Why Is Crypto VC Focusing on Stablecoin Infrastructure?

Editor: Wu Says Blockchain

TL;DR:

• Overall cooling of financing: In Q1 2026, Crypto VC funding amount decreased by approximately 50% quarter-over-quarter, with capital further concentrating on mature projects with existing customers, revenue, and transaction volume.
• Stablecoin payments receive investment against the trend: Projects such as Rain, OpenFX, RedotPay, Mesh, and Conduit have successively secured large financings, covering bank cards, cross-border payments, FX liquidity, wallets, bank access, and clearing links.
• VCs are betting on infrastructure: Stablecoins can provide 24/7 cross-border settlement, and related companies can generate revenue through transaction fees, FX spreads, bank cards, and API services, forming a relatively clear fee model.
• Heat still needs to be viewed cautiously: On-chain stablecoin transaction volume does not equal real payment volume, and financing is mainly concentrated in a few top projects; compliance, fiat on/off ramps, local bank relationships, and homogeneous competition remain major challenges.
• Future opportunities: Capital may continue to flow towards cross-border B2B payments, stablecoin bank cards, bank-stablecoin connections, multi-chain payment orchestration, and AI Agent payments.

In the first quarter of 2026, risk financing in the crypto industry cooled down significantly. According to Galaxy Research data, Crypto VCs invested $4 billion into approximately 355 transactions, with funding amount decreasing by about 50% quarter-over-quarter and transaction count decreasing by 16%. During the same period, the number of newly established crypto venture capital funds fell to the lowest level since Q3 2020.

However, this cooling does not mean all projects simultaneously lost financing capabilities. Galaxy Research pointed out that the decrease in total funding mainly stems from a reduction in super-large late-stage financings, while seed and early-stage financings continue. Meanwhile, 57% of capital flowed to late-stage projects, indicating that investment institutions are becoming more cautious: compared to projects relying on tokens and market sentiment, they are more willing to provide funding to companies that already have customers, revenue, and payment scale.

Strictly speaking, stablecoin payments are not yet the sector receiving the most funding from Crypto VCs. In the first quarter of 2026, trading, investment, lending, and exchange projects combined received approximately $2.6 billion, still occupying absolute dominance. A more accurate positioning for stablecoin payments is: one of the few directions that can still continuously see large financings and rapid successive financings under the situation of overall financing difficulties.

Stablecoins Move from Trading Tools to Payment Infrastructure

VCs' interest in stablecoin payments is first built on the basis of the continuous expansion of stablecoins themselves.

Research released by the Federal Reserve in April 2026 shows that as of April 6, 2026, the total market value of stablecoins was approximately $317 billion, an increase of over 50% compared to the beginning of 2025. Data using adjusted methodologies from Visa and Artemis shows that within their corresponding statistical windows, adjusted stablecoin transaction volume over the past 12 months was approximately $10.2 trillion, a year-over-year increase of 63%. However, about 36% of this in 2025 came from centralized exchange deposits and withdrawals, so this data still cannot be directly equated to goods and services payments.

In the past, stablecoins were mainly used to transfer funds between exchanges or serve as temporary safe-haven tools during crypto asset price fluctuations. Now, startups are attempting to connect this on-chain liquidity to the real financial system, including cross-border B2B payments, remittances, payroll distribution, corporate treasury management, bank card spending, bank accounts, and FX settlement.

This has also changed the financing structure of stablecoin projects. Investors are no longer just investing in stablecoin issuers, but are looking for opportunities along the entire payment chain: underlying payment blockchains, stablecoin issuance and orchestration, wallets, on/off ramps, FX liquidity, bank cards, bank access, clearing, and final redemption have all become independent startup directions.

Recent Overview of Stablecoin Payment Related Financings

The following projects are not a complete industry statistic, but representative financing cases since 2025. They cover different links in the stablecoin payment chain, so they cannot be simply categorized as the same business model.

From these projects, it can be seen that what investors call "stablecoin payments" actually includes multiple directions with significant differences.

Rain, RedotPay, and Félix Pago are closer to the application and distribution layers, directly solving how users remit, hold, and spend stablecoins; OpenFX, Conduit, and Noah are responsible for cross-border payments, FX liquidity, and fund settlement between different countries; Mesh and Crossmint provide wallet and payment orchestration tools; Stablecore and Ubyx connect banks, issuers, and stablecoin clearing systems; projects like Plasma attempt to redesign the stablecoin payment environment from the underlying blockchain.

Therefore, this round of funding is not simply betting on a certain stablecoin, but is betting on a whole set of infrastructure demands generated after stablecoins become payment tools.

Capital Prefers Projects That Have Already Showed Business Data

Different from previous Crypto projects that mainly talked about future visions, stablecoin payment companies that recently secured large financings generally disclose transaction scale, customer count, or revenue data.

Rain completed a $250 million Series C financing in January 2026, which was only about 4 months after its Series B financing and about 10 months after its Series A financing. The company stated that its number of active bank cards grew 30 times within a year, annualized payment scale grew 38 times, and it currently processes about $3 billion in annualized transaction volume for over 200 partners.

OpenFX completed a $23 million seed financing in 2025, and raised another $94 million about 10 months later. The company told Reuters that its annualized payment scale has grown from $4 billion a year ago to over $45 billion, more than 98% of transactions can be completed within 60 minutes, while traditional FX settlement usually takes 2 to 5 business days.

RedotPay stated that as of November 2025, its registered users exceeded 6 million, covering over 100 markets, with annualized payment scale exceeding $10 billion, annualized revenue exceeding $150 million, and has already achieved profitability.

Most of these data come from company disclosures, are not necessarily audited, and various companies have different calculation methodologies for "payment scale," "transaction volume," and "annualized revenue," so they cannot be directly compared horizontally. However, they still reflect an obvious change: stablecoin payment projects are attempting to prove their value using metrics of traditional fintech companies, rather than just telling growth stories using on-chain address counts, token prices, and community scale.

Why Are Stablecoin Payments Receiving VC Attention?

1. Cross-border Payments Have Real and Long-term Efficiency Problems

Traditional cross-border payments often need to go through remitting banks, correspondent banks, clearing networks, receiving banks, and local payment institutions. Different institutions have their own business hours, ledgers, and compliance procedures, leading to funds potentially taking several days to complete settlement.

If payment companies wish to provide instant transfers to multiple countries, they also need to deposit funds in bank accounts in various locations in advance. Although the funds are not truly used, they must stay in different countries for a long time to ensure users can withdraw in time, which generates high capital occupation costs.

Stablecoins cannot automatically solve all problems, but they can provide a unified settlement asset that operates 24/7. Payment companies can first complete fund transfers on-chain using stablecoins, and then local partners convert the stablecoins into local currency. For cross-border B2B payments, remittances, global payroll, and internal corporate fund transfers, shortening settlement time and reducing pre-deposited funds both have direct commercial value.

2. Revenue Model of Payment Infrastructure is Relatively Clear

Stablecoin payment companies usually do not rely on token appreciation for revenue, but instead charge transaction fees, FX spreads, bank card issuance fees, account management fees, API subscription fees, or on/off ramp fees.

This type of revenue model is not new, essentially similar to traditional payment service providers and fintech companies. The difference lies in that stablecoins are used as backend settlement tools to reduce friction between different countries, currencies, and financial institutions.

For VCs, this means projects can be valued using traditional metrics such as payment scale, net income, gross margin, customer retention rate, and cost per transaction. Compared to projects relying on market cycles and token prices, their business models are easier to evaluate and also easier to explain to traditional financial investors.

3. Stablecoins Are Becoming Backend Tools Users Do Not Need to Perceive

The typical path of early stablecoin payments was: users buy stablecoins, transfer them to wallets, and then find merchants supporting crypto to spend. This model requires users to understand blockchain, wallet addresses, networks, and Gas fees, with a high usage threshold.

Projects that recently secured financing attempt to hide these links. Félix Pago users only need to initiate remittances in WhatsApp; Rain and RedotPay connect stablecoins to bank cards; Mesh allows users to pay with one crypto asset while letting merchants receive another stablecoin; OpenFX's customers are mainly fintech and remittance companies, and end users may not even know stablecoins were used in the settlement process.

This means VCs are not necessarily betting on consumers actively choosing to "pay with stablecoins," but rather on stablecoins replacing part of traditional payment and clearing processes in the backend. What users see may still be bank cards, bank accounts, local currency, or chat apps.

4. Regulatory Changes Expand Potential Customer Base

Regulatory uncertainty previously limited banks and large payment institutions from accessing stablecoins. In 2025, the US passed the GENIUS Act, establishing a federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins; the OCC also confirmed that US national banks and federal savings institutions can conduct certain stablecoin, digital asset custody, and blockchain network activities, and cancelled some previous additional regulatory "non-objection" procedures.

Regulatory requirements will increase reserve, audit, AML, and licensing costs, but also make it easier for banks, enterprises, and payment companies to determine which businesses can be conducted. For companies like Stablecore, Ubyx, and Rain that face institutional clients, clear regulation means potential customers expand from Crypto companies to banks, fintech platforms, and traditional enterprises.

This also explains why recent investor lists not only include Crypto VCs such as Dragonfly, Galaxy Ventures, and Paradigm, but also traditional tech or fintech investment institutions like ICONIQ, Accel, Lightspeed, QED Investors, and Norwest.

5. Acquisitions by Traditional Payment Companies Provide Exit Expectations

In February 2025, Stripe completed the acquisition of stablecoin infrastructure company Bridge, with media reports stating the transaction scale was approximately $1.1 billion. Bridge helps enterprises issue, manage, and transfer stablecoins, and Stripe subsequently integrated relevant capabilities into its own payment products.

In March 2026, Mastercard announced plans to acquire stablecoin infrastructure company BVNK for up to $1.8 billion, including $300 million in contingent payments. BVNK's business is connecting stablecoins, fiat, banks, and different blockchains, providing cross-border payment and settlement services for enterprises.

For VCs, these two transactions have significant meaning. The exit paths for stablecoin payment companies no longer remain only issuing tokens or waiting for an IPO, but may also be acquired by card networks, payment companies, banks, and large fintech platforms.

At the same time, this also indicates that licenses, local bank relationships, and mature customer networks have high value. Traditional payment companies can develop blockchain technology themselves, but if they want to establish compliance systems and liquidity networks in multiple countries, it may take several years; directly acquiring companies that have already completed this work is faster.

Why Might the Hype Be Overestimated?

Stablecoin payments have clear opportunities, but the current financing narrative also has parts that are amplified.

1. Stablecoin Transaction Volume Does Not Equal Real Payment Volume

On-chain stablecoin transactions include exchange transfers, market making, arbitrage, DeFi, smart contract interactions, institutional fund transfers, and ordinary payments. Even excluding some bot and repetitive transactions, not all remaining transactions can be viewed as goods and services payments.

Visa once pointed out that as of March 2025, retail-sized transactions accounted for less than 1% of adjusted stablecoin transaction volume over the past 12 months.

Therefore, stablecoin on-chain transaction volume exceeding card networks does not directly prove that their payment business has exceeded Visa or Mastercard. The two measure different types of activities and cannot be simply compared.

2. Financing Heat is Concentrated in Few Projects

Rain's single round of financing reached $250 million, RedotPay cumulatively raised $194 million in 2025, and OpenFX raised $94 million in one round. A few large transactions can significantly raise the financing scale of the entire track, but does not represent that all stablecoin payment startups easily obtain funding.

Rain, RedotPay, and OpenFX all disclosed relatively fast-growing business data; investors are betting on companies that have already shown scale. Early projects lacking licenses, local payment channels, and actual customers still face a difficult financing environment.

In other words, this is more like capital concentrating towards top projects, rather than a comprehensive prosperity of stablecoin payment startups.

3. Basic Services May Rapidly Homogenize

The technical thresholds for wallets, stablecoin on/off ramps, cross-border transfers, and payment APIs are declining. More and more companies can provide similar functions, and banks, exchanges, stablecoin issuers, and traditional payment companies are also building their own products.

If multiple platforms can all complete USDC or USDT transfers, simply providing on-chain payment interfaces is hard to form long-term barriers. What projects ultimately need to compete on are still licenses, local bank channels, FX quotes, payment success rates, risk control capabilities, customer service, and costs.

As competition increases, transaction fees and FX spreads may decline. Even if payment scale continues to grow, it does not necessarily automatically translate into higher profits.

4. Global Expansion Still Requires Landing Market by Market

Blockchain can operate across borders, but bank accounts, licenses, and fiat currency cannot automatically cross borders. Every time a stablecoin payment company enters a new market, it still needs to find local banks, payment institutions, and liquidity providers, and meet local KYC, AML, sanctions screening, data, and consumer protection requirements.

If local banks stop cooperation, or on/off ramp channels have problems, even if on-chain funds have arrived, they cannot be smoothly converted into the fiat currency users need. Therefore, what stablecoins mainly solve is the intermediate settlement link, rather than completely eliminating the traditional financial system.

5. Traditional Financial Institutions Are Both Customers and Competitors

Banks and card networks currently invest in or acquire stablecoin infrastructure companies because they need to quickly obtain relevant capabilities. However, as technology and regulatory frameworks mature, these institutions may also build systems themselves and integrate stablecoin capabilities into existing products.

Stripe, Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, and large banks possess merchants, accounts, brands, and regulatory resources. Startups may become their suppliers or acquisition targets, or may be compressed into lower-profit backend service links.

Where Will Investment Go in the Next Stage?

From recent financings, it can be seen that investment focus is shifting from "issuing more stablecoins" to "letting stablecoins truly enter bank, enterprise, and user accounts".

In the near future, the following directions may continue to receive attention:

First is cross-border B2B payments. Compared to ordinary consumption, enterprise cross-border payment amounts are larger, more sensitive to settlement speed, capital occupation, and FX costs, and more willing to pay for efficiency improvements.

Second is the connection between banks and stablecoins. The opportunity represented by Stablecore and Ubyx is enabling banks to receive, send, clear, and redeem stablecoins from different issuers and on different blockchains.

Third is stablecoin bank cards and local payments. Users do not need to find merchants accepting stablecoins, but spend through existing bank cards and acquiring networks. The successive financings of Rain and RedotPay indicate that this remains one of the most direct paths for stablecoins to enter daily payments.

Fourth is the orchestration layer for multi-stablecoin and multi-blockchain. Enterprises usually do not wish to integrate USDT, USDC, different blockchains, and on/off ramp services of various countries separately; platforms that can uniformly handle asset selection, routing, fees, compliance, and exchange may gain more institutional customers.

Fifth is AI Agent payments. Processes such as verification codes, bank card verification, and manual authorization in traditional payment systems are usually not designed for AI Agents; stablecoin wallets and programmable payments may provide new settlement methods for them. However, this direction currently remains mainly focused on infrastructure construction and expectations; real payment demands and revenue scale still need further verification.

Conclusion

Stablecoin payments receiving VC attention does not mean the crypto investment and financing winter has ended, nor does it mean stablecoins have already replaced traditional payments on a large scale.

More accurately, after the financing environment tightened, investors began looking for projects that can decouple from token prices, solve actual financial problems, and generate continuous revenue. Stablecoins provide 24/7, programmable global settlement assets, and the opportunity for startups is to bridge the connections between stablecoins and bank accounts, FX markets, bank cards, local currencies, and compliance systems.

What determines project value in the next stage is no longer just financing scale and on-chain transaction volume, but how much of it belongs to real customer payments, how much net income can be generated, how many compliant markets entered, and whether profitability remains after deducting liquidity, channel, and compliance costs.

What VCs are currently betting on is not that a certain stablecoin will inevitably win, but that in the process of stablecoins entering the real financial system, there are still some key infrastructures waiting to be established and perfected.