In a 2026 episode of the YouTube series Through the Noise, the prominent economist and professor of International business, Campbell Harvey, expressed that banks are terrified of stablecoins.
Campbell Harvey stated that, by solely improving the efficiency of fund transfers, stablecoins could become the future of global banking.
For a long time, banks have been regarded as the only “serious” way to move money across borders.
If someone in Canada wanted to send money to Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, or South Africa, the money had to pass through banks. If a freelancer in Lagos wanted payment from a client in London, the money had to go through banks. If a startup in Nairobi wanted to pay a contractor in India, banks were considered the default option.
Over the past few years, something interesting has taken precedence.
More people are no longer asking which bank to use for international (and even local) transfers. They are now asking whether their clients can pay them in USDT or USDC.
Stablecoins are gradually becoming one of the most practical ways to move money internationally. And it is not because they are simply replacing banks or eliminating national currencies.
They are just solving real problems that traditional banking systems have struggled with for decades.
While bank transfers take 3-5 days and incur exorbitant fees, stablecoin transfers complete within seconds at little cost.
In 2025, stablecoins processed $33 trillion in financial transactions, surpassing Mastercard and Visa’s combined volume of $25.5 trillion. Although we are still at the halfway mark of 2026, USDT and USDC are estimated to handle more than $50 trillion in trading volume by the end of the year.
If current trends continue, the future of banking may belong less to banks themselves and more to stablecoin-powered financial networks like Circle Internet Group (USDC) and Tether (USDT).
Maybe not banking, in the local sense. I think locally stablecoins have less value as each country has their own settlement mechanism for their banking industry. It is still valuable though because in countries where the traditional banking industry have not fully matured for fast payments, stablecoins can be faster. The real value is in cross-border finance. Once you have to move money from one country to another, stablecoins become the rails on which anything can be built. So, I think the future of cross-border finance belongs to stablecoins and whoever can leverage it, can cut down on speed, costs & logistics.
– Chidozie Ogbo, CTO, Obiex
The Problem Traditional Banking Never Fully Solved
Banks are extremely good at many things.
They store money securely. They provide loans. They help businesses manage finances. They support economic growth.
But when it comes to moving money across borders, the experience often feels stuck in the 20th-century era.
A simple international transfer can involve:
- Multiple intermediary banks
- Currency conversion fees
- Processing delays
- Compliance checks
- Hidden charges
- Limited operating hours
In some cases, a payment sent today may not arrive for several days. Sometimes it doesn't arrive at all. When that happens, both the sender and recipient can spend days trying to trace where the money is in the payment chain.
This may seem normal because people have lived with it for years. But when you compare it with modern internet services, the outdatedness becomes baffling.
We can send an email globally in seconds. We can join a video call with someone thousands of miles away instantly. We can stream movies from another continent without delay.
Yet sending money internationally can still take three to five business days.
The problem is not necessarily that banks are inefficient. International banking was built for a different world. Much of the infrastructure powering cross-border payments today was designed decades ago, long before smartphones, cloud computing, and real-time digital services became standard.
As a result, moving money internationally often involves several institutions communicating with one another before funds finally reach their destination. Every institution in that chain may charge fees, perform compliance checks, or introduce delays.
For both individuals and businesses, this process is both frustrating and costly.
Imagine a software developer in Nigeria waiting for payment from a client in the United Kingdom. The project may be completed, the invoice approved, and the client willing to pay immediately. Yet the developer may still wait several days before accessing the money.
Now multiply that scenario across thousands of freelancers, agencies, consultants, and remote workers operating globally.
A company importing products from China may need to pay suppliers quickly to secure inventory. A startup in Kenya may need to pay a software vendor in the United States to keep critical business tools running. A delay of even a few days can disrupt operations, strain cash flow, or create unnecessary uncertainty.
Many people focus only on transfer fees, but the true cost of cross-border banking often goes beyond that. There are foreign exchange spreads, intermediary bank charges, receiving bank fees, and the opportunity cost of having money tied up in transit.
It is precisely these challenges that stablecoins and blockchain-based payment networks are trying to address.
But why are stablecoins considered the future of banking and not simply crypto?
Stablecoins Are Solving a Different Problem Than Bitcoin
When people hear the word "crypto," many immediately think of price volatility. They think about Bitcoin rising 20% one week and falling 15% the next. That is understandable because Bitcoin was the first cryptocurrency most people encountered.
However, stablecoins are solving a different problem.
Bitcoin was designed primarily as a decentralised store of value and alternative monetary system. Stablecoins, on the other hand, are increasingly being used as a payment infrastructure.
A stablecoin is a digital asset designed to maintain a stable value, usually by being linked to a major currency such as the U.S. dollar. The most widely used examples are USDT (Tether) and USDC (USD Coin), both designed to remain close to one U.S. dollar.
Most people would not want to receive their monthly salary in an asset that could lose 10% of its value by the end of the week.
Most businesses would not want to pay suppliers using an asset whose price changes dramatically every day. An asset whose price may change before it reaches the recipient.
For a digital dollar, the case is different.
If a freelancer in Nigeria earns $1,000 from a client in Canada, the primary concern is usually not investment returns. The concern is receiving and preserving the value of that $1,000.
The same is true for a startup paying overseas contractors, a merchant importing goods, or a family receiving remittances from abroad. In these situations, stability matters more. This is why stablecoins have moved beyond crypto trading and into payments.
The global stablecoin market has grown to well over $318 billion in market cap value, with USDT and USDC accounting for the majority of the market. Together, they represent hundreds of billions of dollars circulating through global digital payment networks.
With the $50 trillion volume estimate for 2026, USDT and USDC are now in the same league as some of the world's largest payment networks. While a significant portion of that volume comes from trading activity rather than consumer payments, the scale itself demonstrates that stablecoins are no longer a niche experiment.
What makes this particularly important for emerging markets is that stablecoins combine three things that rarely exist together:
They Move Quickly
Traditional international transfers can take several business days. Stablecoin transactions can often settle within seconds to minutes, regardless of whether it is a weekend, public holiday, or after banking hours.
They Preserve Dollar Value
Many users are not adopting stablecoins because they are enthusiastic about blockchain technology. They are adopting them to gain access to dollars. In countries experiencing currency depreciation or inflation, holding a digital dollar can feel safer than holding local-currency savings.
They Are Globally Accessible
Opening a U.S. bank account is difficult for most people living outside the United States. Receiving dollar-denominated stablecoins is often significantly easier. In many cases, a smartphone and an internet connection are sufficient.
Because of this accessibility, stablecoins have become especially popular in regions where access to international banking services is limited or expensive. Recent market research has shown particularly strong adoption in countries facing currency instability, foreign exchange restrictions, or gaps in banking infrastructure.
While many critics continue to evaluate stablecoins as investment products and many users treat them as payment tools, I think that the conversation around them is often misunderstood.
For a remote worker trying to receive payment from another continent, a stablecoin is not competing with Bitcoin, but with a wire transfer.
For a business paying an overseas supplier, it is not competing with Ethereum, but with correspondent banking networks.
For a family receiving money from relatives abroad, it is competing with traditional remittance channels.
The Rise of the Digital Dollar Economy
Perhaps the most important trend is not stablecoins themselves. It is what stablecoins represent.
For decades, businesses and individuals have wanted access to dollars because dollars are often viewed as more stable, more liquid, and more globally accepted than many local currencies. However, accessing dollars was not always straightforward.
Stablecoins are beginning to change this reality by significantly changing how financial access works. This does not necessarily mean that local currencies will disappear. Instead, it creates a parallel financial layer operating alongside existing systems.
Ultimately, could Stablecoins Replace Banks?
Not entirely. At least not anytime soon.
Banks perform functions that stablecoins cannot yet fully replace, such as lending, mortgages, credit creation, business financing, and deposit insurance.
However, stablecoins may replace specific banking functions. Cross-border payments are one of the obvious examples. The underlying financial infrastructure could increasingly run through blockchain-based networks while banks focus on other services.
The future of banking may not belong entirely to stablecoins. But the future of global payments increasingly looks like it might.
