🅔🪝DanielH {𝗫▸}

Stablecoins don't improve every cross-border flow. They tend not to when: - the existing rail already delivers the speed and economics the flow needs - no regulated issuer offers the currency with a credible redemption path - the institutions on the other side of the flow won't hold the asset - there is no licensed payout partner – the money reaches an account balance, not a recipient - the asset's classification or the flow's permissibility is unclear in a jurisdiction it touches - no metric improves measurably – capital, hours, breaks, cost – and the complexity is the whole outcome They tend to help when cut-offs and time zones hold value in flight, when capital sits prefunded across several corridors, and when a regulated issuer, willing counterparties and a licensed last mile are all in place. A fit is a property of the corridor, not of the technology. Sometimes the incumbent rail wins, and that is a legitimate outcome. That is the thinking behind payments.inftf.org: a decision matrix for when stablecoins help, a readiness framework of fifteen decisions, the six layers behind a production payment flow, and a live corridor – euro remittance settlement into Ethiopia since May 2026, launched by TerraPay, Cooperative Bank of Oromia and Quantoz Payments and developed in collaboration with INFTF. Have a payment flow worth rethinking? A short description of the problem is enough to start. payments.inftf.org