McKinsey x Artemis Joint Report: Only 1% of Stablecoin's $35 Trillion Transaction Volume is Real Payments, C-Side Usage Negligible

marsbitОпубліковано о 2026-03-18Востаннє оновлено о 2026-03-18

Анотація

McKinsey and Artemis's joint report reveals that out of $35 trillion in annual stablecoin transaction volume, only about 1% ($390 billion) represents genuine payments. The majority (58%) of these real payments are B2B transactions—such as cross-border settlements and corporate treasury operations—which grew 733% year-over-year. Consumer usage, including retail payments and card spending, remains negligible. The report identifies five structural reasons for this institutional dominance: 1) Greater financial efficiency incentives for businesses; 2) Programmable payments suit B2B workflows, not consumer use cases; 3) Regulatory frameworks favor institutional adoption; 4) Closed-loop B2B systems avoid network effects needed for retail; 5) Corporations prioritize internal benefits over expanding to retail networks. While B2B stablecoin adoption continues accelerating, consumer usage faces significant friction and may remain secondary. The analysis suggests stablecoins may evolve primarily as an institutional settlement layer rather than a mainstream retail payment tool.

Author: Stablecoin Insider / McKinsey×Artemis

Compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Deep Tide Introduction: The McKinsey and Artemis joint report did something rare in the industry: breaking down the stablecoin transaction volume data. The conclusion: of the approximately $35 trillion in annual on-chain transaction volume, only about $390 billion (about 1%) represents real payment behavior, of which 58% is business-to-business financial operations, with an annual growth of 733%. Consumer-side stablecoin usage is almost negligible, and this is no accident—the article summarizes five structural reasons explaining why the gap between institutions and individuals is not just a temporary disparity.

Full text as follows:

The stablecoin industry has a headline problem.

On one hand, raw on-chain data shows tens of trillions of dollars flowing on-chain annually, a figure that fuels endless comparisons with Visa and Mastercard, and predictions of SWIFT's imminent replacement.

On the other hand, a landmark report released in February 2026 by McKinsey & Company and Artemis Analytics stripped all this away and asked a more direct question: how much of it is real payments?

The answer is about 1%.

Of the approximately $35 trillion in annualized stablecoin transaction volume, only about $390 billion represents genuine end-user payments, such as supplier invoices, cross-border remittances, payroll disbursements, and card swipes. The rest is trading activity, internal fund shuffling, arbitrage behavior, and automated smart contract loops.

The report concludes that the inflated headline numbers should be "the starting point for analysis, not a proxy for measuring payment adoption."

But within this real $390 billion baseline, there is a story worth examining closely, and it almost entirely revolves around corporate finance, not consumer wallets.

B2B Dominates: What the Data Actually Shows

According to the McKinsey/Artemis analysis (benchmarked to activity data from December 2025), business-to-business transactions account for $226 billion of all real stablecoin payment volume, about 58%.

This figure represents a 733% year-on-year increase, primarily driven by supply chain payments, cross-border supplier settlements, and financial liquidity management. Asia leads in geographic activity, but adoption is also accelerating in Latin America and Europe.

The remainder of the real payment space is distributed among payroll and remittances ($90 billion), capital market settlements ($8 billion), and linked card spending ($4.5 billion).

According to McKinsey, card spending associated with stablecoins grew an astonishing 673% year-on-year, but in absolute terms, it remains only a small fraction of B2B flow.

For context: this total of $390 billion represents only 0.02% of McKinsey's estimated global annual payment total of over 2 quadrillion dollars. Specifically, B2B stablecoin flow accounts for about 0.01% of the global $160 trillion B2B payment market.

These numbers are large in the context of stablecoins but remain minuscule in the context of the global financial system.

Monthly run-rate data more intuitively shows where the momentum lies. According to data cited by BVNK from the McKinsey/Artemis report, stablecoin monthly payment volume was only $5 billion in January 2024; by early 2026, this number had exceeded $30 billion—a sixfold increase in less than two years, with the steepest acceleration occurring in the second half of 2025.

Annualized, this run rate now exceeds $390 billion.

"The fact that real stablecoin payments are far lower than conventional estimates does not diminish the long-term potential of stablecoins as a payment rail; it simply establishes a clearer baseline for assessing where the market stands." — McKinsey/Artemis Analytics, February 2026

Why the Gap Exists: Five Structural Forces Excluding Retail

The divergence between the explosive adoption in B2B and the negligible consumer usage is not coincidental but the product of structural asymmetries that systematically favor corporate use cases over retail ones.

Here are the five forces driving the institutional gap:

1) Financial Efficiency Beats Consumer Convenience

Corporate treasurers are driven by specific, quantifiable pain points: SWIFT correspondent banking chains that take one to five business days to settle, currency exchange windows that tie up working capital, and intermediary fees layered on at every transaction point.

Stablecoins solve all three problems simultaneously. For a company paying suppliers in fifteen countries, the economic case is clear; for a consumer buying coffee, it is not. The incentive to switch is orders of magnitude greater on the enterprise side.

2) Programmability Has No Equivalent Value on the Retail Side

The B2B explosion is partly a story of programmable payments. Smart contracts enable conditional logic—invoice triggering, delivery confirmation, escrow release—that can automate entire accounts payable processes at scale.

This is naturally suited to corporate finance operations, as high-value, structured, repetitive payment processes benefit immensely from automation. Retail payments lack similar trigger use cases at any scale.

Consumers buying groceries don't need programmable conditions; they need something that works like swiping a card. The cognitive complexity of blockchain-native payments remains a barrier on the retail side, and programmability does nothing to help that.

3) Regulatory Architecture Favors Institutions

Post the GENIUS Act, institutional operators have adapted to the compliance architecture—AML/CFT, Travel Rule, licensing requirements—and built the legal infrastructure to operate confidently.

Corporate finance teams have dedicated compliance functions that can absorb onboarding friction; individual consumers cannot. The result is that, in most jurisdictions, on-ramps for stablecoins remain operationally complex for retail users, and the merchant acceptance gap persists globally.

Every frictionless B2B payment today is a data point institutions use to justify further investment; the consumer ecosystem, meanwhile, awaits a compliant, user-experience-smooth entry point that has not yet emerged at scale.

4) Closed-Loop Advantage

B2B stablecoin payments succeed precisely because they are closed-loop: business sends to business, both have wallets, both have compliance infrastructure, and neither needs a universal merchant network.

Consumer payments face the classic chicken-and-egg problem: merchants won't invest in stablecoin acceptance infrastructure until consumers demand it; consumers won't enable wallets until they can spend widely.

The institutional world completely bypasses this problem by operating in bilateral or consortium environments, requiring no open merchant network.

5) Institutional Incentives Point Upstream

Corporate treasurers holding stablecoins gain yield, reduce FX exposure, and improve liquidity management—advantages that accrue internally and, if shared downstream, introduce complexity or competitive vulnerability.

Extending stablecoin use to a supplier's supplier, employees, or end consumers requires building a network that benefits those downstream parties, which is not necessarily in the interest of the originating finance team.

In the absence of a clear ROI driving network expansion outward, companies rationally choose to consolidate internal gains.

Market Context

BVNK's own infrastructure data corroborates the dominance of B2B from an operator's perspective. The company processed $30 billion in annualized stablecoin payment volume in 2025, a 2.3x year-on-year increase, with one-third of the volume coming from the US market.

Its client list (Worldpay, Deel, Flywire, Rapyd, Thunes) consists of leaders in cross-border B2B and payroll, not consumer applications.

As BVNK stated in its 2025 year-end review:

"The initial assumption that remittances and consumer transfers would lead stablecoin growth did not materialize as the primary driver; B2B instead assumed that role."

When Will Retail Catch Up—If Ever

The McKinsey/Artemis baseline makes the current situation clear. What it cannot answer is whether the institutional gap will narrow, widen, or permanently solidify.

Here are three possible scenarios for the next 18 months:

Near Term 2026—The Gap Widens Further

B2B momentum shows no signs of slowing. The monthly run rate of over $30 billion continues its trajectory as more companies use stablecoin rails for cross-border accounts payable and financial operations. Consumer stablecoin card spending grows modestly but remains negligible in absolute terms compared to B2B flow. Even if retail adoption advances slowly in percentage terms, the gap widens in absolute dollar terms.

Mid-Term End-2026 to 2027—Inflection Points Begin to Appear

Several catalysts could begin to bridge the gap: bank-issued multi-currency stablecoins reduce retail on-ramp friction; programmable features extend to consumer applications via AI Agent payment delegation; gig economy wages paid in stablecoins create downstream spending balances for employees.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent predicted that stablecoin supply could reach $3 trillion by 2030, a trajectory implying consumer network effects will eventually emerge.

Counterview—Retail May Never 'Catch Up,' and That Might Be the Point

The most honest reading of the McKinsey data is that stablecoins may be evolving into what the report faintly hints at: a programmable settlement layer on the internet for machines, finance departments, and institutions, with consumer adoption being an indirect, embedded benefit, not the primary use case.

If this framework holds, then the institutional gap is not a failure of adoption but a feature of the technology's natural architecture. Corporate wages paid in stablecoins may eventually create downstream consumer spending, but the path from B2B infrastructure to retail wallets is long, circuitous, and dependent on user experience breakthroughs that have not yet emerged at scale.

An Honest Baseline

The McKinsey/Artemis report did something more valuable than recording stablecoin growth: it established an honest baseline the industry has clearly been missing.

Stripping away trading noise, internal shuffling, and automated smart contract loops reveals a genuinely growing market—real payment volume doubled from 2024 to 2025—but one that is highly concentrated on the institutional side in a structural, non-accidental way.

The 733% growth in B2B is not a deferred consumer story; it is a maturing finance story.

The enterprises building on stablecoin rails today are solving real operational problems—cross-border friction, correspondent banking inefficiencies, working capital delays—problems that have nothing to do with whether consumers hold stablecoin wallets. They will continue building, regardless.

Пов'язані питання

QAccording to the McKinsey and Artemis report, what percentage of the $35 trillion in annual stablecoin transaction volume represents real payments?

AOnly about 1% of the $35 trillion in annual stablecoin transaction volume, or approximately $390 billion, represents real payments.

QWhich segment dominates the real stablecoin payment volume, and what was its growth rate?

ABusiness-to-business (B2B) transactions dominate the real stablecoin payment volume, accounting for 58% ($226 billion) and experiencing a growth rate of 733% year-over-year.

QWhat are the five structural reasons identified for the gap between institutional and consumer adoption of stablecoins?

AThe five structural reasons are: 1) Financial efficiency beats consumer convenience, 2) Programmability has no equivalent value in retail, 3) Regulatory architecture favors institutions, 4) Closed-loop advantages, and 5) Institutional incentives point upstream.

QHow does the real stablecoin payment volume compare to the global payment market?

AThe $390 billion in real stablecoin payments represents only 0.02% of the global annual payment volume of over $2 quadrillion, and the B2B stablecoin volume is about 0.01% of the global $160 trillion B2B payment market.

QWhat is one potential future scenario where the gap between institutional and consumer stablecoin use might begin to narrow?

AA potential scenario for narrowing the gap includes catalysts such as bank-issued multi-currency stablecoins reducing retail onboarding friction, programmable features extending to consumer applications via AI Agent payments, and gig economy wages paid in stablecoins creating downstream consumer spending balances.

Пов'язані матеріали

Annual Salary of Millions Competing for Electricians, Meta Rushes to Open Its Own Technical School

The AI boom is facing an unexpected bottleneck: a severe shortage of skilled construction workers and electricians. As tech giants like Meta, OpenAI, and Alphabet race to build massive data centers—such as OpenAI's $16 billion "Stargate" project—they are hitting a critical labor wall. The U.S. needs an estimated 130,000 more electricians, 240,000 construction workers, and 150,000 supervisors by 2030 for AI infrastructure alone, but tens of thousands of electrician jobs go unfilled each year. While AI companies offer high premiums, with electricians earning up to $280,000 annually, worker scarcity still causes massive losses—delays on a single project can cost $14.2 million per month. The complexity of building AI data centers, which require immense power (equivalent to powering hundreds of thousands of homes), sophisticated electrical systems, and advanced liquid cooling solutions, demands highly skilled technicians who are in short supply. To combat this, companies are investing heavily in training. Meta has committed $115 million to a free training school offering tuition, housing, and stipends, targeting 5,000 new workers. OpenAI is partnering with unions to secure skilled labor. These efforts are paying off, with a significant rise in Gen Z interest in trade schools over college. However, the power demands are staggering. AI data centers are driving a rapid surge in electricity consumption, projected to account for up to 12% of U.S. power use by 2028 and raising costs for consumers. Furthermore, the construction boom is project-based, leading to a potential future glut of trained workers once building peaks, which could depress wages industry-wide. The race for AI supremacy now depends as much on skilled hands as on advanced chips.

marsbit31 хв тому

Annual Salary of Millions Competing for Electricians, Meta Rushes to Open Its Own Technical School

marsbit31 хв тому

OpenAI No Longer Sells Its Most Expensive Model for Profit

OpenAI is shifting its business strategy away from promoting its most expensive, flagship models for every task. Recent price cuts—80% for GPT-5.6 Luna and 20% for Terra—signal a deeper change: the company now actively advises users that many tasks don't require the most powerful model. Instead, OpenAI recommends a tiered approach: use the high-end GPT-5.6 Sol for complex planning and analysis, then delegate execution to cheaper models like Luna. This mirrors moves by Anthropic, which recently launched Claude Opus 5 at half the price of its top model, Fable 5. Both companies are de-emphasizing flagship models as primary revenue drivers, using them instead for brand prestige and technological showcases. The industry is entering a "mass-market" phase, similar to automotive, where high-volume, cost-effective models handle daily operations and drive scale. OpenAI's price reductions are partly enabled by AI models themselves optimizing underlying code and infrastructure, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of efficiency gains and cost reduction. Competition is shifting from "who is smartest" to "who offers the best value." The goal is no longer selling individual models but fostering widespread API adoption and ecosystem lock-in. By making AI calls cheap and ubiquitous, companies like OpenAI aim to become the indispensable, utility-like infrastructure powering automated workflows—the "water and electricity" of software, quietly embedded everywhere.

marsbit31 хв тому

OpenAI No Longer Sells Its Most Expensive Model for Profit

marsbit31 хв тому

Will the Fed Definitely Raise Interest Rates in September? How Will Crypto and U.S. Stocks Withstand the Pressure?

The market's expectation for a September Fed rate hike surged dramatically in early August, jumping from under 50% to over 80% within a week. This shift followed a contentious July FOMC meeting, where a 9-3 vote to hold rates revealed growing dissent from hawkish members advocating for an immediate hike to combat persistent inflation. The primary catalyst for this repricing is rising oil prices, driven by renewed geopolitical tensions around the Strait of Hormuz, which threaten global supply. Energy costs directly influence inflation metrics, making the upcoming July CPI report (due August 12th) a critical data point. If it shows inflation reaccelerating, the probability of a September hike will solidify. For Bitcoin and crypto assets, this is typically bearish news. Bitcoin continues to behave as a high-beta, liquidity-sensitive risk asset. A rate hike raises the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding assets and could drive capital toward money markets, pressuring crypto prices in the short term. However, historical patterns suggest that if a hike is perceived as the end of a tightening cycle rather than the start, any negative price impact may be brief. U.S. stocks, particularly crypto-linked equities like Coinbase and growth-oriented tech stocks, are also vulnerable. Higher rates increase discount rates in valuation models, putting pressure on high-multiple companies. This coincides with a pivotal tech earnings season where investor focus has shifted from massive AI capital expenditure to tangible revenue and cash flow generation. Companies with negative cash flow and weak growth narratives could face heightened volatility if borrowing costs rise in September. In summary, a September Fed hike has evolved into a mainstream market scenario. Key factors to watch are oil prices, the July CPI report, and Fed communications, which will determine the final decision and its impact on volatile crypto and equity markets.

marsbit42 хв тому

Will the Fed Definitely Raise Interest Rates in September? How Will Crypto and U.S. Stocks Withstand the Pressure?

marsbit42 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片