SoFi has begun settling debit and credit card transactions with Mastercard using its SoFiUSD stablecoin, marking a migration of its entire card program to a blockchain-based settlement rail. The bank expects the program to process more than $25 billion in annualized volume.
The move does not remove intermediaries from the card settlement process, a SoFi spokesperson told Cointelegraph, but instead provides an alternative to the traditional banking rails that have long settled obligations between participants. For customers, the change occurs behind the scenes: cardholders will continue using their cards normally while the bank settles transactions faster on-chain.
Visa is pursuing a parallel path. In April, the company said its stablecoin settlement pilot had reached a $7 billion annualized run rate as it expanded support to nine blockchains, describing blockchain settlement as "a viable complement to traditional settlement rails."
Federal Reserve researchers wrote in a March note that stablecoins could reshape the economics of payments without necessarily eliminating banks. Payments experts surveyed by Cointelegraph echoed the view that disintermediation has not yet arrived.
"I wouldn't call it disintermediation at this stage," said Martins Benkitis, co-founder and CEO of emerging-markets liquidity provider Gravity Team. "Visa and Mastercard are still there. The banks are still there. The network is still calculating the obligations, managing the transaction and deciding how participants interact with it."
Benkitis argued that stablecoins could become a larger part of the payments stack without businesses or consumers ever directly interacting with them. "If stablecoins become a major part of payments, most businesses probably won't care that there is a stablecoin somewhere in the process," he said. "They'll care that settlement is available when they need it and that the money arrives."
Varun Datta, venture capitalist and founder of Truth Ventures, agreed that continuous settlement could reduce delays and lower the amount of capital firms need to keep in different locations for payments, particularly across borders. But he cautioned that those benefits do not automatically translate into cheaper payments. Conversion, compliance, integration and stablecoin-management costs must still be factored in.
"I don't think speed on a blockchain automatically means a cheaper end-to-end payment," Datta said. He added that he would want to see evidence of lower total costs and better liquidity management at scale before calling the economic case proven.
The economics grow more complicated when stablecoins must ultimately be converted into local currencies. Benkitis noted that while dollar-denominated stablecoins can move between balance sheets within minutes, completing payments in emerging markets remains harder. Local currency liquidity can be thinner, fewer banks handle the flows, and access to the domestic banking system is still required.
"The stablecoin gets the value there quickly," Benkitis said. "You still need the local liquidity to finish the payment."
