The Second Half of Stablecoins No Longer Belongs to the Crypto World

marsbitPublished on 2026-03-21Last updated on 2026-03-21

Abstract

The article discusses the shift in the stablecoin market from the crypto sector to traditional finance, highlighted by Mastercard's acquisition of BVNK for up to $1.8 billion in March 2026. This move came after Coinbase abandoned a $2 billion deal for BVNK months earlier, signaling intensified competition for stablecoin infrastructure. BVNK specializes in cross-border payments using a "stablecoin sandwich" model: converting fiat to stablecoins like USDC for blockchain transfer, then back to local currency, reducing transaction times and costs. Its key asset is a suite of global licenses, including EMI from the UK FCA and CASP under EU MiCA, enabling compliance across 130+ countries. Mastercard's acquisition aims to integrate BVNK into its Multi-Token Network (MTN), a private blockchain for tokenized assets, addressing MTN's lack of connectivity with public chains. This enables atomic settlements, 24/7 B2B transactions, and programmable payments. The strategy contrasts with Visa’s partnership-focused approach, emphasizing direct control over infrastructure. The U.S. GENIUS Act (July 2025) provided regulatory clarity, defining stablecoins as non-securities under OCC oversight, which facilitated Mastercard’s move. The deal pressures players like Ripple and traditional correspondent banks, as Mastercard’s global network could disrupt cross-border payment fees. Ultimately, stablecoin evolution is becoming invisible to users—embedded in traditional finance for efficienc...

Author:白话区块链

March 17, 2026, Mastercard announced the acquisition of BVNK for up to $1.8 billion.

This name is almost unheard of outside the crypto circle. But four months ago, Coinbase was willing to pay $2 billion for it, reaching the due diligence stage before pulling out at the last moment.

What a crypto exchange giant just abandoned, a traditional payment giant immediately picked up, and at a 10% discount.

The signal from this deal couldn't be clearer:The battle for stablecoin infrastructure has spread from within the crypto world to the heart of traditional finance.

What Coinbase Didn't Want, Mastercard Rushed to Buy

First, the failed acquisition.

In October 2025, Coinbase and BVNK signed an exclusive negotiation agreement, with an offer of approximately $2 billion. After entering due diligence, both parties announced in November that they would not proceed further. The reasons were not made public, but industry speculation points in several directions:As a crypto exchange, Coinbase faces much higher regulatory pressure for mergers and acquisitions than traditional financial institutions; and Coinbase itself is also investing more resources in the endogenous growth of the Base chain. Spending $2 billion to buy a payment intermediary might not be the optimal choice.

Mastercard entered the scene almost simultaneously as Coinbase withdrew. The process from介入谈判 to locking in the deal was extremely fast.

The deal structure was $1.5 billion in upfront cash plus a $300 million performance-based earn-out. Considering BVNK's valuation was only $750 million during its Series B funding round in December 2024, the $1.8 billion price tag意味着 the value more than doubled in just over a year.This premium isn't for technology, it's for licenses and pipelines.

An interesting comparison: In October 2024, Stripe acquired the stablecoin company Bridge for $1.1 billion. A year and a half later, Mastercard offered $1.8 billion for BVNK. The value of stablecoin infrastructure continues to rise.Pricing power in this sector is shifting from crypto VCs to the CFOs of traditional finance.

What Exactly is BVNK Selling?

For example:

An export老板 in Guangzhou making plush toys needs to receive payment from a buyer in Nigeria every quarter.The traditional path is through correspondent banks:Money starts from a Nigerian bank, passes through at least two intermediary banks, deducting several layers of fees, arrives in 2-3 days, and the exchange rate is also marked down. If it coincides with a weekend or African bank system maintenance, add another two days.

What BVNK does is called the "stablecoin sandwich":It takes in local fiat currency at the front end, automatically converts it to USDC in the backend, transmits it via blockchain, and converts it back to local currency at the destination. The entire process can be compressed to minutes, with fees an order of magnitude lower than traditional wire transfers.

But this isn't the most valuable part of BVNK. There are other companies doing similar things; Fireblocks does it, Circle does it too.BVNK's real moat is that stack of licenses.

In the UK, it acquired an Electronic Money Institution (EMI) license issued by the FCA through its acquisition of System Pay Services. In the EU, it obtained a CASP license under the MiCA framework from the Malta Financial Services Authority, allowing it to operate throughout the European Economic Area. Add to that coverage for fiat currency exchange in over 130 countries, an annual processing volume of approximately $30 billion, and clients including Worldpay, Flywire, and dLocal—all major players in the payments industry.

Simply put,BVNK is a stablecoin plumber that already has a global passport. In today's increasingly strict regulatory environment, this passport is more valuable than any technology.

Mastercard's Real Intent: The Missing Piece for MTN

Mastercard's purchase of BVNK is not a whim.

For the past two years, Mastercard has been building something called the Multi-Token Network (MTN)—a private, permissioned blockchain specifically for settling tokenized bank deposits, regulated stablecoins, and tokenized assets. JPMorgan and Standard Chartered have already conducted tests on it.

But MTN has a critical weakness: it is a closed network, lacking efficient bridges to the public链 world.You can think of MTN as a newly built highway, but without on-ramps and off-ramps connecting it to city streets.

BVNK is that ramp.

After the acquisition, Mastercard can suddenly do much more. Atomic settlement—payment and ownership transfer simultaneously, no longer waiting for ACH or SWIFT's 2-3 day delay. 24/7 cross-border B2B settlement, regardless of whether banks are closed.And programmable payments:For example, a supplier payment where stablecoins are automatically released by a smart contract only after the system confirms shipment and an on-chain Oracle verifies it.

Mastercard also has a system called Crypto Credential, which uses human-readable aliases (similar to email addresses) instead of complex wallet addresses, ensuring every transaction complies with the FATF Travel Rule.BVNK's infrastructure directly integrates with this authentication, allowing merchants to receive stablecoins without touching private keys.

It's worth noting the divergence in strategies between Mastercard and Visa here.Visa is taking the "make friends" route—partnering with Solana, deeply integrating with Circle, and building a platform called VTAP for tokenized assets, focusing on the retail end and USDC.Mastercard, on the other hand, has chosen to "buy out"—spending heavily to swallow core infrastructure directly, building its own multi-chain, multi-asset network, focusing on heavy-duty B2B settlement.

Which path is right? Unknown. But Mastercard's path is more expensive and also more irreversible.

The GENIUS Act: The True Catalyst for This Deal

Mastercard dared to spend $1.8 billion based on one prerequisite:In July 2025, the U.S. President signed the《GENIUS Act》.

This is the first comprehensive federal legislation on stablecoins in U.S. history. It does several key things:Clarifies that "payment stablecoins" are neither securities nor commodities, falling under the jurisdiction of bank regulators (OCC); requires issuers to maintain 1:1 highly liquid reserves and undergo monthly audits; even if the issuer goes bankrupt, holders have priority claim rights to the reserve assets.

Translation:Stablecoins are finally out of the gray area.For a publicly traded company like Mastercard, this means the board can approve large acquisitions without worrying about the SEC knocking on the door in the middle of the night.

By acquiring BVNK, an entity licensed in multiple countries, Mastercard essentially bought a "regulated seat." Under the GENIUS Act framework, it can more freely manage and issue payment stablecoins, with compliance costs largely pre-digested.

This is also why Coinbase couldn't close the deal while Mastercard could—As a licensed bank service provider, the regulatory certainty for Mastercard to integrate BVNK is far higher than for a crypto exchange.

Who Should Be Nervous?

The most direct impact falls on Ripple. Cross-border payments are a story Ripple has been telling for nearly a decade, but it始终 lacked Mastercard's network covering 150 million merchants worldwide. Now that Mastercard itself possesses on-chain settlement capabilities, Ripple's narrative becomes awkward—Your technology might have been earlier, but their pipeline is thicker.

Traditional correspondent banks aren't doing well either.If Mastercard can route high-value B2B payments directly through the on-chain轨道, those banks that rely on cross-border remittance intermediary fees may see their commission income plummet.

However, there are also different voices within the crypto community. Stablecoins were originally a product of the decentralized world, but now the流量 is running on Mastercard's permissioned链 and licensed nodes—how is this different from traditional finance?The Bank of England is already worried about something else:If stablecoins become too easy to use, and consumers move bank deposits to stablecoin accounts, what happens to commercial banks' credit supply?

Summary

Ultimately,stablecoins are transforming from "crypto products" into "financial pipelines."As Mastercard's Chief Product Officer Jorn Lambert said, most financial institutions and fintech companies will迟早 offer digital currency services—what Mastercard aims to do is become that pipeline.

Users swipe cards at the front end, while USDC might be running in the backend. They don't perceive the blockchain; they only perceive faster and cheaper.

This is the true face of stablecoin mainstreaming: not making everyone use crypto wallets, but making everyone use stablecoins unknowingly.

$1.8 billion—Mastercard isn't buying a company; it's buying the toll booth for the next-generation payment system.

Related Questions

QWhat was the key signal from the Mastercard-BVNK acquisition regarding the stablecoin infrastructure battle?

AThe acquisition signaled that the battle for stablecoin infrastructure has expanded from within the crypto industry to the heart of traditional finance.

QWhy did Coinbase abandon its planned acquisition of BVNK, and why was Mastercard able to proceed?

ACoinbase likely faced higher regulatory scrutiny as a crypto exchange and chose to focus resources on its Base chain. Mastercard, as a licensed traditional financial services provider, had greater regulatory certainty and could integrate BVNK's licensed operations more easily.

QWhat is BVNK's core business model and its main competitive advantage (its 'moat')?

ABVNK's core business is the 'stablecoin sandwich' model, facilitating fast, low-cost cross-border payments by converting local fiat to stablecoins like USDC for transfer. Its main competitive advantage is its portfolio of global licenses (e.g., UK EMI, EU CASP under MiCA), which act as a regulatory moat.

QHow does the GENIUS Act serve as a catalyst for deals like Mastercard's acquisition of BVNK?

AThe GENIUS Act provided the first comprehensive U.S. federal legislation for stablecoins, clarifying they are not securities, establishing clear regulatory oversight, and ensuring consumer protections. This regulatory clarity gave public companies like Mastercard the confidence to pursue major acquisitions in the space without fear of sudden regulatory action.

QWhat is the ultimate vision for stablecoins as illustrated by Mastercard's strategy, according to the article?

AThe ultimate vision is for stablecoins to transition from a 'crypto product' to a 'financial pipeline.' Users will experience faster, cheaper payments without needing to interact directly with blockchain technology or crypto wallets, using them seamlessly in the background of traditional financial services.

Related Reads

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手1h ago

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手1h ago

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbit3h ago

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbit3h ago

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手5h ago

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手5h ago

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbit6h ago

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

marsbit6h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片