Crypto payments have spent years being discussed through the lens of investment: who holds crypto, who trades it, and how institutions approach digital assets as a financial product. But for merchants, the more practical question is different. Can crypto, and especially stablecoins, become part of the payment stack?
In Europe, that question is especially relevant. Open banking, instant SEPA, wallets, embedded finance, alternative payment methods, and stablecoin settlement are all developing at the same time. Meanwhile, MiCA, the Travel Rule, and stronger AML expectations are raising the bar for crypto companies that want to operate at scale.
To understand where crypto processing fits into this environment, we spoke with Max Krupyshev, Executive Leader of CryptoProcessing by Coinspaid, about stablecoin payments, merchant demand, regulation, banking access, and what would signal that crypto processing is becoming part of mainstream European payment infrastructure.
Where Stablecoin Payments Fit In Europe’s Payment Stack
Europe is developing several payment rails at once: open banking, instant SEPA, wallets, embedded finance, and now stablecoin settlement. When you speak with merchants, where does crypto actually win against these alternatives?
I think today we should speak less about crypto payments in general and more about stablecoin payments specifically. The terminology in the market is changing all the time — some companies call themselves infrastructure providers, some call themselves platforms, some call themselves payment providers. But if we look at the value for merchants, I usually describe it through three “I’s”: international, instant, and irreversible.
International means that the merchant can collect payments from almost anywhere in the world. Of course, in regulated environments, businesses still need to define where they are allowed to operate and which markets they want to serve. But from a technology perspective, stablecoins make international acceptance much easier.
Instant does not mean literally instant, because nothing in the world is truly instant. But we are often speaking about payment confirmation in a few seconds, or up to around 20 seconds even on slower blockchains. For online commerce, that is very fast. For offline commerce, it can also work well, especially on faster networks.
The third point is irreversibility. That is very important for industries selling digital goods, content, entertainment, or other services where chargebacks can be a serious issue. In those cases, payment finality is a real business advantage.
Usually, when merchants come to us, they already understand that they want to try stablecoin payments. They may have heard about it from competitors, industry peers, or shareholders who have other businesses. So the discussion often moves quickly from “Do we need this?” to “Which provider should we choose, and who can help us integrate it properly?”
A lot of companies say stablecoins are useful for cross-border payments, but that can mean many different things. In your merchant base, where is the real demand coming from?
Most of the demand still comes from companies that want to accept payments. These are often international businesses with customers, suppliers, freelancers, or partners across different regions. Once they start accepting stablecoins, they often realize that the same infrastructure can also be used for payouts — to pay suppliers, contractors, affiliates, or creators.
Some companies come to us with a different need. They may not need to collect payments at all. They may have a euro account in Europe but need to pay suppliers in India, Canada, the US, Indonesia, or other markets. In that case, they are looking for a cheaper or easier alternative to traditional bank transfers or SWIFT.
There are also companies that need automation. If you make three payments a month, you can probably do it manually. But if you need to make thousands of payouts to suppliers, marketplace sellers, or content creators, manual crypto transfers are not practical. There is too much room for human error: entering an address incorrectly, missing a transaction ID, or failing to track a payout properly. Software can automate this and make the flow traceable.
Other clients come only for the exchange. They deposit euros, buy stablecoins, and withdraw them. Or they deposit stablecoins, sell them for euros or dollars, and withdraw fiat. But that is not the majority. Most international clients use several flows together: they accept payments, convert between crypto, stablecoins, and fiat when needed, and then either settle to a bank account or use the balance to pay their own obligations.
Crypto payments are often discussed as if the customer pays in crypto and the merchant simply receives fiat. Is that still the dominant model, or are more European merchants becoming comfortable holding stablecoins or settling partially in crypto? What is changing their mind?
There are different philosophies here, and one thing people often miss is that accounting and treasury are not the same.
Some merchants convert everything into euros because it makes accounting clearer. If they sell goods priced in euros, they want incoming funds to match their accounting currency and their liabilities. For example, an electronics merchant may sell everything in euros, convert all incoming crypto or stablecoin payments into euros, and then later convert some of that back into USDC to pay a supplier in Asia.
But from a treasury perspective, that may not always be the most efficient flow. If the merchant knows it will need to pay suppliers in USDC, it may be cheaper to keep part of the flow in stablecoins instead of converting twice. Some merchants use APIs to calculate how much they need to collect and then optimize the flow from the beginning.
So there are two main approaches. Some clients say: “Let’s not take additional complexity. Let’s convert everything to the currency of our accounting and liabilities.” Others, usually more developed companies with stronger analytical and treasury capabilities, ask: “How do we make this flow as efficiently as possible?”
We see both. Some clients accept higher costs because reporting and accounting are clearer. Others are focused on optimizing fees and operations without taking unnecessary exposure. Holding Bitcoin on the balance sheet may not be a good idea for many merchants. But holding USDC for a few weeks, especially if it helps avoid double conversion, can make sense for some businesses.
How MiCA and the Travel Rule Are Reshaping Crypto Payment Providers
MiCA gives Europe a clearer framework, but it also raises the bar for licensing, governance, reserves, disclosure, and compliance. In practice, how does this help crypto payment processors sell to serious merchants, or does it mainly increase operational costs before the commercial upside appears?
In the bigger picture, MiCA acts as a filter. It raises the requirements, and many businesses will probably decide not to go through the licensing process because it is expensive, difficult, or simply not aligned with their strategy.
From a business perspective, that can be positive for serious providers. If smaller providers decide not to continue under MiCA, but their clients are legitimate businesses that want to work with regulated companies, those clients will move to licensed or regulated entities.
It also matters for financial partners. They may be suppliers, clients, or both. A MiCA license can make them more comfortable working with a crypto company. Even now, during the transition period, we already hear from some partners that they want to work with MiCA providers. So commercially, it can become a door opener.
Banking access is another question. Opening bank accounts for crypto businesses in Europe has historically been difficult. It is possible, but you cannot simply walk into a major bank and expect them to open an account for a crypto company. Many crypto businesses fall outside traditional banks’ risk appetite.
With MiCA, there is hope that this will change because it is a proper European regulatory framework. Banks may eventually see the license as a meaningful stamp of approval. We do not yet see strong signs that this has fully changed, but I believe it should move in that direction.
For enterprise clients, MiCA also simplifies the search process. If only a limited number of companies are licensed, the market becomes easier to filter. Enterprises can look at a shorter list of providers with audits, compliance controls, regulatory oversight, and the right documentation. That makes the decision process more manageable.
The Travel Rule is one of the biggest operational changes for crypto payments. From a processor’s perspective, where does the friction really appear: wallet attribution, transaction screening, counterparty risk, customer experience, partner integrations, or merchant onboarding?
The Travel Rule is partly a technical and compliance question, but it is also ideological. The original idea of cryptocurrency was financial freedom: users could store and use assets without relying on a bank or another central party. Stablecoins change that a little because users depend on the issuer, but the idea of being able to pay freely is still important.
The challenge is that many people use non-custodial wallets — MetaMask, Trust Wallet, hardware wallets like Ledger or Trezor, and others. These addresses are not always associated with a person in the same way that an account at a regulated exchange is. If Travel Rule implementation means that payments can only be accepted from regulated exchanges that have completed KYC and can transmit the required information, then the industry splits into two parts.
On one side, you have companies that accept only payments from regulated exchanges. On the other hand, you have companies that do not perform Travel Rule checks in the same way and allow payments from non-custodial wallets.
My concern is that if every transaction requires a confirmed name match with a regulated entity that also supports Travel Rule messaging, it can damage conversion. It may mean that customers can only pay from certain exchanges. That reduces the usefulness of the payment method.
Of course, it is important to understand the source of funds: whether the assets are stolen, sanctioned, or connected to illegal activity. Blockchain analytics can help with that. But if the requirement becomes too strict around identity matching and counterparty information, it may make stablecoin payments much less practical for everyday merchant acceptance.
Banking resistance is often mentioned quietly in the crypto industry. How has European regulatory clarity made banks materially more willing to work with crypto payment companies, or do banks still treat the sector as reputationally risky despite MiCA and stronger AML controls?
The big picture has not changed yet. Banks have not suddenly become open to crypto companies. It feels like this may change with MiCA, but we are not there yet.
Historically, some crypto companies managed to build banking relationships because they invested heavily in trust, relationships, and lobbying. But that does not mean the same bank would open an account for another crypto business. In many cases, if you knock on the door and say, “We are a crypto company, please open an account,” the answer is still no.
There are some banks and e-money institutions that are more open to crypto businesses, but the number is still small. Many companies rely on e-money institutions that look and function like banks in many ways, even if they are not banks in the full traditional sense.
MiCA may help because it creates a recognizable regulatory framework. But for now, banking access remains one of the key bottlenecks for the industry.
Why Merchants Are Adopting Crypto Payments Beyond Speculation
Many merchants already use a complex stack of cards, local APMs, wallets, open banking, fraud tools, and payment orchestration. When crypto is added to that stack, what is the biggest integration challenge that outsiders usually underestimate?
For merchants, I would say the change is not as dramatic as many people think. What changes is mostly the data that has to be passed.
When a merchant creates an address or generates a payment link, they may need to provide metadata about the customer: whether the payer is an individual or a legal entity, and information such as first name, last name, or corporate name. In some cases, address information may also be required, depending on the context and the rules.
So instead of just saying, “Give me a payment address,” the merchant may now need to say, “Give me a payment address for this customer.” That means the request contains more information.
In most e-commerce scenarios, merchants already have much of this information. If someone buys something online, the merchant often already has their name, surname, and delivery address. They may not have passport information, and for smaller consumer payments, that is usually not the point. But the basic customer information is already part of many checkout flows.
So for merchants, the integration challenge is less about rebuilding everything and more about understanding which data fields are required, when they are required, and how to pass them correctly.
Which industries are not just “interested” in crypto payments, but actually have repeatable payment volume? And are they adopting crypto because their customers demand it, or because traditional payment providers are failing them in specific ways?
The strongest demand comes from international businesses that need to move money in and out quickly. Marketplaces are a good example because they receive many payments and also need to send money out. Digital goods are another strong category because the product moves instantly. If you sell game skins, vouchers, keys, software, access, or other digital items, the payment should also move quickly.
Digital entertainment is another major area: gaming, iGaming, casinos, sports betting, prediction markets, and similar sectors. These industries adopted crypto payments a long time ago. It is not new for them.
Then there are the creator economy and content platforms. They need to receive payments from users internationally and pay creators who may be based anywhere in the world. Those creators may live in countries where receiving international bank transfers is slow, expensive, or unreliable. Banks may block or question some payments. Stablecoins can solve real payout problems in those cases.
These industries also educate users. People who play games, gamble, trade items, or earn in stablecoins learn how to use crypto. Then they ask the next question: where can I spend it? Travel, hotels, cars, rentals, and other services become relevant.
Crypto cards became popular because they bridge the gap between users who hold stablecoins and merchants that do not accept them directly. But cards introduce fees. If a customer can pay a merchant directly in stablecoins, the customer can avoid some exchange costs, and the merchant can avoid some card costs. For e-commerce, even a few percentage points can be very important.
What Factors Will Shape the Adoption of Crypto Payment Infrastructure in Europe
Europe is often described as a single regulated market, but payment behavior, banking access, licensing culture, and merchant risk appetite vary by country. Which European markets are becoming genuinely strategic for crypto processing, and what separates a real crypto-friendly hub from a marketing label?
It is not clear yet who the leader will be. Europe is not one uniform market in practice. Different countries have different approaches to licensing, supervision, banking access, and crypto businesses.
Germany is an interesting example. A lot of German banks received MiCA-related authorizations, which can make Germany look very crypto-friendly from the outside. But if you are not already regulated by BaFin, applying there is not simple. So the picture is more complicated than the registry alone suggests.
Estonia was historically one of the most crypto-friendly jurisdictions, with many crypto businesses registered there. But now it does not look like Estonia wants to lead this market in the same way. Lithuania has been strong in the EMI space and supports its local fintech ecosystem. Latvia is now showing signs that it wants to become more active in crypto and fintech licensing.
At the moment, I do not see one perfect European jurisdiction where everything is aligned: easy licensing, strong banking access, available directors and compliance officers, and a welcoming ecosystem. Most companies are applying in the countries where they already operate. If you were operating in the Netherlands, you would go to the Dutch regulator. If you were in Germany, you would go to Germany. If you were in Spain, you would go to Spain.
Latvia may become more important, especially because some companies from markets where the licensing process is delayed or unclear are looking there. But it is still early to say who will lead.
If crypto processing becomes part of mainstream European payment infrastructure, what will be the leading indicator?
A clear indicator would be when you can pay with stablecoins in ordinary places: supermarkets, large retail chains, hotels, restaurants, travel platforms, and mainstream online stores.
I would not start with salaries or taxes — those may be delayed indicators. Hospitality and travel may come earlier because they rely heavily on international customers. If platforms like Booking.com, Airbnb, or similar services start accepting crypto for hotels and rooms, that would be a strong signal.
It is already happening in more places, both online and offline. I would not say Europe is leading globally, but Europe is also not falling behind. We see adoption in online goods and services, online entertainment, automotive, and some travel-related businesses. FMCG and supermarkets are not there yet in the same way, but the direction is visible.
We also see new business models appearing around people who want to pay with stablecoins. Some aggregators allow users to buy vouchers, top up mobile phones, or access services with crypto at a one-to-one price. For example, if you buy a 50-euro voucher, you pay 50 euros, not 52. That matters.
In some industries, crypto acceptance becomes a competitive advantage. Private jets are a good example. Many booking companies do not own the planes themselves; they know where to get access to them. If one company knows how to accept crypto, others may send crypto-paying customers to them. The same can happen in car sales or other industries where the transaction is more individual and high-value.
So the leading indicator will not be one announcement. It will be when stablecoin payments become a normal option across travel, digital commerce, automotive, hospitality, and eventually everyday retail. That is when crypto processing will no longer look like a niche payment method. It will look like part of the payment infrastructure.
