A few years ago, telling people we were building stablecoin payment rails usually got a sceptical reaction. That's changed, and the clearest sign of it is who's now sitting across the table from us, Electronic Money Institutions (EMIs) and Payment Service Providers (PSPs), asking how quickly we can integrate regulated crypto payments with the infrastructure they already run. Not crypto-native businesses.
It's worth being clear about why this is happening, because the reasons aren't really about crypto in the way people tend to assume.
The growth in stablecoins isn't a price or speculation story, it's usually a settlement one. A stablecoin moves a euro or a dollar of value across a border in seconds, at any hour, without the chain of correspondent banks that adds cost and delay. Anyone in payments knows that friction well: the cut-off times, the FX spreads, the payout that leaves on Friday and arrives the following week. Stablecoins remove a lot of it. So when a merchant wants settling at the weekend, or an affiliate network needs to pay people in hours rather than days, or a treasury team wants certainty on what arrives and when, stablecoins and crypto deposits are simply the practical option. The demand is operational, not ideological, which is why it has held up.
For a financial institution, that demand shows up as a problem before it shows up as an opportunity. Merchants in iGaming, Forex and affiliate verticals are increasingly asking for B2B stablecoin settlement, and if their PSP or EMI cannot offer it, they go to one that can. Crypto-enabled competitors are winning business that traditional providers can't compete for. The slow grind of SWIFT and correspondent banking sits underneath all of it, compressing margins on cross-border flows.
What's changed is that the cautious middle of the market has stopped waiting for the demand to become undeniable. The businesses and companies coming to us have moved past asking whether to support crypto payments. They want to know how fast they can. And when the conservative part of the market shifts from “should we” to “how soon,” that's usually a sign something has become fairly standard rather than novel.
There's a regulatory point running alongside this that I think deserves more attention than it gets, and it's the reason so many of these conversations are landing with us specifically.
1st July 2026 was the MiCA enforcement date across the European Economic Area (EEA), and ESMA had confirmed there won't be an extension. Following this date, a firm operating as a crypto-asset service provider to EU clients without a MiCA licence is now in breach of EU law and has to stop. The detail worth knowing is that there's no “pending” status. You're either authorised as a CASP or you're not.
MiCA allowed member states to run a transitional period (grandfathering period), during which firms operating under older national registrations could continue while they converted to full authorisation - that window has now closed. Conversion has been slower than the timeline assumed: of the more than 1,200 firms that held pre-MiCA national registrations across the bloc, only a small share have moved through to a full CASP authorisation , and several member states haven't issued any. So there are a lot of firms who are supposedly serving EU crypto flows, with the deadline that has already passed, and an approval process that hasn't cleared the backlog. The likely result is straightforward: firms either hold the licence by then, or they stop.
What I'm seeing more of lately is institutions realising they've ended up on the wrong side of that. They didn't pursue authorisation when they could have, the demand has arrived anyway, and now the deadline has passed - starting their own application isn't a realistic plan. That's the position a lot of firms are quietly in, and it's why the tone of these conversations has shifted from curiosity to something more practical.
This is where we tend to come into it, and I'd rather explain it than pitch it. We obtained our MiCA CASP licence through the MFSA. At the time it felt like the slow and expensive route, the better part of eighteen months, with a compliance standard that's demanding to maintain, not just to obtain. What's become clear is that the licence wasn't a box we ticked on the way to the product. For a lot of the market, it's the thing they now need and don't have, and we can offer them a way around that without them having to go and get it themselves.
The way it works follows from the licence. When a payment provider or EMI integrates with us, they don't become a crypto operator themselves. They don't need their own CASP licence, they don't build custody, they don't hire further resources with crypto experience, and they don't take a digital asset onto their balance sheet. They use rails that already sit under our MiCA authorisation, so the regulatory side of the crypto layer rests with us. Their merchants pay in stablecoins; the institution settles in fiat through instant conversion and never holds the asset. In practice it means an institution can add a regulated crypto capability to its existing operations, fairly quickly, without taking on the burden to apply for a license.
The reason that's relevant to the deadline is just practical. A firm now has three real options. It can pursue its own CASP authorisation, which is the right choice for some, but isn't something you can start now and finish in a couple of days. It can stop serving EU crypto flows and let that business go elsewhere. Or it can integrate with a firm that already holds the licence. For the firms that want to add crypto rails, particularly stablecoins, without becoming crypto businesses, integrating with someone already licensed is the only one of the three that actually fits.
What I keep coming back to is that the stablecoin story and the MiCA story usually get told separately, one about opportunity, the other about regulation. They're really the same story.
Read our latest Insights
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
