1. Stablecoin payments move from experiments to production
Stablecoin payments are moving out of the pilot phase, according to the 2026 Blockchain Payments Survey from EY-Parthenon, published in October 2026. Of the 521 corporate and financial institution decision-makers polled, 18% of corporates already use stablecoins in production, twice the share recorded in 2025. Tokenized deposits follow closely at 15% of corporates.
A year ago the central question was whether regulatory clarity, faster settlement, lower cost and deeper liquidity would be enough to pull businesses toward blockchain-based money. The latest data suggests the answer is increasingly yes. Financial institutions show the sharper shift: 69% now offer stablecoin services or intend to within two years, up from 30% in the 2025 survey. Among banks specifically, 49% already offer tokenized deposits or plan to in the same window.
The author of the analysis, Prashant Kher, is careful to say that mass adoption has not arrived. What has changed is the nature of the activity. Companies are no longer running isolated technology trials; they are starting to build the capability into payment workflows and treasury operations, where it has to meet the same reliability standards as any other payment method.
The distinction between the two instruments matters for readers new to the topic. A stablecoin is a token designed to hold a fixed value, usually one US dollar, and is issued by a company that holds reserves behind it. A tokenized deposit is a claim on a commercial bank that is recorded on a blockchain, so it carries the bank's balance sheet rather than a separate issuer's. The survey treats both as competing and complementary ways of moving money over blockchain rails.
2. Why do cross-border payments lead stablecoin adoption?
Cross-border business payments are the most common entry point, because the pain they cause is easy to measure. Between 50% and 53% of respondents have used, or are exploring, stablecoins or tokenized deposits for paying overseas suppliers or for accepting business-to-business payments.
The survey asked what frustrates companies about the current system. Slow processing and settlement topped the list at 56%. Foreign-exchange costs or spreads followed at 52%, regulatory, sanctions and compliance delays at 48%, and correspondent banking fees at 36%. Correspondent banking is the chain of intermediary banks that a payment passes through when the sender and recipient do not share a bank, and each link adds time and cost.
Financial institutions identify faster settlement and lower costs as the main reasons for their interest in both stablecoins and tokenized deposits. Interest in payouts, meaning disbursements to many recipients, is concentrated among banks and payments firms rather than ordinary corporates.
There is also a signal about where the technology may be heading beyond simple transfers. Tokenized asset settlement was the most frequently selected way to add value on top of blockchain payment rails, chosen by 63% of financial institution respondents. That points to interest in using blockchain-based money as the cash leg of transactions in tokenized securities and other assets, rather than only as a faster wire.
3. A multi-rail market rather than a winner-take-all contest
Adoption is not turning into a choice between stablecoins and tokenized deposits. Among respondents interested in blockchain payments, 45% of corporates and 53% of financial institutions say they want to use both. They cite flexibility and an expectation that the two will coexist.
Kher describes the roles as distinct. Stablecoins offer reach across wallets, platforms and public blockchains, which makes them useful for moving value between parties that share no banking relationship. Tokenized deposits bring commercial bank money into programmable environments, keeping the familiar protections and legal standing of a bank balance. Organizations can pick between them depending on the use case, the counterparty, the geography and their liquidity needs.
The opportunity for banks and payment providers, in his assessment, lies in making the choice invisible to the customer. If a company can move between traditional fiat payments and blockchain payments through integrated processes and one client experience, the technology becomes a routing decision rather than a separate product the customer must learn.
That framing is a notable change from the early years of the industry, when digital asset payments were often pitched as an alternative to the banking system. The survey describes a future in which the two are layered together.
4. Integration will decide what scales
Companies want blockchain payments embedded in the systems they already use. Some 76% of corporates rate integration with enterprise resource planning, treasury and banking platforms as very important or critical. Another 74% want full integration into existing banking and payment interfaces, while only 14% prefer a separate digital asset experience.
This preference hands an advantage to incumbents. According to the survey, 63% of corporates would likely adopt blockchain payments if their existing bank or payments provider offered them. Institutions still have to earn that business with trusted relationships, credible economics, secure execution and regulatory readiness, but they start from a position of familiarity.
Programmable payments are described as a complementary opportunity. These are payments that execute automatically when conditions are met. Among financial institutions, 54% already offer them or plan to launch them within two years, and 75% see at least a moderate revenue opportunity. The leading priorities are liquidity and cash management automation (51%), conditional payments (51%), automated reconciliation (49%) and cross-border automation (47%).
Kher's outlook is that blockchain payments may increasingly sit inside familiar banking and payment products rather than in standalone digital asset interfaces. Institutions that combine stablecoins, tokenized deposits and traditional rails, and add programmable services on top, are in his view best placed for the next phase. He notes that the views are his own and not necessarily those of Ernst & Young LLP or the EY global organization.
5. Why are payment companies and banks issuing their own stablecoins?
Sam Boboev, founder of Fintech WrapUp, addressed the question in the newsletter's expert segment. Payment companies, he said, see a chance to capture more of the value in money that already flows across their platforms. Their income today comes mainly from transaction fees, currency conversion and related services. Issuing a stablecoin could add revenue from the reserves backing tokens in circulation, subject to the regulatory framework that applies.
There is a strategic benefit as well. A token can connect merchant settlements, cross-border payouts and customer balances on a single infrastructure, which could reduce reliance on outside settlement providers and improve liquidity management. Boboev stressed, however, that distribution is the real constraint. Creating a token is relatively simple; persuading businesses to hold and use it is hard, and firms with established merchant networks start with an edge.
Banks have their own reasons. They fear losing payment flows and customer balances as stablecoin use grows. In Europe, Qivalis has brought together 37 financial institutions across 15 countries to develop a regulated euro stablecoin. In the United States, a separate global consortium of 21 institutions, including Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo, announced plans in September 2026 to launch a US dollar stablecoin in the first half of 2027, with euro issuance also a priority.
Such efforts could allow round-the-clock settlement while banks retain their role in managing customer funds. Boboev sees the largest opportunity in institutional payments and tokenized asset settlement. To compete with established issuers, he said, a bank-backed token needs enough liquidity and broad distribution, and the test is whether banking relationships can be converted into real transaction volume.
6. Can euro stablecoins challenge the dollar?
Not soon, according to Boboev. Euro stablecoins are a tiny part of the market: citing Bank of Ireland, he said that only 0.2% of global stablecoin circulation was denominated in euros in May 2026.
The motivation for building them is nonetheless clear. European businesses that want blockchain payments while keeping their treasury balances in euros face a problem with dollar stablecoins, which bring foreign-exchange costs and currency exposure. The European Union's Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation, known as MiCA, provides a framework for euro stablecoin issuers, and European banks are building settlement infrastructure to support them.
Boboev sees the strongest openings in European business-to-business payments and corporate treasury. Displacing dollar stablecoins on a global scale is unlikely, he said, given the dollar's liquidity and distribution advantages. A realistic ambition is a strong euro market that serves European companies and institutions, and that depends on liquidity and on how well these tokens connect to banking systems.
Taken together with the survey figures, his comments describe a market in which the main questions have shifted. The debate is less about whether businesses will use blockchain-based money and more about who will issue it, which currency it will be denominated in, and how smoothly it can be woven into the payment systems companies already run.
7. What to watch next
Several markers will show whether production use keeps growing. The first is the planned US dollar stablecoin from the 21-institution bank consortium, targeted for the first half of 2027. The second is whether euro-denominated supply rises meaningfully above the 0.2% share recorded in May 2026.
The survey itself provides a baseline for future comparison. If the share of corporates using stablecoins in production climbs again from 18%, and if banks follow through on the 69% that say they plan to offer related services within two years, the shift from experimentation to everyday payments will have been confirmed in the numbers.
For corporate treasurers and the advisors who guide them, the practical takeaway is that questions about stablecoins and tokenized deposits are becoming operational ones: how they connect to existing systems, which provider supplies them, and which payment routes they are best suited to replace.