Could stablecoins become the biggest threat to traditional international banking since online banking?

Stablecoins are beginning to offer businesses an always-on alternative for moving value across borders. The real question is not whether banks disappear, but which parts of international banking they can still justify owning.

Online banking transformed the customer interface, but it did not replace the underlying banking system. Stablecoins could be more disruptive because they challenge the infrastructure itself. Designed to maintain a stable value against an asset such as a national currency, payment stablecoins can move across blockchain networks continuously, potentially allowing businesses to transfer value without relying on every stage of the traditional correspondent-banking chain.

Why businesses are exploring stablecoins for cross-border payments

The attraction is practical. The Bank for International Settlements identifies potential benefits for cross-border payments including lower costs, greater speed, more payment options and improved transparency. Stablecoin rails can operate beyond conventional cut-off times and, in some models, reduce the number of intermediaries needed to complete a transaction. For an internationally active company, that could mean faster settlement, greater visibility over cash and less capital left waiting between jurisdictions.

This is no longer a purely theoretical proposition. Visa reported more than $3.5bn in annualised stablecoin settlement volume when it launched USDC settlement for US institutions in December 2025, with seven-day availability. Meanwhile, Swift announced in July 2026 that its blockchain-based ledger was ready for initial use, with 17 banks preparing to pilot tokenised deposits for 24/7 cross-border payments. Incumbents are not standing still: they are absorbing the technology into regulated networks.

Stablecoin regulation and the risks businesses need to understand

That response matters because the threat is not a straightforward substitution. Stablecoins still depend on reliable reserves, redemption arrangements, liquidity, compliant on-and off-ramps (the services that connect traditional money and the stablecoin ecosystem) and legal certainty across jurisdictions.

The Financial Stability Board found that, as of August 2025, only five surveyed jurisdictions had finalised comprehensive stablecoin frameworks. The European Central Bank warned that stablecoins could lose value, face mass withdrawals or exploit differences between national regulations. It also notes that around 99% are linked to the US dollar. These are important issues for businesses deciding where to keep the funds needed for day-to-day operations.

The Bank of England’s proposed regime illustrates the trade-off. It sees regulated stablecoins as capable of supporting faster and cheaper domestic and cross-border payments, but proposes strict backing, redemption and temporary holding requirements to protect confidence and limit destabilising movements out of bank deposits. Regulation may therefore legitimise stablecoins while also preserving the safeguards that make bank money dependable.

Will stablecoins replace international banking or reshape it?

So, could stablecoins become banking’s biggest threat since online banking? Yes, but mainly to banks whose cross-border payment revenues depend on traditional fees, delays and intermediary processes. The more likely outcome is not the end of international banking, but a redrawing of its role. Banks may retain the trust, compliance, credit and advisory relationship while stablecoin or tokenised-payment infrastructure handles more of the movement and settlement of money. 

For businesses expanding internationally, the strategic question is already changing: not “Which bank do we use?” but “What combination of regulated banking and digital payment infrastructure will give us the speed, liquidity and control to operate effectively across borders?”.