Stablecoins are moving beyond their original role as an alternative payment method. As regulation advances and businesses increasingly look to them for settlement, liquidity management, and cross-border payments, the question is shifting from whether the technology works to how it fits into existing financial infrastructure.
CoinsPaid Media spoke to Maksym Sakharov, CEO and Co-Founder of WeFi, about how the stablecoin market is maturing, what the GENIUS Act could change for payment products, and how stablecoins may evolve alongside banks, tokenized deposits and traditional payment rails.
Stablecoins from Payments to Financial Infrastructure
How has the stablecoin market changed since your early work with USDT-based payment products?
When we first started building payment products around USDT, the conversation was largely about proving that stablecoins could move digital value reliably. Most activity still revolved around crypto markets, and many businesses viewed them as an alternative payment method rather than as part of financial infrastructure. Today, the discussion has changed considerably. Stablecoins are increasingly evaluated by how well they support settlement, liquidity management, treasury operations, and cross-border commerce rather than by the technology itself.
That reflects how much the market has matured. Businesses are asking how stablecoins fit into existing financial operations, not whether they work. Regulatory developments, stronger custody solutions, and institutional participation have also changed expectations around governance and operational resilience. The industry is moving beyond demonstrating technical capability toward building trusted operating models that businesses can rely on at scale. That is the point where payment technology begins to mature into financial infrastructure.
Where are stablecoins already replacing traditional payment rails rather than simply complementing them?
The strongest examples are found where traditional payment infrastructure struggles to meet commercial requirements. Cross-border business payments, treasury transfers between international entities, and markets with limited correspondent banking access are areas where stablecoins are increasingly becoming part of the primary settlement process rather than simply providing an alternative payment option.
The reason is not that businesses are looking specifically for stablecoins. They are looking for more predictable settlement, better liquidity management, and fewer operational delays. Stablecoins tend to complement established systems when existing rails work well, but they can become the preferred settlement layer where settlement is slow, fragmented, or expensive.
I think that distinction is important because it shows the market is selecting technology based on operational outcomes rather than ideology. Successful payment infrastructure is adopted because it solves commercial problems, not because users are interested in the underlying technology.
How Regulation Is Reshaping Stablecoin Products
Which parts of the GENIUS Act are most likely to change how stablecoin products are built and monetized?
I think the most significant changes relate to how the Act defines the role of a payment stablecoin rather than any single technical requirement. Expectations around reserve quality, redemption rights, governance, and supervision encourage builders to design products that prioritise operational resilience and trust from the outset. Those standards influence product architecture because compliance, reserve management, and governance can no longer be treated as supporting functions. They become part of the product itself.
The monetization model changes as well. By restricting payment stablecoins from offering yield to holders, the Act reinforces the idea that they are intended to compete as payment and settlement infrastructure rather than as investment products. That shifts the commercial focus toward value-added services such as payments, treasury management, financial coordination, cross-border settlement, and integration into business workflows. The opportunity increasingly lies in building services around trusted payment rails rather than generating demand through financial incentives.
Does the GENIUS Act’s restriction on yield reinforce a clear divide between stablecoins for payments and products designed for savings or investment?
I think it reinforces a distinction that was already becoming commercially apparent. Payment instruments and investment products perform different functions within a financial system, and combining those roles can create conflicting incentives. A payment asset is expected to provide stability, liquidity, and predictability. Savings and investment products are designed around capital growth and therefore involve different economic characteristics and risk profiles.
Separating those roles allows payment stablecoins to focus on becoming dependable settlement infrastructure while leaving room for other regulated products to serve investment or savings objectives. That separation does not reduce innovation. Instead, it clarifies the role each product is intended to play within the broader financial system.
I expect financial infrastructure to become more specialised over time. Different forms of digital money, including payment stablecoins, tokenized deposits, and investment products, can coexist because they serve different commercial needs within an increasingly connected financial ecosystem.
What challenges arise for digital asset platforms when stablecoin regulation advances faster than broader crypto market rules?
One challenge is that payment infrastructure rarely operates in isolation. A platform may have greater certainty around payment stablecoins while continuing to navigate evolving expectations for digital assets, custody, tokenized assets, or broader market structure. That creates an environment where one part of the operating model becomes well defined while others continue to develop, making long-term product planning more complex.
From a business perspective, this encourages companies to separate functions more clearly. Payment services can begin operating under established standards, while other digital asset activities remain adaptable as market structure evolves. That requires flexible product architecture, governance, and legal structures capable of accommodating different regulatory timelines without disrupting the overall user experience.
I see this as a natural stage in market maturity rather than an obstacle. Financial systems rarely evolve all at once. Different components reach maturity at different speeds, and resilient platforms are designed to incorporate that gradual evolution while continuing to provide businesses and users with a coherent financial experience.
Balancing Control, Compliance, and Consumer Protection
Where should the line be drawn between user control over funds and the compliance obligations of stablecoin infrastructure providers?
I do not think user control and compliance should be viewed as competing objectives. A well-designed financial system should protect legitimate user ownership while ensuring that the institutions responsible for operating payment infrastructure meet appropriate legal and operational obligations. Those responsibilities exist at different layers of the system and should not be confused.
Users should retain confidence that they control and can access their funds according to the rules governing the product they use. Infrastructure providers, meanwhile, are responsible for governance, operational resilience, risk management, and compliance with applicable legal requirements. Good system design allows those responsibilities to coexist rather than forcing a choice between them.
The quality of the operating model will increasingly be measured by how well it balances user confidence with institutional accountability. The objective is not to maximise one at the expense of the other, but to build trusted financial systems where both reinforce one another.
How can stablecoin payments reconcile irreversible on-chain settlement with the refunds, chargebacks, and consumer protections built into card networks?
Irreversible settlement and consumer protection address different parts of a payment system. Settlement determines when value is transferred. Consumer protection determines how disputes, errors, fraud, and commercial obligations are managed. Card networks combine those functions within one operating model because they evolved around that particular payment architecture. Digital payment infrastructure has the opportunity to organise them differently.
Rather than reversing settlement itself, many protections can increasingly be delivered through governance, identity, escrow arrangements, dispute resolution frameworks, merchant obligations, and commercial rules built around the payment experience. That allows final settlement to remain efficient while preserving the safeguards users and businesses expect when making everyday transactions.
With time, competitive advantage will depend less on settlement technology alone and more on designing complete operating models that combine speed, trust, accountability, and consumer confidence. That is ultimately how digital payment systems become suitable for everyday commercial activity rather than merely serving to transfer value efficiently.
The Future of Stablecoin Infrastructure
How could the role of independent stablecoins change as banks expand into tokenized deposits and on-chain payments?
I do not see this as a competition where one form of digital money replaces another. Financial systems have always relied on different instruments serving different purposes, and I expect that to continue. Independent stablecoins, tokenized deposits, and other forms of digital value are likely to become complementary components within a broader payment ecosystem rather than competing products trying to achieve the same objective.
Independent stablecoins are particularly well suited to supporting open, cross-platform settlement where participants operate across jurisdictions, financial institutions, or digital networks. Tokenized deposits, meanwhile, can play an important role within existing banking relationships by extending regulated deposit money into programmable payment environments. They differ in terms of issuance, settlement, and institutional integration.
What metrics would show whether new stablecoin regulation is actually improving financial infrastructure?
I would look less at the growth of stablecoin issuance and more at whether businesses begin changing how they operate. Infrastructure has matured when organisations can move value more efficiently, reconcile transactions with less manual work, manage liquidity across markets more effectively, and integrate payments more naturally into their existing financial operations.
Cross-border settlement times, reconciliation costs, treasury efficiency, business adoption, and integration into enterprise payment workflows are all more meaningful indicators than issuance volume alone. Those measures show whether the underlying operating model is improving rather than simply whether more digital assets are circulating.
How do you see the global stablecoin payments landscape evolving as regulatory frameworks develop across different jurisdictions?
I think we will gradually move away from thinking about stablecoins as standalone payment products and toward seeing them as one settlement layer within a much broader financial ecosystem. Businesses rarely operate within a single market, use a single currency, or rely on a single payment network, so the long-term opportunity lies in connecting different forms of digital money, banking systems, and domestic payment rails into more coordinated cross-border operating models.
Regulatory frameworks will play an important role because they provide greater confidence for banks, payment providers, and businesses to invest in that infrastructure. While jurisdictions will continue developing their own supervisory approaches, there is already growing alignment around many of the operating standards expected for payment stablecoins. That makes it easier to design financial systems that can adapt across markets, even when implementation differs locally.
The next phase will depend on how effectively stablecoins integrate with existing financial infrastructure, not on their growth alone.
