo Camp accelerator and Celo Foundation grants for inclusion projects. Alliances with NGOs (e.g. Grameen Foundation tested lending with Celo stablecoin). Mento protocol for stablecoin stability accessible if devs need to understand mint/burn. Integration with M-Pesa via partners (Kotani Pay) to bridge stablecoin to mobile money in East Africa.
Hedera Hashgraph	Various bank pilots (e.g. stablecoins for South Korean won, Kenyan shilling). Recently launched Stablecoin Studio SDK for issuers. Very fast (finality in seconds) and low, fixed fees – appealing to enterprises.	Stablecoin Studio (open-source) – toolkit to configure/launch stablecoins with compliance (proof-of-reserve, etc.). Hedera Java/JS SDKs for interacting with Hedera services (token service, consensus service). Swagger API docs for REST access.	Used by Standard Bank in Africa for a remittance POC. Hedera’s HBAR Foundation offers funding for payment use cases. Google, IBM, etc. on governing council, which can open doors for enterprise adoption (e.g. ERP system integration). Some governments (e.g. Haiti project for aid) have explored Hedera for transparency in fund flows.
Other Platforms	Algorand: USDC, USDT on Algorand; 4s finality, very low fee, strong on-chain security. TRON: Dominant for USDT in Asia/Africa, negligible fees, high TPS. Ripple XRP Ledger: Supports issued currencies (IOUs); low fees, built-in DEX; being used in some national stablecoin pilots.	Algorand SDKs (Python, Go, JS) and developer portal; Algorand has AlgoKit for quick app scaffolding. TRON uses Solidity – devs can use TronGrid API, TronWeb similar to web3. XRP Ledger has easy issuance of tokens via API/CLI, and RippleAPI/SDKs in JavaScript and Java. Open-source and well-documented.	Algorand was used in Marshall Islands’ SOV project and has a finance focus; the Algorand Foundation offers grants (e.g. to inclusion startups like MikroTik). TRON’s USDT widely used for informal remittances (e.g. Chinese traders in Africa); Tron's creator established a fund for developers (though regulatory support is less official). Ripple has a $250M fund for crypto payments and engaged central banks – e.g. Palau’s USD stablecoin trial on XRPL.

Table: Major blockchains for stablecoin development, highlighting available developer tools and notable integrations.

Each platform above presents opportunities for developers: the choice may depend on the target user base and compliance needs. For instance, if building a wallet for refugees, Stellar or Celo (with their focus on simplicity and identity) might be ideal. For a merchant payment network aiming for retail adoption, Solana or Polygon could be better suited due to throughput and existing payment integrations. Ethereum and its L2s remain essential if interoperability with the broader DeFi/crypto ecosystem is needed (e.g. offering savings yield or leveraging existing infrastructure like MetaMask for user access). It’s also common to use multi-chain approaches – for example, use Stellar or Celo for last-mile delivery to users (low fees on basic phones) but settle or fund via Ethereum where liquidity is high. Tools like Circle’s Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol (CCTP) are emerging to let developers move stablecoins across chains easily, opening the door to apps that seamlessly leverage multiple networks.

Importantly, many of these developer resources are open-source or freely accessible. This means developers in any country can start building without needing to reinvent core components – whether it’s using an SDK to handle wallet key management, or deploying an audited stablecoin contract, or integrating an API for compliance checks. The maturation of these tools is accelerating the pace at which new stablecoin solutions for inclusion can be prototyped and scaled.

Partnerships and Support Programs​

Innovating in the stablecoin-for-inclusion space often requires collaboration and support beyond just technical tools. Fortunately, a growing number of partnerships, consortiums, and grant programs are available to help developers and organizations succeed in this domain. These range from nonprofit initiatives to corporate and government-backed programs:

• NGO and Humanitarian Partnerships: Organizations like Mercy Corps, Red Cross, Oxfam, and UN agencies have become active partners for pilot projects. As detailed, Mercy Corps Ventures launched multiple pilots and also runs the Crypto for Good Fund (C4G), which by 2024 had supported 15+ pilots reaching 40,000+ users. In its latest round, C4G4 (2024–25) explicitly seeks startups leveraging stablecoins to drive financial inclusion in the Global South. This fund provides grant financing and mentoring – an invaluable resource for developers with a great idea but needing initial support. The UNICEF Innovation Fund has similarly given grants/equity to blockchain startups (some involving stablecoins for communities) and even holds some treasury in crypto to deploy for such trials. The World Food Programme and UNHCR have opened the door for partnerships through their blockchain experiments – a developer might collaborate via initiatives like Stellar Aid Assist, essentially providing technology to large aid programs. Also, Oxfam’s “UnBlocked Cash” project (piloted in Vanuatu) used a stablecoin on a private Ethereum instance for disaster aid, in partnership with fintech Sempo, demonstrating NGOs are willing to trial solutions and partner with tech providers. These partnerships not only provide funding but also on-the-ground expertise and user bases to test with.

• Development Finance Institutions and Alliances: Entities such as the World Bank, USAID, and regional development banks have begun exploring stablecoins in the context of remittances and financial inclusion. For example, the World Bank published research on tokenized remittances, and some development funds have sponsored hackathons on cross-border payments. USAID has funded research and small pilots (one report examined using Stellar for digital payments in aid delivery). The Gates Foundation’s Mojaloop open-source payment platform, while not using stablecoins yet, has a community that’s discussing how central bank digital currencies or stablecoins could interoperate for inclusion – a developer plugged into those communities could find support and a pathway to real deployments in national payment systems. Additionally, alliances like the Better Than Cash Alliance (a UN-hosted alliance of governments and companies for digital finance) have interest in how stablecoins can reduce cash reliance. Being aware of and involved in these initiatives can give developers access to policy advice, regulatory sandboxes, and sometimes funding or endorsements.

• Corporate and Fintech Programs: Major fintech and crypto companies are sponsoring innovation in this space. Visa and Mastercard have both launched crypto integration programs – e.g., Visa has partnered with Circle to settle transactions in USDC, and Mastercard ran a program called Start Path Crypto which included some stablecoin startups focusing on emerging markets. Ripple’s Impact Fund provided $10+ million to NGOs (like Mercy Corps and others) to explore blockchain solutions; Ripple specifically partnered in the Kenyan herders project, contributing $25k in stablecoins. Stellar Development Foundation has an Enterprise Fund that has invested in companies building on Stellar (like Flutterwave for African payments). Celo’s Alliance for Prosperity connects over 100 organizations (from Grameen to PayPal to startups) all interested in blockchain for social impact – joining that alliance can lead to valuable mentorship and partnership opportunities. Exchanges like Binance (via Binance Charity) and Coinbase (via their philanthropy arm) have also funded pilot programs (Binance Charity did stablecoin donations in Uganda, for instance). Moreover, hackathons such as the annual ETHGlobal hackathons, Solana hackathons, etc., often have an “impact” or “financial inclusion” track sponsored by organizations looking to award prizes to promising ideas (and those prizes can be sizable seed funding).

• Government and Regulatory Sandboxes: Some forward-thinking governments have created sandboxes or accelerators for crypto-inclusive finance. Bahrain and Abu Dhabi (UAE) have sandbox programs where a stablecoin remittance or microfinance project could be tested with regulatory supervision but without full licensing immediately. Singapore’s MAS ran a Global CBDC challenge that, while focused on central bank coins, also embraced ideas around privately issued stablecoins for inclusion. UK’s FCA has a sandbox that has admitted crypto asset projects; a stablecoin-based cross-border payment startup could apply and get temporary permissions to operate and iterate. Such programs often involve working closely with regulators – which can be advantageous in shaping sensible rules if the pilot succeeds. In Latin America, countries like Colombia and Mexico have fintech sandboxes under their fintech laws, which might allow stablecoin-related projects (Mexico’s fintech law regulates e-money and possibly could cover peso stablecoins). Leveraging these can not only ensure compliance but also signal to investors that the project is being built hand-in-hand with authorities.

• Open-Source Communities and Academics: There are also less formal but important support systems in the open-source community. Projects like Mifos/Apache Fineract (open-source core banking software for microfinance) are exploring integration with crypto – a developer contributing there might integrate stablecoin wallets in a microfinance institution setting. Hack4Impact and university blockchain clubs (e.g., at UC Berkeley or MIT) often collaborate on social good projects and can rally talent to help a cause-driven startup. Academically, the MIT Digital Currency Initiative and Stanford’s blockchain program sometimes partner with NGOs to prototype solutions, bringing research credibility and technical audits.

In essence, developers and startups in this arena are not alone – a wide network of supporters is interested in the success of stablecoins for financial inclusion. Reaching out to these programs can provide essential resources: funding, expert guidance on regulatory compliance, access to pilot users, and credibility. Many successful case studies discussed earlier had backing from such partnerships (UNHCR with Stellar, Mercy Corps with Ripple, Airtm with Circle, etc.).

It’s also worth mentioning that as stablecoin use in underserved markets grows, local partnerships are key. Working with local mobile money providers, microfinance institutions, cooperatives, or telecoms can accelerate user adoption. For example, a developer might integrate a stablecoin wallet with a mobile money agent network (similar to how Wave in Senegal or MTN in Africa operate) to reach rural users – these partnerships help with cash-in/cash-out and trust-building, while the tech provider handles the blockchain side.

Finally, governments themselves are partnering in some cases. For instance, El Salvador, after its Bitcoin move, considered stablecoins for certain uses; Palau partnered with Ripple on a national stablecoin for USD; and Colombia reportedly ran a pilot for distributing subsidies on a blockchain wallet. These public-private partnerships indicate that being open to collaborating with central banks or finance ministries (when they show interest) could lead to groundbreaking projects (albeit with longer timelines).

---

In conclusion, stablecoins present a unique convergence of technology, finance, and social impact. The use cases that comply with existing regulations – like remittances, aid, and savings – have demonstrated powerful results in reaching the unbanked. Regulatory clarity is steadily improving in many jurisdictions, removing barriers to innovation. Developers have at their disposal an expanding arsenal of open-source tools and supportive platforms across multiple blockchains, lowering the technical hurdles. And importantly, a robust ecosystem of partners – from NGOs to fintech firms to enlightened regulators – is ready to back solutions that can improve lives and expand financial access. By thoughtfully combining these elements, developers can seize the opportunity to build the next generation of stablecoin applications that are not only groundbreaking but also compliant and inclusive – helping bring millions of people into the global financial fold.

Sources: Stablecoins enable faster, cheaper remittances and aid payments; UNHCR’s Stellar-based stablecoin aid to Ukrainian refugees; Regulatory frameworks like EU MiCA provide clarity; Singapore’s MAS stablecoin rules; MoneyGram and Stellar partnership for cash-to-USDC for the unbanked; Mercy Corps stablecoin pilot results; Airtm and Circle’s USDC case study (35% cost savings); Solana’s adoption for payments (PayPal PYUSD); Stellar’s developer tools and anchor network; Hedera’s Stablecoin Studio for compliant issuance; Mercy Corps Ventures Crypto for Good Fund impact; Stablecoin remittance cost reduction UK-Nigeria; Shopify and merchant stablecoin payments; and others as cited throughout.

Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) at tech companies often oversee a patchwork of enterprise tools beyond the core accounting system. These include HR suites, procurement platforms, analytics dashboards, collaboration apps, and full-blown ERP systems. Many CFOs report deep frustrations with such software. Below we compile specific products frequently criticized by finance chiefs, direct quotes capturing their sentiments, the reasons behind the dislike, and context where available.

Workday (HR & People Management Platform)​

CFO Pain Points: Cumbersome user experience; tedious processes for basic tasks; poor integration of HR data; time wasted by staff; high cost for what it delivers.

Workday is a cloud HR/talent management system used by over half the Fortune 500, including many tech firms . Yet it’s notorious for inflicting pain on its users – and CFOs hear about it. In one Business Insider piece bluntly titled “Everyone hates Workday,” employees across roles vented about its inefficiency. For example, a Reddit user raged: “I simply hate Workday… Everything is non-intuitive, so even the simplest tasks leave me scratching my head. Keeping notes on index cards would be more effective.” Another described onboarding a new hire via Workday as “like trying to get water from your sink to your stove using a colander.”

Such poor UX and convoluted workflows – for actions like applying to jobs, booking leave, or filing expenses – lead to “cosmic exasperation” among users. CFOs at tech companies feel the impact: HR processes take longer, data gets siloed in Workday, and employees procrastinate or seek workarounds. A Reddit discussion revealed that one company’s decision to adopt Workday was driven by necessity rather than love; their CFO admitted they “had to switch software because [we] had grown too big for the old system,” essentially outgrowing a simpler HR tool . In other words, finance leaders often view Workday as a necessary evil – they need a scalable system-of-record for payroll and personnel, even if it frustrates everyone. As one commenter astutely noted, Workday (and similar enterprise suites) succeed not because end-users enjoy them, but because they sell to corporate buyers with priorities other than usability . “HR managers, rank-and-file employees, and job applicants have never been Workday’s customers… Its actual customers are the corporations… It’s them, the users, who find themselves ‘botsmacked by bureaucracy incarnate.’” In short, CFOs continue to buy Workday for its compliance and data centralization benefits, all while acknowledging (often privately) the “misery” it creates .

Why CFOs Dislike It: Workday draws ire for its labyrinthine interface and inefficiency. CFOs hear constant complaints about how “difficult it is to book paid leave, how Kafkaesque it is to file an expense” in Workday . This translates into lost productivity and employee frustration, which ultimately hit the finance team’s efficiency too. Additionally, lack of interoperability can be an issue – finance chiefs struggle when Workday doesn’t seamlessly feed headcount or payroll data into their planning models, forcing manual data pulls. And, of course, Workday’s hefty price tag (it’s a $65B+ SaaS behemoth ) can make a CFO question the ROI given the user gripes. Tech CFOs at high-growth firms sometimes implement Workday for HR only to find adoption problems and incomplete utilization of its modules . As one operations exec observed, companies often buy an all-in-one platform like Workday with grand hopes, but over time “the rest of the platform capabilities… [go] ‘clunky,’ not properly configured… and met with disgust by end users. Everyone blames the software.” In sum, CFOs resent that Workday promises a lot on paper but delivers headaches in practice, requiring expensive implementations and training for a tool that many in the organization openly despise.

Context: Workday is prevalent at large enterprises and mid-to-large tech companies (e.g. Netflix, Spotify, medium-sized startups scaling up). CFOs at these firms are often the executive sponsors of Workday projects (alongside HR). They appreciate the robust compliance and data auditability but lament the toll on usability. Even Amazon’s attempted global rollout of Workday reportedly stumbled and was scrapped, a high-profile failure that underscores Workday’s implementation challenges . For CFOs, the takeaway is that Workday can strain operations and morale, and it requires significant change management – all of which makes it one of the most begrudgingly used tools in their arsenal.

Procurement Platforms: Coupa & SAP Ariba​

CFO Pain Points: Overly complex workflows that discourage usage; high subscription costs (especially for mid-sized companies); poor user interface; integration hurdles with financial systems; aggressive vendor sales tactics.

To manage purchasing and supplier spending, many tech companies use dedicated procurement suites. Coupa and SAP Ariba are two market-leading examples that often come up in CFO circles – frequently accompanied by groans. These systems are powerful, but CFOs and their teams often find them clunky and unintuitive. Users tasked with actually ordering supplies or making purchase requests echo this sentiment loudly. One commenter on a procurement forum minced no words: “I hate Ariba… this was not designed to be user friendly or intuitive at all!” . That sentiment is common – Ariba (an SAP product) is known for its labyrinthine interface. Employees trying to “do the right thing” by following procurement policy encounter significant friction and tedious multi-step forms, which can lead them to bypass the system entirely (a nightmare for CFOs who then lose visibility into spend).

Coupa, a newer cloud procurement tool popular in tech, isn’t immune from criticism either. While Coupa markets itself as user-friendly, some finance leaders feel it’s over-engineered for smaller firms. In a Reddit discussion, one user observed that “Coupa is overpriced and overly complex for most companies under 1000 employees.” Mid-market tech CFOs often concur – they find Coupa’s cost hard to justify before a company is very large, and its myriad features overkill when you just want basic spend control. A common outcome is low adoption: business teams avoid raising purchase orders because the system is too cumbersome, defeating the CFO’s goal of centralized procurement. As a LinkedIn poster quipped about reluctant CFOs, “Procurement – that’s a later problem.” The result of this mindset or of poor tools is often rogue spending outside the platform, which frustrates CFOs because it undermines budget discipline.

Beyond usability issues, CFOs also dislike the pushy sales and licensing models of some procurement software vendors. Oracle’s NetSuite (which also offers procurement modules) drew such ire: one finance user recounted that their CFO got “sick of” the account manager constantly trying to upsell modules, and ultimately banned the rep from bothering the CFO directly . This highlights a general CFO frustration with enterprise vendors: once you’re locked in, they relentlessly push add-ons and renewals. Coupa and Ariba contracts can be similarly complex, with modular pricing that CFOs must negotiate. Rising costs and lack of flexibility in these contracts rankle finance chiefs, especially in tech where agility is prized.

Why CFOs Dislike Them: The core complaint is poor UX leading to low adoption. CFOs invest in procurement tools to get a handle on company spending, but if employees “hate” the tool, compliance drops. “This complexity introduces significant friction and frustration for employees as they seek to do the ‘right thing’ with procurement,” notes one KPMG report – meaning policies go unenforced. CFOs end up with visibility gaps and still resort to chasing down off-system purchases. Additionally, implementation complexity is a sore point: integrating Coupa/Ariba with ERP and payment systems can be a multi-quarter IT project, something resource-strapped finance teams dread. For mid-size tech companies, CFOs often feel these enterprise-grade tools are overkill – as one person put it, too many features “for most companies under 1000 employees” . Lastly, the cost is a big factor. These platforms are not cheap, and they charge per-user or per-module fees that add up. CFOs question paying premium prices if the software isn’t widely embraced internally.

Context: Large tech enterprises (think thousands of employees) often have no choice but to adopt tools like Coupa or Ariba to manage spend at scale. Their CFOs see some benefits in standardizing procurement. However, even at that scale, the user revolt is real – Reddit threads feature procurement professionals across industries commiserating about “the worst” tools (Ariba being a frequent target). Mid-sized tech companies (a few hundred employees) are a special case: their CFOs are torn between needing more control as they grow, and fearing that a heavy procurement system will be “too much” and choke agility. In many cases, those CFOs delay implementing such tools, or opt for lighter-weight alternatives, precisely because of the negative experiences they’ve heard about. As one procurement startup CEO noted, convincing CFOs to love procurement requires addressing “rogue spending” and the fact that limited visibility makes them nervous . Until usability improves, CFOs often harbor a quiet dislike for these procurement behemoths.

Travel & Expense Reporting: SAP Concur​

CFO Pain Points: Tortuous expense filing process; employees procrastinating or making errors; lack of real-time visibility; integration gaps with credit cards/HR; user hatred leading to compliance issues.

If there’s one enterprise system employees universally loathe, it might be the corporate expense report tool – and CFOs hear the complaints loud and clear. SAP Concur, a leading travel & expense (T&E) management system, is so disliked that it’s practically a meme in many companies. Workers vent that Concur turns even simple reimbursements into an ordeal. “I put off doing my expense reports till the last possible minute because I hate Concur so much. I’ve never had an easy travel booking experience,” one user confessed bluntly . That “delay until the deadline” behavior is something finance teams observe frequently – and it wreaks havoc on monthly closing of books when piles of expenses arrive last-minute.

The CFO’s office dislikes Concur not only because employees hate it, but because it slows down expense processing and can hide true spending until late. A software review summarizing Concur noted the “interface is slow, could be more modern… lots of redundant steps” . CFOs at tech companies, who pride themselves on efficient processes, get frustrated when a supposedly digital solution creates more manual effort. For example, Concur might ask an employee to upload a receipt that the system already has on file from the travel booking – an unnecessary redundancy that one reviewer called out explicitly . Multiply these annoyances across hundreds of workers, and you have finance teams spending extra time policing receipts and answering helpdesk questions like “How do I get Concur to accept my hotel bill?”

Why CFOs Dislike It: In short, Concur (and similar expense tools) often fail at user-friendliness, causing compliance friction. CFOs count on these systems to enforce travel policy and capture all receipts for auditing – tasks which they do perform – but at the cost of employee goodwill. The poor UX leads to errors (users mis-tag expenses or choose wrong categories) that finance has to clean up. It’s telling that even in positive reviews, users describe Concur’s interface as “busy” and requiring significant time investment to learn . CFOs find that training and support costs for T&E systems are higher than they’d like, and yet many employees still struggle or avoid the system.

Moreover, CFOs often grumble about reporting limitations in these tools. Getting a consolidated view of spend by department or project in Concur isn’t always straightforward, so finance analysts still export data to Excel to analyze travel costs. This “export to spreadsheet” workaround feels like a regression when the whole point was to have an integrated solution. As a result, CFOs sometimes explore alternatives (or even homegrown expense apps) despite having already sunk money into Concur licenses.

Context: Almost any established tech company (from late-stage startups up to giants like Google) will have an expense system in place; Concur is one of the most common, though alternatives like Expensify or internal tools exist. The unhappiness with Concur spans industries and company sizes – it’s not unique to tech – but tech CFOs are perhaps more vocal about wanting a better user experience (given the tech sector’s focus on UX). Interestingly, some tech companies forgo full-featured tools like Concur in favor of lighter solutions (or corporate credit cards with automatic feeds), precisely to avoid the Concur-induced hatred that can stunt compliance. CFOs walking this line have to balance controls vs. employee experience. The consensus from finance chiefs who have used Concur is that while it “serves the purpose” of capturing expenses, it could be far more streamlined. As one reviewer noted, “no reason to stay behind an old interface when [the software] can be as modern and intuitive as possible.” Until that evolution happens, CFOs will continue hearing groans whenever “submit your expenses” reminders go out.

Collaboration & Communication: Slack (vs. Microsoft Teams)​

CFO Pain Points: High licensing costs for Slack, especially when Microsoft Teams is bundled “free”; overlapping tools causing inefficiency; concerns about productivity and distraction; data retention costs.

Modern tech companies live on instant messaging platforms for internal communication. Slack, in particular, has been a darling of engineers and product teams – but not always of CFOs. The issue isn’t that Slack has bad usability (on the contrary, users generally like the UX); rather, CFOs dislike its cost and redundancy when alternatives exist. A candid discussion among IT pros highlighted the economics: “Slack is pretty expensive on an enterprise level. Meanwhile, Microsoft offers big discounts on Teams if [it’s] part of a broader contract… Teams can be as little as a quarter the cost [of Slack]… Honestly, for what it does, [Slack] is really expensive.” For a CFO, this kind of cost differential is hard to ignore. Many tech companies already pay for Microsoft 365, which includes Teams at no extra charge. CFOs thus often push to “standardize” on Teams to save money, even if the IT or engineering folks prefer Slack.

This dynamic has led to tension in some companies. As one anonymous employee on a forum put it, “the business/finance people force [Teams] for cost… ‘they’re the same thing’.” In other words, CFOs and finance leadership sometimes perceive Slack and Teams as equivalent collaboration tools and opt for the cheaper (or bundled) option. Engineers, who might find Slack more user-friendly or feature-rich, see this as bean-counting that hurts their workflow – but from the CFO’s lens, paying potentially seven figures a year for Slack (which can happen at large orgs with many users) isn’t justifiable if a free alternative is already in place. In fact, cases have been cited of companies discovering they had multiple paid Slack workspaces, leading to one of the “biggest IT spends they had” when consolidated , or even “30 Slack instances… total bill close to a million per year” . Those revelations make any CFO cringe.

Why CFOs Dislike It: The primary reason is cost inefficiency. Slack’s per-user pricing can climb quickly in a growing tech company. CFOs are tasked with managing SaaS spend tightly, and Slack looks like an easy target if an organization can move to Teams (or another chat platform) and save hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some CFOs also voice concerns about the productivity impact of Slack’s always-on chat culture – though this is more anecdotal. (For instance, CFOs have noted that constant Slack pings can disrupt deep work, which has an indirect cost on productivity, though employees can say the same of email.) However, the cost argument tends to overshadow this; one CFO humorously remarked that with Slack’s price, “we’re essentially paying top dollar for distractions.”

Additionally, CFOs must consider data retention and security. Slack’s free tier deletes message history after a limit, whereas regulatory or legal needs may require retention – which means upgrading and paying even more. Finance chiefs in more regulated tech sectors (fintech, healthtech) might dislike Slack if they feel it’s not as secure or compliant-ready without expensive add-ons. Microsoft, by contrast, pitches Teams as enterprise-ready and included in the suite, which appeals to a CFO’s sense of value.

Context: The Slack-vs-Teams debate typically hits mid-sized to large tech companies. A small startup might use Slack’s free version with no issue (and no CFO angst). But once a company scales to a few hundred employees, the CFO faces a decision: keep Slack and start paying significant subscription fees, or migrate to the already-paid-for Teams. Many enterprise tech companies with seasoned CFOs have chosen the latter, especially if their workforce is accustomed to Microsoft tools. Some high-profile tech firms, however, stick with Slack as a cultural choice, essentially accepting the cost. Interestingly, Slack’s own former CFO (when Slack was independent) argued that Slack improves productivity – but now that Slack is part of Salesforce, even Salesforce’s finance chief must weigh its cost versus bundled competition. The trend in recent years is clear: CFOs are increasingly scrutinizing collaboration software ROI. As one IT professional observed, “our company is holding out [on switching], but losing the good fight because [the finance team says] ‘they’re the same thing’.” That encapsulates the CFO stance – if two tools achieve the same core function, pick the one that impacts the bottom line least. And that often means giving Slack the side-eye, if not the boot.

Business Intelligence & Analytics Dashboards (Tableau, Power BI, Salesforce Analytics)​

CFO Pain Points: Slow or rigid reporting tools leading to reliance on Excel; difficulty in getting “one version of truth”; poor tailoring of dashboards for financial metrics; high costs for licenses that aren’t fully used.

CFOs rely on data to drive decisions, and tech companies typically have fancy analytics or dashboarding tools (like Tableau, Microsoft Power BI, or Looker) to visualize data. In theory, these tools should empower finance teams with self-service reporting. In practice, many CFOs end up frustrated because the tools don’t fully replace the trusty spreadsheet. In fact, a survey found Excel is still the most-used tool by finance professionals, but it has “relatively low satisfaction scores” compared to BI tools . This love-hate relationship with Excel exists because the BI dashboards often fall short. A finance manager on Reddit highlighted common executive complaints after their company moved reports from Excel to Tableau: “It takes forever to load! Can’t you change X, Y, Z on this table for the meeting in 10 mins?” and general gripes that Tableau was less flexible for ad-hoc tweaks than Excel . CFOs hearing these complaints may start to view the shiny analytics software as more trouble than it’s worth.

One specific frustration is the speed (or lack thereof) of these tools. Unlike a static Excel file, a live dashboard might lag or take 10 seconds to refresh in a meeting – which, as one Redditor noted, “feels like an hour” when an executive is waiting . CFOs, who often present numbers to CEOs and boards, find this delay unacceptable. It undermines confidence when you have to say, “Please wait for the data to load.” As a result, some CFOs direct their teams to export data from the BI tools back into Excel to make board decks, defeating the purpose of the investment. Indeed, even outside the finance department, power users have resorted to bypassing native reporting: “I’ve gotten so fed up with Salesforce [reports] that I’ve taken to exporting data… and displaying [it] in external dashboards,” one person admitted . That sentiment resonates with finance folks who deal with Salesforce data; CFOs frequently complain that sales pipeline reports from CRM require heavy manipulation before they’re useful.

Why CFOs Dislike Them: The crux is promise vs. reality. Analytics platforms promise real-time insight and easy slicing of data, but CFOs often find that achieving the exact report they need is a project in itself. Either the tool doesn’t natively format financial statements well (e.g., showing an Income Statement layout in Tableau can “defeat the purpose” without complex workarounds ), or finance staff lack the training to modify dashboards quickly. Thus, CFOs see persistent dependence on IT or BI teams for what should be straightforward tweaks. One CFO lamented having to always go to IT for information because data was scattered in various systems: “Even as the CFO I didn’t know [where to find it] because we had it all over the place.” This speaks to integration issues – the dashboards are only as good as the data feeds, and if you have separate HR, CRM, and finance systems, the single source of truth remains elusive. CFOs get frustrated when their team has to reconcile numbers from multiple systems manually outside the fancy BI tool.

Cost is another factor. These analytics tools come with per-user or enterprise license fees. CFOs might not mind paying if usage is high, but often they observe that only a handful of power users build reports, while many others just consume occasionally. Paying steep fees for licenses that managers barely log into can irk a cost-conscious CFO. They might think: “Why are we paying for Tableau AND still using Excel? Could we downgrade or use a cheaper tool?” In some cases, CFOs have explored Google Data Studio or open-source BI as alternatives, simply to cut cost and complexity.

Lastly, CFOs dislike when analytics tools create a false sense of security. A majority (over 90%) of CFOs in one survey confessed they do not completely trust the accuracy of their company’s financial data – often because data moves between systems (and spreadsheets). So, if a flashy dashboard is built on questionable data, it’s basically a pretty facade. CFOs would rather have reliable numbers, even if it means a scrappy Excel model, than a polished visualization built on sand. This skepticism can make them cynics about new analytics software, especially if they’ve been burned by “insight-poor” implementations before.

Context: At virtually all tech companies, CFOs deal with a mix of BI tools and Excel. Early-stage startups might rely purely on spreadsheets (which CFOs find labor-intensive but within control), whereas larger tech firms deploy tools like Tableau, Looker, or proprietary dashboards. The tensions around these tools often surface when a company is scaling: e.g., a Series C startup brings in a dashboard tool to please investors with metrics, but the CFO finds it doesn’t align perfectly with the financials. Gen-Z and millennial finance leaders (and CFOs-to-be) tend to be more tech-savvy and hopeful about new planning software, yet even they revert to Excel for flexibility . It’s telling that in 2024, 58% of finance leaders still relied on spreadsheets as their primary tool, despite all the AI and automation available . CFOs may not hate these analytics products with the same visceral emotion reserved for Workday or Concur, but there’s a definite undercurrent of disappointment. As one LinkedIn post targeting finance execs put it: “Noticed your CFO looking frustrated lately? Slow reports, endless spreadsheets and surprise audits can quickly spoil their day.” Those “slow reports” and “endless spreadsheets” are exactly what fancy analytics software was supposed to eliminate – and the fact that they haven’t yet is a sore spot for many finance chiefs.

ERP Systems: Oracle, SAP & NetSuite (Core Finance/Enterprise Planning)​

CFO Pain Points: Extremely high ongoing costs (maintenance, upgrades); inflexibility to business change; painful, lengthy implementations; clunky user interfaces; vendor lock-in and aggressive sales tactics; slow reporting and need for manual workarounds.

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems are the backbone for many companies’ finance and operational data. Ironically, while CFOs rely on ERPs, they also harbor some of the strongest frustrations toward them. A CIO magazine piece once asked “Why do CFOs hate ERP?” and found that a “typical company will spend $1.2 million each year (each year!) to maintain, modify and update its ERP system.” That kind of expense (often seen with giants like SAP or Oracle E-Business Suite) can make a CFO’s blood run cold – it’s like a black hole for IT budget. As the article put it, “ERP systems have become a noose around companies’ necks which tighten as the business changes… costs continue to spiral upward.” CFOs at tech companies, who value agility, particularly chafe at this inflexibility. For instance, if a tech firm wants to pivot its business model, the ERP might require complex re-customization that takes months, impeding the finance team’s ability to report on the new metrics.

Many CFOs have personal war stories of ERP implementations gone wrong. One finance leader had to restate $15 million in results due to a botched ERP rollout – the kind of fiasco that can cost a CFO their job . Even when implementations succeed, they are long and arduous. It’s not uncommon for an Oracle or SAP deployment to take 12–18 months (or more) and require armies of consultants. CFOs dislike this drawn-out process, especially in fast-moving tech environments. As a LinkedIn post noted, CFOs dealing with legacy systems suffer “slow reports, endless spreadsheets and surprise audits” – essentially, even after spending on an ERP, they still face manual work and the risk of errors . “Slow reports” are a classic ERP gripe: many CFOs find that generating a consolidated financial report or multi-entity roll-up directly from the ERP is painfully slow or impossible without additional tools. They end up exporting data to Excel (yet again) or buying bolt-on reporting solutions. This leads to the cynical view that the ERP is an expensive data repository that doesn’t actually streamline reporting as intended.

User experience is another issue. Traditional ERPs have clunky interfaces that non-accountants struggle with. Tech CFOs often hear other department heads complain that the ERP system is not intuitive for things like budget tracking or approvals. This mirrors some complaints about the other tools we covered, but ERPs are especially notorious for being user-unfriendly unless you’re a trained specialist. As one former SAP user quipped, “it’s like a programmer designed it with no thought for the user.” Modern cloud ERPs like NetSuite improved the UI somewhat, yet even NetSuite customers see drawbacks. A Reddit thread about NetSuite’s account managers showed a CFO fed up with constant upselling, to the point he told the rep to only deal with the controller going forward . That reflects a relationship strain: CFOs feel once they’re locked into an ERP, the vendor relationship becomes adversarial (price hikes, forced upgrades). Oracle’s hardball sales tactics under Larry Ellison are practically folklore in CFO circles . No CFO enjoys budgeting for an ERP renewal where they know it’s pay up “because Larry decrees” no discounts .

Why CFOs Dislike Them: Summing up, CFOs’ top ERP frustrations include:

• Cost and ROI: Huge ongoing cost for licenses, support, and consulting, with unclear return. One might spend millions on an ERP over its life, only to still need ancillary systems. “The upfront sticker price is almost meaningless,” as the true costs pile on over years .
• Rigidity: ERP systems, especially older ones, don’t adapt easily. CFOs feel straitjacketed by the processes coded into the system. Each new business requirement can feel like “fighting” the system or paying consultants to reconfigure it.
• Implementation risk: The fear of a failed implementation or major glitch keeps CFOs up at night. A CFO Dive study shows many finance chiefs worry about “bridging tech gaps” and needing better alignment with IT – essentially, they know a misstep in an ERP project can be disastrous.
• User adoption: ERPs often get a reputation internally as something only Finance or IT uses. Other teams might do the bare minimum in it, limiting the single-source-of-truth benefit. CFOs then end up extracting data and reconciling with other department’s records anyway.
• Vendor dependency: Once committed, switching ERPs is even harder. CFOs sometimes feel trapped – they “hate” the current system’s pain points but also hate the idea of going through another massive implementation to replace it. This can make them resentfully stick with an imperfect ERP for longer than they’d like.

Context: Large tech companies (especially mature ones) almost all have a heavyweight ERP (Oracle, SAP S/4HANA, or sometimes Microsoft Dynamics or Infor). Their CFOs often grew up with these systems and accept the downsides as part of life (“ERP is for life, not just for Christmas,” as one commentator wryly noted ). Mid-sized tech firms (say 500–1000 employees, perhaps pre-IPO startups) often use cloud ERPs like NetSuite or Intacct. These are somewhat easier to handle but still present many of the same challenges at scale. CFOs in these companies sometimes consider switching or upgrading their ERP as they grow, but they do so with trepidation. A telling LinkedIn article titled “Why Your CFO might secretly hate your ERP” pointed out that CFOs often look frustrated because of “slow reports [and] endless spreadsheets” despite having an ERP, and offered solutions to appease them . The fact that such content exists shows that CFOs’ discontent with ERP is real (if sometimes kept “secret”).

In tech, where everything moves fast, the ERP can feel like the anchor slowing the ship. CFOs dream of more nimble systems, but until those are proven, they feel chained to the legacy – paying millions for a necessary platform they begrudgingly rely on. As a result, it’s not surprising to hear a seasoned CFO say something like: “Our ERP? Can’t live without it, but oh, do I loathe it at times.” That paradox captures the CFO’s relationship with enterprise software as a whole: essential, but oftentimes exasperating.

Integration and Data Silos (The Underlying Frustration)​

(Cross-cutting theme mentioned by many CFOs regarding all the above tools.)

Finally, it’s worth noting a broader complaint that CFOs at tech companies frequently raise: lack of integration between all these disparate systems. A finance chief might have Workday for headcount, Coupa for POs, Concur for expenses, Salesforce for revenue data, and Netsuite as the ERP – and getting a unified view is a project in itself. “As a CFO I was frustrated because I always had to go to IT to find out where to find information… we had it all over the place,” one CFO recounted, describing life before implementing a better integrated reporting solution . This is a common refrain. CFOs feel that they become data wranglers, spending time stitching together outputs from multiple systems, rather than analyzing and strategizing.

When enterprise software doesn’t play nicely together, the burden falls on Finance to reconcile discrepancies. For example, the headcount in Workday might not match the salary expenses in the ERP, due to timing or setup differences – guess who gets to investigate? The finance team. Or procurement commitments in Coupa might not automatically sync to the general ledger, leading to surprises. CFOs cite these silo issues as a major headache: in surveys, over 50% of finance leaders say disconnected data is a top challenge . It’s a root cause behind many of the specific dislikes listed above (slow reporting, manual spreadsheets, etc., all stem from systems not talking to each other seamlessly).

Tech companies often try to build in-house middleware or use integration platforms to alleviate this, but CFOs without a robust IT support feel the pain acutely. The ideal scenario for a CFO would be an end-to-end integrated suite or a data warehouse that brings it all together. Interestingly, some vendors promise this nirvana (Workday, Oracle, and SAP all pitch themselves as one-stop shops), but the reality is that companies still end up with best-of-breed tools in different areas – and thus the integration challenge remains.

In conclusion, while CFOs at tech companies certainly leverage enterprise software to drive efficiency and scale, they are frequently the first to point out when these tools fail to live up to expectations. From HR platforms that employees curse, to spend tools no one wants to use, to eye-wateringly expensive ERPs, the frustrations are real and documented. As caretakers of both the company’s finances and its financial processes, CFOs demand software that is reliable, cost-effective, and user-friendly – and they are notably unsparing in their critique when those standards aren’t met. The quotes and cases above illustrate that today’s finance chiefs are pushing back on legacy pain points and voicing a need for better solutions. Until those arrive, however, we can expect CFOs to continue harboring a (not-so) secret dislike for many of the very systems that run their businesses.

Sources:

• Business Insider, “Workday has become the most-hated workplace software” – user and manager testimonials on Workday’s poor UX .
• Reddit (r/antiwork and r/Workday threads) – discussions of why companies adopt Workday despite frustrations .
• HackerNews thread on Workday – analogy of enterprise software vs. user-centric design .
• Reddit (r/procurement) – comments on Coupa being “overpriced and overly complex” for mid-sized firms and hatred of SAP Ariba’s non-intuitive design .
• SoftwareAdvice reviews – user reviews citing “I hate Ariba” and “I hate Concur… never had an easy travel booking experience” .
• Reddit (Fishbowl/Blind) – employees complaining about Concur’s tedious steps and itemization requirements .
• Reddit (r/devops) – discussion on companies abandoning Slack due to cost, noting “Slack is pretty expensive… Teams can be 1/4 the cost… it’s really expensive [for what it does].” . Also, user remark that finance forces Teams since Slack and Teams are viewed as interchangeable .
• CPA Practice Advisor survey – finding Excel widely used but finance execs not highly satisfied with current tools, indicating room for improvement .
• Reddit (r/tableau) – finance professional listing exec complaints about Tableau dashboards (slow load, inflexibility, loss of Excel-like formatting) .
• HackerNews comment – user extracting Salesforce data to external dashboards due to frustration with built-in reporting .
• LinkedIn posts and articles – “Why your CFO might secretly hate your ERP” (mentioning slow reports and spreadsheet workarounds) ; discussion of ERP costs and pitfalls ; anecdote of a CFO shunting away a NetSuite sales rep out of annoyance .
• CIO.com via SmartDataCollective – Thomas Wailgum’s analysis of CFOs’ issues with ERP: ongoing costs and inflexibility .
• Survey data from BlackLine – CFOs’ lack of trust in fragmented data .
• “CFOs Reveal Top Frustrations” – indicating disconnected data and slow closes are key issues .
• Reddit (r/Netsuite) – thread on pushy account managers, with a CFO intervening to limit contact .
• KPMG report excerpt – complexity in procurement causing frustration for employees trying to comply .

These sources reflect a broad swath of firsthand CFO and staff commentary across interviews, social media, and surveys. The consistency of themes – poor UX, integration pain, cost overruns, and the enduring reliance on Excel – shows that enterprise software often isn’t delivering the simplicity and agility that tech-focused CFOs crave. The hope is that by voicing these issues, CFOs will influence the next generation of enterprise tools to finally address these longstanding gripes.

Introduction​

Stablecoins – digital currencies pegged to stable assets like the US dollar – promise to streamline business transactions with near-instant settlement, low fees, and global reach . In theory, they combine the efficiency of crypto with the familiarity of fiat money, making them ideal for cross-border payments and commerce. The global B2B payments market exceeds $125 trillion annually and is plagued by high fees and slow settlements . Stablecoins have already seen over $10 trillion in transaction volume in 2023 , and use is growing. Yet despite this potential, mainstream business adoption remains limited. Companies face significant pain points – from regulatory hurdles to tooling gaps – that frustrate stablecoin use in daily operations . Identifying these friction points and the underserved segments affected can highlight low-hanging-fruit opportunities for developers to build tools and services that unlock stablecoins’ value.

This report analyzes the biggest challenges businesses encounter with stablecoins, underserved markets with unmet needs, and practical use cases where adoption is blocked by fixable frictions. We also pinpoint gaps in current infrastructure (e.g. accounting, compliance, invoicing, multi-currency support) and suggest where developer-friendly solutions (APIs, integrations, wallets) could generate significant ROI. The focus is on actionable insights, concrete examples, and areas where simple tools could make a big difference.

Key Pain Points for Businesses Using Stablecoins​

Regulatory Uncertainty and Compliance Burdens​

One of the foremost barriers is the uncertain regulatory environment surrounding stablecoins. Rules differ across jurisdictions and are evolving, leaving businesses unsure how to comply. Inconsistent or unclear regulations are frequently cited as a major hindrance to stablecoin adoption . For example, the EU’s new MiCA regulation will impose specific compliance requirements on stablecoin issuers and service providers in Europe . Companies must navigate licensing, reporting, and consumer protection rules that may apply to transacting in stablecoins, which can be daunting.

Moreover, firms worry about KYC/AML (Know Your Customer / Anti-Money Laundering) obligations when using stablecoins. Transacting on public blockchains means dealing with pseudonymous addresses, raising concerns about illicit finance. Businesses need to ensure they aren’t receiving or sending stablecoins from sanctioned or criminal sources. However, most stablecoins and crypto wallets don’t natively provide KYC/AML checks, so businesses must bolt on their own compliance processes. This is a pain point especially for smaller companies that lack compliance departments. Without robust tools, stablecoins can facilitate anonymous transfers – creating AML risk that regulators are increasingly wary of .

Tax and accounting compliance adds another layer of complexity. In many jurisdictions (e.g. the US), stablecoins are not legally treated as “money” or legal tender for tax purposes but rather as property or financial assets . This means using a stablecoin to make a payment could trigger tax reporting similar to selling an asset, even if its value stays at $1. Businesses must track cost basis and potential gains/losses on stablecoin transactions, which is cumbersome. Accounting standards haven’t fully caught up either – companies must determine if stablecoin holdings count as cash, financial instruments, or intangibles on their balance sheet . This uncertainty makes CFOs and auditors nervous. In short, the regulatory and compliance burden – from licensing, to KYC/AML, to tax treatment – remains a top pain point keeping businesses on the sidelines. Developer tools that automate compliance (KYC checks, address screening, tax calculations) could greatly reduce this friction.

Integration with Legacy Systems and Workflows​

Even when a business is willing to use stablecoins, integrating them into existing systems is a challenge. Traditional payment infrastructure and accounting systems are not built for crypto. Companies can’t simply “plug and play” stablecoins into their invoicing, ERP, or treasury workflows . PYMNTS notes that adopting stablecoin payments often “requires technological upgrades, staff training and assurances” to integrate with legacy systems . For example, an accounts receivable system might need modification to record incoming USDC payments, or an e-commerce checkout might need an API to accept stablecoin transactions alongside credit cards. These integrations can be complex and costly, especially for firms without in-house crypto expertise.

Another issue is lack of standardization and interoperability. There are many stablecoin protocols and blockchains, but no universal standard that legacy systems can easily interface with. A payment provider described it as having to “stitch together different ecosystems that don’t really talk to each other” when bridging fiat and stablecoins . If a business pays suppliers in stablecoin but manages cash in bank software, there’s a gap. Multi-chain compatibility is also a headache – USDC exists on Ethereum, Solana, Tron, etc., and different partners may insist on different chains. **Cross-chain interoperability remains a challenge **, meaning a company might need to support multiple wallets or use bridge services to accommodate all counterparties. This adds operational complexity and risk.

Crucially, businesses demand that any new payment method integrates with their broader workflow. They need APIs, SDKs, and software that sync stablecoin transactions with their databases, accounting books, and user interfaces. Today, those tools are nascent. A stablecoin transaction on blockchain might require manual steps to reconcile (e.g. checking a block explorer and updating an invoice status by hand). Until integration is seamless, many firms will stick to what’s already connected (banks, Swift, card processors). Developer opportunity: Build middleware and integration tools that connect on-chain payments to off-chain business systems (for instance, software that logs stablecoin payments into QuickBooks automatically). As one report emphasized, **payment service providers must create APIs and tools that simplify incorporating stablecoins into enterprise workflows **. Solving integration pain through technology is key to broader stablecoin use.

Liquidity, Conversion and Financial Frictions​

While stablecoins are designed to hold a stable value, businesses still face financial frictions around liquidity and conversion. For one, converting large sums of stablecoins to actual fiat currency (or vice versa) isn’t always trivial. Liquidity for large transactions can be limited, especially in certain stablecoins or on certain exchanges . A fintech CEO noted that when moving “enterprise-grade money” (hundreds of thousands of dollars) across borders via stablecoins, companies encounter **three major pain points: limited liquidity for large transactions, long settlement times, and complex integrations **. In other words, if a corporation tried to pay a $5 million invoice with stablecoins, they might struggle to exchange that volume back to fiat quickly without moving markets or incurring slippage, unless they have prime exchange partners. Stablecoins themselves settle on-chain in minutes, but off-ramping a large payment into a bank account can still take time, especially if local banking partners are involved (e.g. waiting for an exchange to wire out funds).

In many emerging markets, fiat on/off ramps are underdeveloped. A business in Vietnam receiving USDC might need to find a crypto exchange or OTC broker to convert to Vietnamese Dong – a process that may be informal, time-consuming, or expensive if local regulators restrict crypto trading. This lack of local conversion infrastructure is a bottleneck for using stablecoins in the last mile. Businesses prefer transactions that land directly in their bank in local currency; with stablecoins, an extra conversion step is needed and often falls on the recipient to handle. Developer solutions that embed conversion (so recipients can automatically swap stablecoin to the currency of choice) would address this need. In fact, platforms are emerging that pair traditional fiat infrastructure with stablecoin rails to make conversion seamless – for example, Stripe’s recent acquisition of the stablecoin platform Bridge is meant to connect stablecoin payments with standard payout channels .

Another friction is choosing the “right” stablecoin. The market offers a plethora – USDT, USDC, BUSD, DAI, TrueUSD, and more – each with different issuers and risk profiles. This abundance “just confuses potential users, and it’s going to turn away some” businesses . A payment executive noted that many business owners are asking: “Why are there so many stablecoins, and which one is safer?” . Determining which stablecoin to trust (in terms of reserve backing and stability) is non-trivial. Some firms may only be comfortable with fully regulated coins (like USDC with monthly attestations), while others might prioritize the one their partners use (often USDT due to liquidity). Counterparty risk and trust in the issuer is a pain point – for instance, Tether’s USDT has vast adoption but a less transparent reserve history, whereas Circle’s USDC is transparent but was temporarily hit by a depeg scare when a portion of reserves were stuck during a bank failure . Businesses do not want to hold significant value in a stablecoin that could suddenly lose its peg or be frozen by an issuer. This risk was highlighted in a Deloitte analysis: **depegging and issuer solvency are key risks that businesses must consider with stablecoins **. Managing these risks (perhaps by diversifying stablecoins or having instant conversion to fiat) is an extra task for companies.

Finally, foreign exchange (FX) implications can be an issue. Most stablecoins are USD-pegged, which is useful globally, but not a panacea. If a European company’s books are in EUR, accepting USD stablecoins introduces FX exposure (albeit mild compared to accepting volatile crypto). They might prefer a EUR-pegged stablecoin for invoices, but those (e.g. EUR stablecoins) have much lower liquidity and acceptance. Similarly, businesses in countries with unique currencies often have no stablecoin option in their local currency. This means they use USD stablecoins as an intermediate value – which helps avoid local inflation, but eventually they need to convert to pay local expenses. Until multi-currency stablecoin ecosystems mature, developers could add value by building easy FX conversion tools (so a payment in USDC can be quickly swapped to, say, a EUR or NGN stablecoin or to fiat). In summary, liquidity and conversion bottlenecks – particularly for large amounts and non-USD currencies – remain a pain point. Any service that improves convertibility (through better liquidity pools, market-making, or integration with banking networks) would alleviate a key friction.

User Experience and Operational Challenges​

For many businesses, the operational side of using stablecoins is a new frontier full of practical challenges. Unlike traditional banking, using stablecoins means dealing with blockchain wallets, private keys, and transaction fees – elements that most finance teams have little experience with. User experience (UX) issues are a notable barrier: “Gas fees and onboarding complexities remain barriers” to wider stablecoin adoption . If a company tries to use stablecoins on Ethereum, for example, they must manage ETH for gas or use a layer-2 solution – details that add friction and confusion. High network fees at times can erode the cost advantage for small payments. While newer blockchains with lower fees exist, choosing and navigating them can be overwhelming for a non-crypto business user.

There is also the challenge of wallet management and security. Holding stablecoins requires either a secure custodial account or self-custody of private keys. Self-custody can be risky without proper knowledge – losing a key means losing funds, and transactions are irreversible. Businesses are used to calling a bank to help if an error occurs; in crypto, mistakes can be final. Multisignature wallets and custody providers (like Fireblocks, BitGo, etc.) exist to add security for enterprises, but those may be costly or geared toward larger institutions. Many SMEs find no easy-to-use, affordable wallet solution that provides corporate controls (e.g. multi-user access with approvals) and insurance on holdings. This gap in enterprise-friendly wallet UX makes stablecoin handling daunting. A simple, safe wallet app tailored for businesses (with permissions, spending limits, and recovery options) is still an unmet need.

Another operational issue is transaction handling and reversibility. In traditional payments, if a mistake is made (wrong amount or payee), banks or card networks can often reverse or refund the transaction. Stablecoin payments are final once confirmed on-chain; there is no built-in dispute resolution. For B2B transactions between trusted parties this may be acceptable (they can communicate and refund manually if needed), but for customer payments it poses a problem. For instance, a small retailer accepting stablecoin has no recourse if a customer underpays or sends to the wrong address – except to rely on the customer to fix it. Fraud and error management thus become the business’s responsibility, whereas today card processors handle a lot of fraud detection and eat the cost of chargebacks. As one commentator noted, stablecoins by themselves don’t solve ancillary “jobs-to-be-done” in payments like fraud management, dispute coordination, and regulatory compliance . Merchants and businesses would need new tools or services to cover these functions if they move to direct stablecoin payments. This lack of a safety net is a pain point that makes some businesses hesitant to use stablecoins beyond controlled situations.

Finally, educational and cultural barriers fall under UX challenges. Many decision-makers simply don’t understand how stablecoins work, and that lack of understanding breeds mistrust. If a finance manager doesn’t grasp private keys or is unsure how to explain a stablecoin transaction to auditors, they will likely avoid it. Likewise, if counterparties (suppliers, customers) are not asking to pay or be paid in stablecoin, a business has little immediate incentive to offer it . In fact, a recent industry panel observed that “at the moment, there is simply not the demand for beneficiaries to receive funds in stablecoins” for many small businesses and consumers . This indicates a chicken-and-egg scenario: without easy user experiences, mainstream demand stays low, and without demand, businesses see no reason to push for stablecoin options. Overcoming UX hurdles – through better interfaces, education, and perhaps abstracting away the crypto “weirdness” – is necessary to unlock broader adoption.

Accounting and Reporting Complications​

Stablecoin usage also runs into back-office complications in accounting, bookkeeping, and reporting. Traditional financial systems expect transactions in government currencies; inserting a digital token that behaves like cash but isn’t officially cash creates reconciliation headaches. A key pain point is the lack of accounting tooling and standards for stablecoins. Businesses need to track stablecoin transactions, value holdings, and report them correctly on financial statements. However, guidance has been murky: depending on circumstances, stablecoins might be treated as **financial assets or as intangibles under accounting standards **. If treated as an intangible asset (as Bitcoin has been under U.S. GAAP historically), any decline in value below cost must be impaired on the books, but increases in value aren’t recognized – an unfavorable treatment for something meant to stay at $1. Recently there have been efforts to allow fair-value accounting for digital assets, which would help, but many companies’ internal policies haven’t adapted yet. Until it’s crystal clear that a USD stablecoin is as good as a dollar for accounting purposes, finance teams will be uneasy.

Reporting and audit trail is another issue. Stablecoin transactions on blockchain are transparent in theory, but linking them to specific invoices or contracts requires careful record-keeping. Auditors will ask to see proof of payment and ownership – which may involve showing blockchain transactions, wallet ownership proofs, and conversion records. Most companies lack in-house expertise to prepare such audit documentation. Tools like block explorers are helpful but not integrated with internal systems. Additionally, valuing end-of-period holdings (even if stable at $1, there may be slight market deviations or interest earned in some cases) can be confusing. There may also be treasury policy questions – e.g., can a company count USDC as part of its cash reserves for liquidity ratios? Many likely do, but conservative auditors might not give full credit.

On the software side, common accounting packages (QuickBooks, Xero, Oracle Netsuite, etc.) do not natively support crypto transactions. Companies end up using workarounds: manual journal entries to record stablecoin movements, or third-party crypto accounting software (like Bitwave, Gilded, or Cryptio) that can sync blockchain data to their ledgers . These are emerging solutions, but adoption is still low, and some are focused on larger enterprises. Small businesses are often left doing manual reconciliation – e.g., an accountant copying transaction IDs into Excel – which is error-prone and inefficient. This lack of easy accounting integration is a clear unmet need. As an example, one crypto accounting platform advertises how it can integrate stablecoin payments into ERP systems and handle the custody and wallet tracking , underscoring that a market for such tools is forming.

In summary, from an accounting perspective, stablecoins currently introduce uncertainty and extra work. Businesses crave clarity and automation: they want stablecoin transactions to be as easy to account for as bank transactions. Until that happens, this remains a pain point. Tools that automatically reconcile stablecoin payments with invoices, maintain audit trails (with URLs to blockchain proofs), and generate reports compliant with accounting standards would significantly reduce this friction. Ensuring tax reporting is handled (for instance, issuing 1099 forms for stablecoin payments if required under new IRS rules ) is another area a tool could assist with. Developers who can bridge the gap between blockchain records and accounting records will help remove a major blocker for corporate use of stablecoins.

Underserved Market Segments and Blocked Use Cases​

Despite the challenges above, certain market segments stand to benefit greatly from stablecoins – and many are already experimenting out of necessity. These segments often face acute pain points with current financial services, meaning stablecoins could be a game-changer if specific frictions are resolved. Below we highlight some underserved segments or use cases, where there are clear unmet needs that developer-driven solutions could address.

SMEs in Emerging Markets (Cross-Border Payments)​

Small-to-medium enterprises in emerging markets are among those most harmed by the status quo in payments, and thus prime candidates for stablecoin adoption . These businesses frequently deal with cross-border transactions – paying suppliers, receiving customer payments, or remittances – and they suffer from high fees, slow processing, and poor access to banking. For instance, a payment from a small manufacturer in Mexico to a supplier in Vietnam might go through 4+ intermediaries (local banks, correspondent banks, forex brokers), taking 3-7 days and costing $14-$150 per $1000 sent . This is both slow and expensive, hurting the SME’s cash flow and margins.

In regions with weak banking infrastructure or capital controls (parts of Latin America, Africa, Southeast Asia), SMEs often struggle to even make international payments. They resort to informal channels or costly money transmitters. Stablecoins offer a lifeline: a dollar-pegged token that can zip across borders in minutes, avoiding correspondent bank chains. As a16z notes, sending $200 from the U.S. to Colombia via stablecoin can cost less than $0.01, whereas traditional rails cost around $12 . Those savings are life-changing for SMEs operating on thin margins. Additionally, stablecoins can be accessible where dollar bank accounts are not – providing an inflation-resistant medium in countries with volatile currencies . Businesses in places like Argentina or Nigeria already use USD stablecoins informally to store value and transact, because local currency devaluation is extreme.

However, these emerging-market SMEs are largely underserved by current stablecoin services. They face the friction of converting between fiat and stablecoin, as discussed, and often lack trusted platforms to facilitate this. Many simply hold stablecoins on exchange accounts or mobile wallets, without integration into their billing systems. There’s a need for easy tools: for example, a multi-currency invoicing platform that lets an SME bill a foreign client in their home currency, but receive the payment in stablecoins (auto-converted from, say, the client’s credit card or local bank transfer) . The SME could then quickly swap the stablecoins to local fiat or spend them. Such tools would hide the crypto complexity and present stablecoins as just another currency option.

Geographically, regions like Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Southeast Asia have thriving informal stablecoin usage but minimal formal infrastructure. A report on stablecoins and financial inclusion notes that while stablecoins are used in high-inflation economies, adoption is hampered in areas with low internet penetration or digital literacy . That suggests a need for user-friendly mobile apps and education targeted at these markets. If, say, a Nigerian import/export firm could use a simple app to send USDC to a Chinese supplier (and that supplier gets RMB in their bank via an integrated off-ramp), it would fill a huge gap. Today, a few crypto fintechs (like Bitso in LATAM or MPesa-like crypto wallets in Africa) are moving this direction, but there’s ample room for more players focused on SME use cases.

In summary, emerging-market SMEs are an underserved segment where stablecoins solve real problems – currency instability and expensive cross-border payments – but adoption is blocked by lack of local support and easy tools. Developers can tap into this by building localized solutions: stablecoin payment gateways that connect to local banks/mobile money, SME-friendly wallets with local language support, and platforms to auto-convert exotic currencies to stablecoins and then to major currencies . This is precisely what one fintech, Orbital, did – starting by helping merchants repatriate profits from emerging markets using stablecoins, cutting settlement from 5 days to same-day . The success of such models shows the demand is there if the pain points are addressed.

Cross-Border Trade and Supply Chain Finance​

Global trade involves countless B2B payments between importers, exporters, freight companies, and suppliers. These are typically high-value and time-sensitive transactions. Stablecoins are very promising in this domain because they can remove delays and banking dependencies that plague trade payments. For example, an exporter shipping goods often waits days or weeks for a letter of credit or wire payment to clear. With stablecoins, payment could be released as soon as goods are delivered (nearly instantly, even across time zones). This improves cash flow for suppliers and can reduce the need for trade financing.

A concrete use case: A logistics company in Germany uses stablecoins to collect payments from retailers in Southeast Asia, immediately converts to EUR, and then pays its contractors in Eastern Europe in the same day . This three-continent transaction flow (Asia → Europe → Eastern Europe) can be accomplished through stablecoins far more efficiently than through banks. In Orbital’s example, the process included auto-conversion of various currencies to stablecoin and back to EUR, simplifying a previously cumbersome cross-border FX workflow . Similarly, companies can pilot entering a new market without upfront banking integration – e.g. a trading firm testing Brazil could accept stablecoin deposits from Brazilian clients instead of integrating with the local banking network PIX, saving cost and time for a market test . These scenarios highlight stablecoins acting as a universal settlement layer for trade, avoiding the patchwork of local payment systems.

Despite the clear benefits, most traditional import/export businesses have not adopted stablecoins yet. This is an underserved niche largely due to conservatism and lack of tailored solutions. Large multinationals have treasury departments that hedge currency and use banks; small importers/exporters often just bear the fees or use brokers. If there were easy-to-use platforms that integrate stablecoins into trade finance processes (for example, tying stablecoin escrow payments to shipping documents or IoT sensors for delivery), it could gain traction. One hurdle is that trade transactions often require contracts and trust frameworks (letters of credit ensure goods and payment exchange properly). Smart contracts on stablecoins could replicate some of this – a stablecoin could be put in escrow and released automatically upon delivery confirmation. However, building such systems in a user-friendly way is a developer challenge that few have tackled at scale.

Another underserved aspect is supply chain payments to countries with capital controls or sanctions. Companies doing business in markets under sanctions or with unstable banking (e.g. certain African or Central Asian countries) struggle to move money for legitimate trade. Stablecoins can provide a channel if done carefully under regulatory allowances (e.g. humanitarian goods or exempted trade). There’s an opportunity for specialized trade facilitators that use stablecoins to bridge gaps when banks cannot operate, all while ensuring compliance.

In short, cross-border trade is ripe for stablecoin solutions but needs integrated platforms bridging the old and new. The partnership of Visa and Circle to use USDC for global settlement shows institutional interest in this direction . Until now, trade-focused stablecoin adoption has been limited to crypto-savvy firms and pilot programs. Developers can target this underserved use case by building tools like stablecoin escrow services, integrations between logistics software and blockchain payments, and simplified interfaces for suppliers to request stablecoin payment (with one-click conversion to their home currency). The value unlocked – faster turnover of capital, lower fees (potentially up to 80% cost reduction on transactions ), and more inclusive global trade – represents a significant opportunity.

Global Freelancers, Contractors, and Payroll​

In the era of remote work and the gig economy, businesses frequently need to pay people across borders – freelancers, contractors, or even full-time employees working abroad. Traditional payroll and banking often falter here: international wire fees, delays, and currency conversions eat into payments. Freelancers in countries with weak banking may wait weeks to receive a check or PayPal transfer, and lose a chunk to fees. Stablecoins present an attractive alternative: a company can pay a contractor in USD stablecoin within minutes, which the contractor can then hold as USD value or convert to local currency. This is especially valuable in countries where local currency is depreciating; many workers prefer stable USD over volatile local money.

Some forward-thinking companies and platforms have started offering crypto payment options. For instance, certain freelance job platforms enable payment in USDC or Bitcoin. However, this is not yet mainstream, and many smaller businesses lack a simple way to payroll via stablecoins. It’s an underserved need because the demand is there – anecdotal evidence shows growing numbers of freelancers request payment in crypto to avoid bank hassles – but solutions are fragmented. Each company might hack together their own process (e.g., manually sending USDC from a crypto exchange account), which doesn’t scale or integrate with payroll systems.

Key frictions that need solving in this segment include: generating pay stubs or invoices for stablecoin payments, handling tax deductions or benefits if needed, and tracking payments for multiple recipients easily. A business paying 50 contractors in stablecoin might want one batch process rather than 50 manual transfers. They also need to collect wallet addresses securely (and ensure they belong to the right person, tying identity to address to avoid mispayment). Additionally, compliance is crucial – businesses have to report these payments and possibly ensure the recipient isn’t in a sanctioned region.

An opportunity here is for developers to create crypto payroll platforms. Imagine a service where a company uploads a payroll CSV, and the platform handles sending stablecoins to each recipient’s wallet, emails them a payment confirmation or slip, and logs the transaction details for accounting. The platform could even handle currency conversion if the company wants to pay $1,000 but the freelancer asks to receive in local currency stablecoin or fiat – effectively acting as a crypto-powered global payroll processor. Some startups (e.g. Request Finance, or Franklin as mentioned in search results ) are starting to do this, but no dominant player has emerged. Integration with popular HR or accounting software would also ease adoption (so that paying an invoice in stablecoin is as easy as any other payment method).

Another underserved group is NGOs and non-profits paying staff or grantees in challenging environments. Stablecoins have been used, for example, to pay aid workers in regions where banking systems are down, or to deliver aid to beneficiaries directly. The principle is similar: a reliable digital dollar that can be received on a phone. Tools developed for businesses to manage stablecoin payouts can often apply here too, expanding the impact.

In summary, global payroll and contractor payments represent a use case with clear benefits but currently clunky execution. By solving the pain points (address management, batch payments, withholding/tax calculations, records for compliance), developers can unlock stablecoins as a normal payroll option. Notably, these payments are usually low-to-medium value but high volume, which plays to stablecoins’ strengths (micro-fees, speed). A gig platform using stablecoins reported that they could pay thousands of freelancers globally within minutes, reducing delays and fees, and access a wider talent pool without banking frictions . That illustrates the potential if the right infrastructure is in place.

Small Retailers and High-Fee Industries​

Customer-facing small businesses – like retail shops, cafés, restaurants, and e-commerce sellers – operate on thin margins and often feel disproportionately burdened by payment fees. Every card swipe takes ~2-3% plus a fixed fee, which for a $2 coffee can be 15% of the transaction . These fees effectively tax small transactions heavily, hurting mom-and-pop stores and quick-serve businesses. Stablecoins offer a vision of fee-free (or very low fee) payments that could save these businesses significant money. If a café could accept a stablecoin payment with no middleman, that ~$0.30 on a $2 purchase could be saved as profit, potentially boosting their bottom line markedly over time .

However, this segment is currently very underserved by stablecoin solutions, because bridging the gap between crypto and everyday consumers is difficult. The average customer isn’t carrying a crypto wallet to buy coffee, and the merchant wouldn’t know how to handle price volatility – they just want $2 worth of value. Some tech-savvy cafes (in cities like SF or Berlin) have experimented with accepting crypto, but it’s niche. The opportunity here is to create payment solutions that hide the crypto part for both merchant and customer, yet leverage stablecoins underneath for cost savings. For example, a point-of-sale system that lets a customer scan a QR code and pay via a stablecoin wallet (or even convert from their bank on the fly), and the merchant instantly sees the confirmed payment in their currency. Services like this are starting: e.g., companies like **Stripe have announced stablecoin payment support with lower fees (1.5% vs ~2.9% for cards) **, showing that even big payment processors see demand to lower costs. Stripe’s approach likely converts stablecoin to fiat for the merchant instantly, simplifying things.

Still, outside of early pilots, few small retailers have the means to accept stablecoins directly. Why? Beyond consumer adoption, reasons include lack of easy-to-use apps, fear of crypto’s reputation, and absence of integration with their sales systems. A coffee shop uses a simple card reader or POS terminal that ties into inventory and accounting – any crypto solution must seamlessly fit into that setup to be viable. That means developers should focus on integrations with existing retail software (POS, e-commerce plugins). Encouragingly, there are e-commerce plugins for WooCommerce, Magento, etc., that enable stablecoin checkouts . A European online retailer used such plugins to accept stablecoins from Latin American customers who lacked reliable traditional payment options, and found it “boosting sales” with faster, cheaper payments auto-converted to EUR . This example shows that when implemented well, stablecoin acceptance can expand a business’s market (here, reaching customers who might otherwise be unable to purchase due to local payment issues).

High-fee industries like online gaming, digital content, or adult industries (which get hit with high payment processor fees or bans) are also underserved segments that could leap on stablecoins if friction is reduced. These industries often have global user bases and face chargeback/fraud issues that stablecoins could alleviate (no chargebacks in crypto). For them, stablecoins could solve both cost and access (e.g. adult content platforms have been debanked, so crypto is an alternative). The pain points mirror those of small retailers: need for discrete, user-friendly payment interfaces and mechanisms for trust/refunds since card protections won’t apply.

Overall, while consumer/retail payments with stablecoins are still nascent, the segment represents a large opportunity once base-level frictions (wallet UX, point-of-sale integration, buyer protection mechanisms) are addressed. The first movers will likely be SMBs with strong customer communities and high payment costs – as a16z predicts, coffee shops, restaurants, and stores with captive audiences may lead the way in 2025, leveraging stablecoins to save on fees . These early adopters will need support in the form of reliable apps and perhaps guarantees (maybe a third-party that insures against certain fraud). Developers can provide that by building the “Stripe for stablecoins” or the “Square terminal of crypto” as easy plug-ins. The reward is significant: if stablecoin payments shave even 1-2% off costs, that can increase a small business’s profits by double-digit percentages – a huge value proposition.

Gaps in Current Tooling and Infrastructure​

From the above pain points and use cases, it’s clear that many infrastructure gaps are preventing stablecoins from reaching their full utility for businesses. These gaps represent areas where new tools, services, or platforms are needed. Below are some of the most glaring deficiencies in today’s stablecoin ecosystem for business use, along with the potential each has for improvement:

• Accounting and Financial Reporting Tools: Traditional accounting software does not handle crypto well, forcing clunky workarounds. Businesses lack easy tools to automatically record stablecoin transactions, track valuations, and produce compliant reports. Opportunity: Develop integrations (or plugins) for popular accounting systems (QuickBooks, Xero, SAP) that treat stablecoin transactions like regular bank transactions. This includes fetching blockchain transactions, mapping them to invoices or accounts, and updating balances in real-time. It should also handle classification (e.g. mark stablecoins as cash equivalents or inventory as appropriate) consistent with the latest accounting standards. Given that holders of stablecoins must assess how to classify them on financial statements , software could guide users through that and apply consistent rules. Additionally, providing audit logs linking each ledger entry to a blockchain transaction hash would simplify audits. Some startups (Gilded, Bitwave) are working on this, but a lot of the market (especially mid-sized firms) is still untapped.

• Tax and Regulatory Compliance Solutions: Similar to accounting, tax compliance for stablecoin transactions is largely manual today. Tools like TaxBit and CoinTracker exist for crypto, but companies could use specialized features for stablecoins given the volume of transactions can be high. For example, automatically calculating any gains/losses on stablecoin dispositions (which might be near zero most of the time, but still reportable), generating IRS Form 1099-DA or equivalent for payments made in digital assets , and monitoring transactions against sanctions lists. KYC/AML tools are another gap – businesses need a way to easily identify counterparties in stablecoin deals. While big exchanges and some fintechs have compliance APIs, a developer could create a lightweight API or software that scans wallet addresses for risk (using public data or partnering with blockchain analytics) and provides a simple dashboard for a company’s compliance officer. This would allow even smaller businesses to confidently accept stablecoins, knowing they’ll be alerted to any red flags (e.g. if an incoming payment came from a wallet linked to hacks or blacklists). In essence, making compliance “plug-and-play” for stablecoin transactions would remove a big burden from businesses who don’t want to become crypto compliance experts.

• Invoicing and Payment Request Platforms: Unlike credit card or bank payments, there isn’t a ubiquitous, user-friendly way to request a stablecoin payment from a customer or client. Many businesses resort to emailing a wallet address or QR code and asking the payer to confirm once sent. This is error-prone and unprofessional. A clear gap is an invoicing platform for stablecoins: a service where a business can issue an invoice (denominated in fiat or stablecoin), and the payer can click a link to pay with stablecoins easily. Upon payment, the platform would notify both parties and update the invoice status. Ideally, it would also handle things like exchange rate lock-in – e.g., if an invoice is in EUR but paid in USDC, it calculates the correct amount of USDC at that time and perhaps offers a brief window where that quote is valid. By handling these details, it removes friction and uncertainty (no more “did I send the right amount?” worries). Such tools could also integrate a payment gateway that accepts multiple stablecoin types, giving flexibility to the payer. For instance, a freelancer could invoice $500 and the client could pay with USDC, USDT, or DAI on various networks, with the platform converting and delivering one consolidated stablecoin to the freelancer’s account. This kind of multi-option invoicing is not common yet, but it’s a low-hanging fruit given the technology largely exists (it’s about packaging it neatly for users).

• Multi-Currency and FX Conversion Support: Today’s stablecoin infrastructure is heavily USD-centric. Businesses operating internationally often deal with USD, EUR, GBP, etc. There’s a gap in tools that handle multi-currency stablecoin operations seamlessly. For example, a company might want to hold a balance in USD stablecoins but also easily convert to Euro stablecoin when needed to pay European partners, all within one platform. While exchanges allow trading, a dedicated tool for businesses could present this as a simple currency conversion within their wallet, abstracting the trading aspect. Additionally, a platform that automatically picks the best stablecoin rail for a given corridor could be valuable – e.g., if sending value to a partner in Brazil, the tool might convert USD stablecoin to a BRL-pegged stablecoin or to USDC and instruct conversion to BRL via a local exchange. Right now, businesses would have to manually figure out these steps. Developer opportunity: Create services that pool liquidity from multiple sources and offer one-click conversion between fiat and various stablecoins (and between different stablecoins). This can be offered via API for other fintechs to integrate as well. Essentially, become the “Wise (TransferWise) of stablecoins”, optimizing FX routes but using crypto rails where advantageous . Some fintechs like MuralPay advertise multi-currency invoice and payment support leveraging stablecoins , which indicates the demand. But more competition and expansion to new currency corridors are needed to truly serve global business needs.

• Enterprise Wallets and Custody Solutions: As noted earlier, managing stablecoin wallets is non-trivial for businesses. There’s a gap in secure, user-friendly enterprise wallets that allow multiple users and permissions. Current enterprise crypto custodians focus on large institutions and often require high fees. Smaller businesses could use a wallet that, for instance, allows the finance team to view balances, the CFO to approve large payments, and a clerk to initiate transactions – all with appropriate safeguards. Additionally, integrating backup and recovery mechanisms (like social recovery or hardware key sharding) would address fears of lost access. Some solutions like Gnosis Safe (multisig wallet) exist, but their interfaces are still quite technical. Developers could build on these protocols to create a polished app tailored for businesses. Another aspect is custody insurance: businesses are used to bank deposits being insured (FDIC, etc.). Crypto deposits are not, but a wallet solution that includes an insurance policy or guarantee for the stablecoins held (up to a limit) could attract businesses who are on the fence due to risk. This might involve partnerships with insurers, but offering it via a simple interface would fill a trust gap.

• Fraud and Dispute Management Services: As stablecoins take off in payments, there will be a need for third-party services that provide some of the protections of traditional payment networks. For example, an escrow service that can hold stablecoins for a transaction and release them when both buyer and seller are satisfied (useful for marketplaces or commerce to mitigate fraud). Or a dispute resolution protocol where a neutral party (or algorithm) can arbitrate if a refund is warranted. These are more complex to build (often more business process than technology), but developers could create tools that integrate with stablecoin payment flows to add an optional layer of protection. This would particularly help with consumer-facing use cases where lack of chargebacks is currently seen as a negative. While not a “tooling” gap in the pure tech sense, it’s an infrastructure/service gap that, if filled, would make businesses more comfortable using stablecoins at scale.

In essence, the current stablecoin infrastructure has been built primarily for crypto traders and decentralized finance users, not for everyday business operations. Bridging that gap requires building the same kind of surrounding infrastructure that fiat money has: accounting systems, compliance checks, invoicing, payroll, treasury management, and user-friendly custody. Each gap identified above is an opportunity for developers and entrepreneurs to create value by bringing stablecoin-based systems up to par with the convenience of traditional finance (while retaining the advantages of speed, cost, and openness).

Developer Opportunities: Low-Hanging Fruit with High ROI​

Given the pain points and gaps discussed, there are several promising areas where developers can build solutions that quickly add value. These are “low-hanging fruit” in the sense that the need is clear and pressing, and the solutions are within reach using current technology. By targeting these areas, developers can not only solve real problems (and potentially capture a loyal user base) but also accelerate stablecoin adoption in the business world. Here are some of the most viable opportunities:

• Seamless Stablecoin Payment Gateways: Develop an easy-to-integrate payment gateway (like a Stripe or PayPal module) that enables businesses to accept stablecoin payments on their website or app. The gateway should handle multiple stablecoins and networks, abstracting that complexity from the merchant. Crucially, it should offer instant conversion to fiat (or to the merchant’s desired stablecoin) to mitigate volatility and simplify accounting. By providing a stable API and dashboard, developers can let businesses add a “Pay with USDC/USDT” option with minimal coding. This addresses the integration pain directly and opens merchants to new customers. For example, an online store using such a gateway could easily start selling to customers in countries where credit cards don’t work well, because now those customers can use stablecoins. The ROI for merchants is tangible: lower transaction fees and possibly new sales . As cited earlier, an EU retailer reached Latin American buyers by adding stablecoin checkout, avoiding costly local payment methods . A developer who provides that capability broadly could tap into a global market of e-commerce and SaaS companies looking for cheaper, global payment options.

• Stablecoin-to-Fiat On/Off-Ramp APIs: One big friction is getting money in and out of stablecoins. A developer opportunity is to build robust on/off-ramp services with an API. This would allow any application to programmatically convert fiat to stablecoin or vice versa, through local bank transfers, cards, or mobile wallets. Essentially, acting as a bridge between banking systems and blockchain. A business could integrate this API to automatically cash out stablecoins to their bank at day’s end, or to fund a wallet from their bank when they need to make a payment. By handling compliance (KYC/AML) in the background, such a service would remove a huge barrier. Companies like Circle and fintech startups are working on this (e.g., Circle’s APIs for USDC, or regional players like Bitso for LATAM), but gaps remain especially in underserved currencies and countries. A network of local partners might be required, but even focusing on a few high-need corridors (say, USDC to Nigerian Naira, or Euro to USDC) can capture significant volume. Every SME that currently goes through a convoluted process on an exchange to convert funds would prefer a one-click solution integrated in their finance software.

• Crypto Invoicing and Billing Software: As described, there’s demand for tools to create and manage invoices to be paid in stablecoins. A developer could create a web app (or add-on to existing invoicing software) that lets businesses issue professional invoices where the payment method is a stablecoin transaction. The software can generate a unique deposit address or payment link for each invoice and monitor the blockchain for payment. Once detected, it can automatically mark the invoice as paid and even initiate a conversion to fiat if the business wants. By preserving the familiar format of invoices and just changing the payment rail, it requires little new learning from businesses and their customers. This addresses a very specific but common need – how to request money in stablecoin – which is currently solved with ad-hoc manual communication. Concrete example: a freelancer sends an invoice of $1,000 to a client; the client opens a link, sees a request for 1,000 USDC (with the current equivalent in their preferred currency, if needed), and sends it; both get a receipt. This process could save days of waiting compared to international bank wires and cut fees dramatically. Given the rise of freelance and consultant work across borders, such a tool could see rapid adoption in those communities.

• Stablecoin Payroll and Mass Payout Systems: Another actionable opportunity is building a platform for mass payouts in stablecoins, tailored for payroll or vendor payments. This would allow a business to upload a list (or integrate via API) of who to pay and how much, and the platform takes care of the rest – converting currencies if needed and distributing stablecoins to each recipient’s wallet. It can also handle sending out notification emails with payslips or payment details. By integrating compliance checks (verifying the wallet belongs to the intended recipient, screening against sanctions lists, etc.), it gives companies confidence to use it at scale. This type of solution would directly target the pain of companies that have multiple international contractors or remote employees, replacing a process that might involve multiple bank wires or high-fee services. A platform called Transfi, for instance, highlights that stablecoin payout solutions are increasingly used to complement cross-border Swift transactions due to speed and cost benefits . A developer solution here could plug into existing HR or accounts payable systems, making it easy for a company’s finance team to adopt. There’s potential for a subscription or transaction-fee business model, given the value saved. Additionally, by handling exchange to local fiat for those who want it, it can cater to recipients who aren’t crypto-savvy – they just see that they got paid, with stablecoins as the behind-the-scenes vehicle.

• Integrated Compliance and Monitoring Tools: Many businesses worry about the compliance aspect of using stablecoins – “Are we allowed to do this? What if the funds are tainted?” Developers can seize the opportunity by offering compliance-as-a-service for stablecoin transactions. This could be an API or software that automatically checks each transaction against certain rules: e.g., it can flag if a stablecoin payment came from a wallet associated with known fraud or if it exceeded a certain threshold requiring KYC. It could also help generate reports needed by regulators (like a log of all digital asset transactions in the quarter). By packaging this into an easy tool, developers take a complex task off the business’s plate. Think of it as the Plaid or Alloy (fintech compliance APIs) equivalent for on-chain payments. As regulation tightens, such tools will become not just nice-to-have but necessary, especially if governments mandate more reporting on crypto transactions. Early movers in providing compliance solutions will become the go-to providers that other services integrate. This might not be a consumer-facing product but rather developer-facing (an API) – yet it’s crucial for enabling other products (like the payment gateways and payroll systems mentioned above) to be legally viable for businesses. In short, solving compliance pain through tech unlocks the ability for businesses to use stablecoins without fear.

• Multi-Network and Stablecoin Aggregators: Given the fragmentation (so many stablecoins and blockchains), a useful developer project is an aggregator that supports all major stablecoin types and networks under one interface or API. This service would let a business accept or send stablecoins without worrying about the specific type. For example, a business could say “I only care about receiving USD value” – the aggregator could provide an address that accepts USDC, USDT, DAI, etc., on various chains, detect the incoming payment, and consolidate it for the user, converting if necessary. This removes the headache of “which stablecoin do we support?” and allows businesses to safely accept whatever the payer has, which increases flexibility. Likewise for sending – a business could input a destination (maybe the recipient’s preference or let the service find the cheapest way to deliver $X to that country) and the aggregator handles choosing the stablecoin/chain and execution. Such a tool reduces confusion and error (no more sending the wrong token to the wrong network). It could charge a small fee or spread on conversion for the convenience. With the plethora of stablecoins likely to persist (as noted, having many options is confusing users ), an aggregator becomes quite valuable. It’s essentially offering interoperability as a service, something the Orbital article cited as an area where early developments offer hope . By being chain-agnostic, this also future-proofs businesses against stablecoin market changes (if one coin falls out of favor, the aggregator just uses another under the hood).

• Stablecoin Financing and Credit Services: This is a bit further afield from just payments, but it’s worth noting – developers could build services around working capital and credit using stablecoins. For example, enabling businesses to earn yield on idle stablecoin balances (through safe DeFi lending or interest-bearing accounts) to improve treasury income. Or providing short-term credit in stablecoins for suppliers who need liquidity (kind of like invoice factoring but via crypto). These are more complex opportunities but could be highly valuable in underserved markets where getting a bank loan is hard but a DeFi protocol might provide an advance against stablecoin receivables. Such innovations can drive adoption because they offer something beyond what traditional finance does. If a small exporter knows that by using stablecoin payments they also gain access to a quick line of credit or yield options, they have extra incentive to switch. Developers in the crypto space are exploring “DeFi for businesses” and this could integrate with stablecoin payment platforms.

To illustrate the potential impact of capturing these opportunities: consider transaction fees and cost savings. If a developer’s solution enables even a 1% reduction in payment costs, that can translate to huge savings at scale – e.g., Walmart could save on the order of $10 billion in card fees per year, theoretically boosting profitability by over 60% if such costs were eliminated . While that’s an extreme example, it shows the magnitude of value in replacing legacy payments. Realistically, stablecoin solutions might cut costs by 20-50% in various scenarios , which is still significant. Developers can capture a slice of that value (e.g., charge 0.1% of transactions) and still make clients better off.

Additionally, the strategic timing is good. Large players like Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, and PayPal are all making moves toward stablecoins (Visa settling in USDC , Stripe with stablecoin payouts , PayPal launching its own USD stablecoin, etc.). This validates the market and will increase confidence. But those big players will likely serve other big enterprises first; smaller businesses and niche segments might be overlooked initially – which is where independent developers can shine by focusing on those niches and providing tailored solutions. Once built, these tools could themselves become acquisition targets (as Stripe acquired a stablecoin startup for $1B ), indicating strong ROI potential for successful products.

In summary, by targeting integration, compliance, and usability gaps, developers can create the picks-and-shovels needed for businesses to comfortably use stablecoins. These opportunities not only promise financial return for the builders but also advance the overall ecosystem, making stablecoins more practical and trusted in day-to-day commerce.

Conclusion​

Stablecoins have demonstrated immense promise by offering fast, low-cost, global transactions – a compelling upgrade to traditional payment rails mired in fees and delays. For businesses, the allure is straightforward: near-instant cross-border payments, reduced transaction costs (often by 50-80% ), and access to a digital dollar economy that operates 24/7. These benefits directly address long-standing pain points in areas like B2B payments, international trade, and small business transactions. Yet, as we’ve explored, widespread adoption by businesses has been held back by equally real challenges. Regulatory uncertainty, integration hurdles, liquidity and FX issues, user experience gaps, and the lack of enterprise-ready tooling form a wall between the promise of stablecoins and the reality on the ground.

Crucially, within these challenges lie clear opportunities. Many of the barriers are fixable frictions – the kind that innovative tools and services can overcome. Underserved market segments such as emerging-market SMEs, global freelancers, and small retailers are hungry for better payment solutions, but they need the bridges built for them to cross into the stablecoin world. Developers and entrepreneurs who focus on these pain points can become the bridge-builders. Whether it’s an API that **plugs stablecoins into existing finance software **, or an app that simplifies KYC for crypto transactions, or a platform that lets a coffee shop take digital dollars for lattes, each solution chips away at the barriers. Over time, these incremental improvements can lower the threshold enough that even non-crypto-savvy businesses step through and give stablecoins a try.

It’s also worth noting that stablecoins do not exist in a vacuum; they are part of a broader financial stack. To truly unlock their value, the surrounding services (compliance, security, dispute resolution, etc.) must evolve in parallel. As one analyst pointed out, the cost savings of stablecoins come from cutting out middlemen, but businesses still need someone or something to perform the “jobs” those middlemen did – fraud prevention, coordination, regulatory compliance . This is where new service providers can step in: for every function a bank or card network used to handle, there’s an opportunity for a crypto-native solution to handle it more efficiently or in a more user-driven way. The maturation of the stablecoin ecosystem will see the emergence of these complementary services, many likely built by agile startups.

From a strategic perspective, focusing on low-hanging fruit doesn’t just mean quick wins – it means laying the groundwork for bigger shifts. Solving practical issues for niche markets can be the wedge that brings stablecoin usage into the mainstream. For example, a robust stablecoin invoicing system for freelancers might later expand to SMB payroll, then to enterprise vendor payments. Each step builds confidence and track record. By emphasizing actionable improvements and ROI, developers can convince businesses to take that first step. Early success stories (like companies that cut remittance costs by 80% , or a retailer that gained new customers via stablecoin payments) will in turn inspire others to explore these tools.

In conclusion, the path to stablecoin adoption in business is not absent of obstacles, but none of the obstacles are insurmountable. The pain points are well-defined; many are already being tackled in pieces by forward-thinking companies and projects. What’s needed now is a concerted effort to address these gaps with practical, user-friendly solutions. By targeting underserved segments and their specific needs, and by developing the “glue” that connects stablecoins with everyday business operations, developers can unlock significant value – for themselves, for businesses, and for the broader economy. The year 2025 and beyond is poised to be a turning point where stablecoins move from the periphery of finance into its core workflows . Those who build the picks and shovels for this digital gold rush stand to reap substantial rewards, while also advancing financial innovation. In other words, solving these pain points isn’t just good deeds – it’s good business.

Sources:

• PYMNTS – Stablecoins Keep Racking Up Milestones, but Can They Crack B2B Payments?
• PYMNTS – Interview with Stable Sea CEO on cross-border payment pain points
• Orbital (Alexandra Lartey) – Stablecoins: Solving Real-World Challenges in B2B Payments (use cases and adoption hurdles)
• a16z (Sam Broner) – How stablecoins will eat payments (stablecoin benefits for SMEs, payment cost analysis)
• Banking Dive – Stablecoins face obstacles to widespread adoption (Money20/20 panel insights)
• Fintech Takes (Alex Johnson) – The Trouble With Stablecoins (critical analysis of stablecoin payments vs. card networks)
• Deloitte – 2025 – The year of payment stablecoins (risk, accounting, and tax considerations)
• Transfi – Efficient Stablecoin Payout Solutions: A Comprehensive Guide (stablecoin payout mechanics and benefits)
• Orbital – example of cost savings via stablecoins in B2B FX processes and e-commerce plugins boosting sales
• a16z – stablecoin vs traditional remittance cost comparison and Stripe stablecoin fee initiative .

The gap between the promise of crypto payments and the reality for e-commerce merchants remains surprisingly wide. Here's why—and where the opportunities lie for founders and builders.

Despite cryptocurrency's rise in mainstream awareness, accepting crypto payments on leading e-commerce platforms like Shopify remains far more complicated than it should be. The experience is fragmented for merchants, confusing for customers, and limiting for developers—even as demand for crypto payment options continues to grow.

After speaking with merchants, analyzing user flows, and reviewing the current plugin ecosystem, I've mapped the problem space to identify where entrepreneurial opportunities exist. The punchline? The current solutions leave much to be desired, and the startup that solves these pain points could capture significant value in the emerging crypto-commerce landscape.

The Merchant's Dilemma: Too Many Hoops, Too Little Integration​

For Shopify merchants, accepting crypto presents an immediate set of challenges:

Restrictive Integration Options — Unless you've upgraded to Shopify Plus (starting at $2,000/month), you cannot add custom payment gateways directly. You're limited to the few crypto payment providers Shopify has formally approved, which may not support the currencies or features you want.

The Third-Party "Tax" — Shopify charges an additional 0.5% to 2% fee on transactions processed through external payment gateways—effectively penalizing merchants for accepting crypto. This fee structure actively discourages adoption, especially for small merchants with tight margins.

The Multi-Platform Headache — Setting up crypto payments means juggling multiple accounts. You'll need to create an account with the payment provider, complete their business verification process, configure API keys, and then connect everything to Shopify. Each provider has its own dashboard, reporting, and settlement schedule, creating an administrative maze.

Refund Purgatory — Perhaps the most glaring issue: Shopify does not support automatic refunds for cryptocurrency payments. While credit card refunds can be issued with a click, crypto refunds require merchants to manually arrange payments through the gateway or send crypto back to the customer's wallet. This error-prone process creates friction in a critical part of the customer relationship.

A merchant I spoke with put it bluntly: "I was excited to accept Bitcoin, but after going through the setup and handling my first refund request, I almost turned it off. The only reason I kept it was that a handful of my best customers prefer paying this way."

The Customer Experience Is Still Web1 in a Web3 World​

When customers attempt to pay with crypto on Shopify stores, they encounter a user experience that feels distinctly behind the times:

The Redirect Shuffle — Unlike the seamless in-line credit card forms or one-click wallets like Shop Pay, selecting crypto payment typically redirects customers to an external checkout page. This jarring transition breaks the flow, creates trust issues, and increases abandonment rates.

The Countdown Timer of Doom — After selecting a cryptocurrency, customers are presented with a payment address and a ticking clock (typically 15 minutes) to complete the transaction before the payment window expires. This pressure-inducing timer exists because of price volatility, but it creates anxiety and frustration, especially for crypto newcomers.

The Mobile Maze — Making crypto payments on mobile devices is particularly cumbersome. If a customer needs to scan a QR code displayed on their phone with their wallet app (which is also on their phone), they're stuck in an impossible situation. Some integrations offer workarounds, but they're rarely intuitive.

The "Where's My Order?" Moment — After sending crypto, customers often face an uncertain wait. Unlike credit card transactions that confirm instantly, blockchain confirmations can take minutes (or longer). This leaves customers wondering if their order went through or if they need to try again—a recipe for support tickets and abandoned carts.

The Developer's Straitjacket​

Developers hoping to improve this situation face their own set of constraints:

Shopify's Walled Garden — Unlike open platforms like WooCommerce or Magento where developers can freely create payment plugins, Shopify tightly controls who can integrate with their checkout. This limitation stifles innovation and keeps promising solutions off the platform.

Limited Checkout Customization — On standard Shopify plans, developers cannot modify the checkout UI to make crypto payments more intuitive. There's no way to add explainer text, custom buttons, or Web3 wallet connection interfaces within the checkout flow.

The Compatibility Treadmill — When Shopify updates its checkout or payment APIs, third-party integrations must adapt quickly. In 2022, a platform change forced several crypto payment providers to rebuild their integrations, leaving merchants scrambling when their payment options suddenly stopped working.

A developer I interviewed who built crypto payment solutions for both WooCommerce and Shopify noted: "On WooCommerce, I can build exactly what merchants need. On Shopify, I'm constantly fighting the platform limitations—and that's before we even get to the technical challenges of blockchain integration."

Current Solutions: A Fragmented Landscape​

Shopify currently supports several crypto payment providers, each with their own limitations:

BitPay offers automatic conversion to fiat and supports about 14 cryptocurrencies, but charges a 1% processing fee and has its own KYC requirements for merchants.

Coinbase Commerce allows merchants to accept major cryptocurrencies, but doesn't automatically convert to fiat, leaving merchants to manage volatility. Refunds must be handled manually outside their dashboard.

Crypto.com Pay advertises zero transaction fees and supports 20+ cryptocurrencies, but works best for customers already in the Crypto.com ecosystem.

DePay takes a Web3 approach, allowing customers to pay with any token that has DEX liquidity, but requires customers to use Web3 wallets like MetaMask—a significant barrier for mainstream shoppers.

Other options include specialty providers like OpenNode (Bitcoin and Lightning), Strike (Lightning for US merchants), and Lunu (focused on European luxury retail).

The common thread? No single provider offers a comprehensive solution that delivers the simplicity, flexibility, and user experience that merchants and customers expect in 2025.

Where the Opportunities Lie​

These gaps in the market create several promising opportunities for founders and builders:

1. The Universal Crypto Checkout​

There's room for a "meta-gateway" that aggregates multiple payment providers under a single, cohesive interface. This would give merchants one integration point while offering customers their choice of cryptocurrency, with the system intelligently routing payments through the optimal provider. By abstracting the complexity, such a solution could dramatically simplify the merchant experience while improving conversion rates.

2. The Seamless Wallet Integration​

The current disconnected experience—where customers are redirected to external pages—is ripe for disruption. A solution that enables in-checkout crypto payments via WalletConnect or browser wallet integration could eliminate redirects entirely. Imagine clicking "Pay with Crypto" and having your browser wallet pop up directly, or scanning a QR code that immediately connects to your mobile wallet without leaving the checkout page.

3. The Instant Confirmation Service​

The lag between payment submission and blockchain confirmation is a major friction point. An innovative approach would be a payment guarantee service that fronts the payment to the merchant instantly (allowing immediate order processing) while handling blockchain confirmation in the background. By taking on settlement risk for a small fee, such a service could make crypto payments feel as immediate as credit cards.

4. The Refund Resolver​

The lack of automated refunds is perhaps the most glaring gap in the current ecosystem. A platform that simplifies crypto refunds—perhaps through a combination of smart contracts, escrow systems, and user-friendly interfaces—could remove a major pain point for merchants. Ideally, it would enable one-click refunds that handle all the complexity of sending crypto back to customers.

5. The Crypto Accountant​

Tax and accounting complexity remains a significant barrier for merchants accepting crypto. A specialized solution that integrates with Shopify and crypto wallets to automatically track payment values, calculate gains/losses, and generate tax reports could transform a headache into a selling point. By making compliance simple, such a tool could encourage more merchants to accept crypto.

The Big Picture: Beyond Payments​

Looking ahead, the real opportunity may extend beyond simply fixing the current checkout experience. The most successful solutions will likely leverage crypto's unique properties to offer capabilities that traditional payment methods cannot match:

Borderless Commerce — True global reach without currency exchange complications, enabling merchants to sell to underbanked regions or countries with unstable currencies.

Programmable Loyalty — NFT-based loyalty programs that provide special benefits to repeat customers who pay in crypto, creating stickier customer relationships.

Decentralized Escrow — Smart contracts that hold funds until delivery is confirmed, balancing the interests of both merchants and customers without requiring a trusted third party.

Token-Gated Exclusivity — Special products or early access for customers who hold specific tokens, creating new business models for premium merchants.

The Bottom Line​

The current state of crypto checkout on Shopify reveals a striking gap between the promise of digital currency and its practical implementation in e-commerce. Despite mainstream interest in cryptocurrencies, the experience of using them for everyday purchases remains needlessly complex.

For entrepreneurs, this gap represents a significant opportunity. The startup that can deliver a truly seamless crypto payment experience—one that feels as easy as credit cards for both merchants and customers—stands to capture substantial value as digital currency adoption continues to grow.

The blueprint is clear: abstract away the complexity, eliminate redirects, solve the confirmation lag, simplify refunds, and integrate natively with the platforms merchants already use. Execution remains challenging due to technical complexity and platform limitations, but the prize for getting it right is a central position in the future of digital commerce.

In a world where money is increasingly digital, the checkout experience should reflect that reality. We're not there yet—but we're getting closer.

---

What crypto payment experiences have you encountered as a merchant or customer? Have you tried implementing crypto payments on your Shopify store? Share your experiences in the comments below.

In the rapidly evolving landscape of blockchain technology, a familiar name has stepped into the arena with a bold vision. Sony, the entertainment and technology giant, has launched Soneium—an Ethereum Layer-2 blockchain designed to bridge the gap between cutting-edge Web3 innovations and mainstream internet services. But what exactly is Soneium, and why should you care? Let's dive in.

What is Soneium?​

Soneium is a Layer-2 blockchain built on top of Ethereum, developed by Sony Block Solutions Labs—a joint venture between Sony Group and Startale Labs. Launched in January 2025 after a successful testnet phase, Soneium aims to "realize the open internet that transcends boundaries" by making blockchain technology accessible, scalable, and practical for everyday use.

Think of it as Sony's attempt to make blockchain as user-friendly as its PlayStations and Walkmans once made gaming and music.

The Tech Behind Soneium​

For the tech-curious among us, Soneium is built on Optimism's OP Stack, which means it uses the same optimistic rollup framework as other popular Layer-2 solutions. In plain English? It processes transactions off-chain and only periodically posts compressed data back to Ethereum, making transactions faster and cheaper while maintaining security.

Soneium is fully compatible with the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM), so developers familiar with Ethereum can easily deploy their applications on the platform. It also joins Optimism's "Superchain" ecosystem, allowing it to communicate easily with other Layer-2 networks like Coinbase's Base.

What Makes Soneium Special?​

While there are already several Layer-2 solutions on the market, Soneium stands out for its focus on entertainment, creative content, and fan engagement—areas where Sony has decades of experience and vast resources.

Imagine buying a movie ticket and receiving an exclusive digital collectible that grants access to bonus content. Or attending a virtual concert where your NFT ticket becomes a memento with special perks. These are the kinds of experiences Sony envisions building on Soneium.

The platform is designed to support:

• Gaming experiences with faster transactions for in-game assets
• NFT marketplaces for digital collectibles
• Fan engagement apps where communities can interact with creators
• Financial tools for creators and fans
• Enterprise blockchain solutions

Sony's Partnerships Power Soneium​

Sony isn't going it alone. The company has forged strategic partnerships to bolster Soneium's development and adoption:

• Startale Labs, a Singapore-based blockchain startup led by Sota Watanabe (co-founder of Astar Network), is Sony's key technical partner
• Optimism Foundation provides the underlying technology
• Circle ensures that USD Coin (USDC) serves as a primary currency on the network
• Samsung has made a strategic investment through its venture arm
• Alchemy, Chainlink, Pyth Network, and The Graph provide essential infrastructure services

Sony is also leveraging its internal divisions—including Sony Pictures, Sony Music Entertainment, and Sony Music Publishing—to pilot Web3 fan engagement projects on Soneium. For example, the platform has already hosted NFT campaigns for the "Ghost in the Shell" franchise and various music artists under Sony's label.

Early Signs of Success​

Despite being just a few months old, Soneium has shown promising traction:

• Its testnet phase saw over 15 million active wallets and processed over 47 million transactions
• Within the first month of mainnet launch, Soneium attracted over 248,000 on-chain accounts and about 1.8 million addresses interacting with the network
• The platform has successfully launched several NFT drops, including a collaboration with Web3 music label Coop Records

To fuel growth, Sony and Astar Network launched a 100-day incentive campaign with a 100 million token reward pool, encouraging users to try out apps, supply liquidity, and be active on the platform.

Security and Scalability: A Balancing Act​

Security is paramount for Sony, especially as it carries its trusted brand into the blockchain space. Soneium inherits Ethereum's security while adding its own protective measures.

Interestingly, Sony has taken a somewhat controversial approach by blacklisting certain smart contracts and tokens deemed to infringe on intellectual property. While this has raised questions about decentralization, Sony argues that some curation is necessary to protect creators and build trust with mainstream users.

On the scalability front, Soneium's very purpose is to enhance Ethereum's throughput. By processing transactions off-chain, it can handle a much higher volume of transactions at much lower costs—crucial for mass adoption of applications like games or large NFT drops.

The Road Ahead​

Sony has outlined a multi-phase roadmap for Soneium:

1. First year: Onboarding Web3 enthusiasts and early adopters
2. Within two years: Integrating Sony products like Sony Bank, Sony Music, and Sony Pictures
3. Within three years: Expanding to enterprises and general applications beyond Sony's ecosystem

The company is gradually rolling out its NFT-driven Fan Marketing Platform, which will allow brands and artists to easily issue NFTs to fans, offering perks like exclusive content and event access.

While Soneium currently relies on ETH for gas fees and uses ASTR (Astar Network's token) for incentives, there's speculation about a potential Soneium native token in the future.

How Soneium Compares to Other Layer-2 Networks​

In the crowded Layer-2 market, Soneium faces competition from established players like Arbitrum, Optimism, and Polygon. However, Sony is carving a unique position by leveraging its entertainment empire and focusing on creative use cases.

Unlike purely community-driven Layer-2 networks, Soneium benefits from Sony's brand trust, access to content IP, and a potentially huge user base from existing Sony services.

The trade-off is less decentralization (at least initially) compared to networks like Optimism and Arbitrum, which have issued tokens and implemented community governance.

The Big Picture​

Sony's Soneium represents a significant step toward blockchain mass adoption. By focusing on content and fan engagement—areas where Sony excels—the company is positioning Soneium as a bridge between Web3 enthusiasts and everyday consumers.

If Sony can successfully convert even a fraction of its millions of customers into Web3 participants, Soneium could become one of the first truly mainstream blockchain platforms.

The experiment has just begun, but the potential is enormous. As the lines between entertainment, technology, and blockchain continue to blur, Soneium may well be at the forefront of this convergence, bringing blockchain technology to the masses one gaming avatar or music NFT at a time.