Stablecoins have long occupied an awkward middle ground — too speculative for mainstream finance, too slow to scale for the payments industry. That tension is now breaking open.
With the GENIUS Act reshaping the U.S. regulatory landscape, major banks moving toward tokenized deposit networks, and stablecoin transaction volume hitting record highs even as market sentiment cools, the sector is entering a defining moment.
To discuss where it all goes from here, MPost sat down with Maksym Sakharov, Co-Founder and CEO of WeFi — a platform building the infrastructure layer that connects onchain value with the card networks and payment rails people already use.
From the real signals of payment adoption to the long-term coexistence of stablecoins, tokenized deposits, and regional variants, the expert makes the case that the most important question is no longer whether stablecoins work — but who gets to build the underlying infrastructure.
What would prove stablecoins have shifted from trading instruments to a mainstream payment rail?
We are already seeing the shift, but you would not know it from the supply chart alone. In June, the amount held in stablecoins fell by the most since 2022, while adjusted transaction volume rose 63% to a record $1.79 trillion.
Put simply, less capital sat idle and more value moved through the system. Trading and DeFi still account for much of that activity, so the figure cannot prove mainstream payment adoption on its own. But it does show that stablecoins see heavy use even when the rest of the market is struggling.
For me, the real turning point will come when stablecoins become part of the normal rhythm of business. Suppliers get paid, payroll clears, and merchants settle their sales regardless of what Bitcoin is doing that week. When that activity continues through every market cycle, we will know stablecoins have become a mainstream payment rail.
How does WeFi distinguish real payment adoption from speculative or automated volume?
Raw onchain volume tells you that money moved, but it does not tell you why. A bot shifting liquidity between protocols and a company paying a supplier can look almost identical on a block explorer. That is why transaction count alone gives a poor picture of real adoption.
The useful signals sit in the context around the transfer, not in the transfer itself. We look for repeat payments to the same recipient, regular payroll or invoice cycles, merchant purchases, card settlement, and flows that connect stablecoins with fiat payments. A genuine payment usually has a clear purpose, a real counterparty, and a pattern that makes sense outside crypto.
In my view, the strongest sign is when the same users and businesses repeat the same types of payments. People only build a payment method into their routine when it works better than the alternative.
What is the single biggest bottleneck to mass consumer adoption? What would remove it?
One of the biggest bottlenecks is acceptance. A stablecoin only works as a payment method if the person on the other side can take it, and most merchants are not set up for that yet.
Wallets have improved, but merchants face a different problem. A shop owner does not want to hold tokens or rethink how the business records every payment. They want the money to land in their account in the currency they use, with paperwork their accountant already understands.
At WeFi, we solve that from the user side through accounts and cards. Users can spend from their onchain balance wherever Visa is accepted, while merchants receive a normal card payment through the systems they already use. Nothing changes for them at checkout, and they never have to accept a stablecoin directly.
Adoption will move much faster once more stablecoin products can connect to the payment networks merchants already rely on.
Is the split between regulated and yield-bearing stablecoins temporary or permanent? Which will drive daily payments?
I expect the split to last because payments and savings serve different purposes, and regulation is making that distinction harder to ignore. Under the GENIUS Act, permitted stablecoin issuers cannot pay interest simply for holding a payment stablecoin. Demand for yield has not disappeared, though. It is moving into products built specifically to earn a return, including tokenized Treasury funds.
I would not treat these as two ecosystems fighting for the same user. People may keep their spending money in one place and their savings in another, just as they do today. Payment balances need to be liquid and easy to redeem, while longer-term capital naturally looks for yield.
Regulated stablecoins are therefore more likely to drive daily payments over the next few years. They give merchants and financial institutions something they can integrate at scale, while higher-yield products take on a role closer to savings or investment.
What is the value proposition for non-yielding compliant stablecoins against bank deposits or DeFi yields?
Nobody has to choose, and that is the assumption I would push back on.
A compliant stablecoin is closer to the money in a current account than to a savings product. Many current accounts pay little or no interest. People keep money there because it is ready to use. Stablecoins add the ability to move that money outside banking hours or give someone access to dollars where a dollar account is difficult to open.
If someone’s only goal is yield, a payment stablecoin is probably not the right product. DeFi can offer higher returns, but users also take on smart-contract risk and may have less protection if something goes wrong. Money intended to earn a return belongs in a product designed for that purpose.
Most people will probably use both. They will keep a working balance for payments and put longer-term savings somewhere they can earn a return, much as they already do today.
Are bank tokenized deposits validation, threat, or slower alternative? How is WeFi positioning?
Validation, mostly. Banks do not spend years building shared infrastructure around something they expect to fade away. JPMorgan, Citi, Bank of America and Wells Fargo are building this through The Clearing House for the first half of 2027. The fact that they moved at all tells us that onchain settlement has passed the point where banks can dismiss it.
Tokenized deposits still serve a different customer. They are bank money with bank protections, and they will probably gain traction first with large companies moving treasury balances within the banking system. That is a serious use case, and I expect it to work. It does much less for someone trying to receive money across borders without access to the same banking network.
Stablecoins also have a head start. The bank-led network is planned for mid-2027, while stablecoins are already moving value at record levels.
WeFi is not positioning itself against either model. We connect onchain value with the payment systems people already use. When a bank tokenizes its deposits, that creates another form of digital money that eventually needs to reach a card, a merchant, or a local account. The opportunity for us remains the same.
Must global payments prioritize emerging markets? How does that reshape WeFi’s strategy?
Yes, because adoption starts where the need is strongest. Someone who loses money every time they receive a payment from abroad will change their behavior much faster than someone with instant transfers and a stable local currency.
I do not see emerging markets as a separate corner of the stablecoin economy, though. The tools they need, such as easier dollar access and reliable local payouts, also matter to businesses operating across borders in Europe or the U.S. The first users may be different, but much of the infrastructure is shared.
That shapes how we think about growth at WeFi. We can take the same onchain foundation into several markets, while the licensing and local payment layers change around it. Global payments are built one working market at a time.
Should users hold and spend stablecoins, or should they become invisible plumbing?
Plumbing, for almost everyone. The best payment technology fades into the background. Nobody checks which network cleared a card payment, and nobody should have to think about which asset settled an invoice.
Users will still hold and spend value, but the choice should stop feeling technical. They open an app, see a balance and make a payment. The onchain settlement happens underneath without asking them to choose a network or manage the conversion themselves.
Businesses and regulators need a different experience. They need to know what moved, when it moved and where it went. An onchain record can give them a much clearer view than the closed systems many institutions use today.
So the experience should depend on who is looking. The payment feels simple to the person making it, while the people responsible for the money can still trace what happened. Products get this wrong when they expose the most complexity to the user who cares about it least.
Can the non-bank “deobank” model survive regulation, or will it need a banking license?
I do not think deobanking needs to become a legal category to survive. The term describes how a financial service is built, not the license held by the company offering it. Regulators focus on the actual services being provided, not the label used for them.
In practice, every regulated function needs a clear owner. Payment and card services may come from licensed partners, while WeFi’s distributed custody model keeps assets in individual wallets and requires the user’s authorization before they can move. WeFi brings those parts together through one onchain experience.
We do not take customer deposits onto our own balance sheet or use them to create credit. The underlying banking services come from regulated institutions.
Clearer rules actually make this model easier to operate. They define where each responsibility sits and what permission is needed. Once a company starts holding deposits and creating credit, it is moving into banking territory. Building a product around services provided by licensed institutions is something else entirely.
By 2031: a few global stablecoins, regional fragments, or bank tokenized deposits? What is WeFi betting on?
I expect all three to have a place by 2031. A small number of dollar stablecoins will probably carry most cross-border stablecoin activity because liquidity tends to gather around the assets people can move and redeem most easily.
Banks will use tokenized deposits for treasury and payments inside the banking system, while regional versions will grow where local rules or currencies create a clear need for them.
None of these models has to push the others out. Cash, cards and bank transfers already coexist because each one works better in a different setting. Digital money will likely settle into a similar pattern.
For businesses, the harder part will be moving between these forms of value without managing every system separately. A company may get paid in one instrument and need to send that money through another.
WeFi is betting on the infrastructure that connects those systems. We are building the layer that links onchain value with the accounts and payment rails people already use. The asset may change from one market to the next, but it still has to become useful at the moment someone needs to pay.
The post ‘Stablecoins Are Already The Infrastructure’: WeFi CEO Maksym Sakharov On Payments, Regulation, And The Road To 2031 appeared first on Metaverse Post.
