B2B stablecoin payments hit $226 billion in 2025, per McKinsey and Artemis. Where payments start, why Latin America looks tiny, and what blocks scale.
B2B stablecoin payments reached about $226 billion in 2025, roughly 60% of all real stablecoin payments, according to McKinsey and Artemis Analytics. That is about 0.01% of global B2B volume, but it grew 733% in a year. By origin, Asia leads at about $245 billion of all stablecoin payments, while Latin America and Africa each sent under $1 billion.
Those numbers come from one source: McKinsey's February 18, 2026 analysis with Artemis Analytics, which filtered on-chain data down to transactions that look like real payments. If you need the basics first, start with blockchain payments vs crypto payments.
Key takeaways
Definition: A B2B stablecoin payment is a payment between two businesses where value moves as a dollar-backed stablecoin such as USDC or USDT, typically for supplier invoices, intercompany transfers, or settlement with payment partners. The payer and payee may never touch the stablecoin if a provider converts on both ends.
Real stablecoin payments were about $390 billion in 2025, roughly 0.02% of global payments, and more than double the 2024 level. B2B was the largest use, and every other segment was much smaller.
Here is every figure from the McKinsey and Artemis analysis, as published on February 18, 2026.
| Metric (2025) | Value | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Reported stablecoin transaction volume | Up to $35 trillion a year | Mostly trading, internal transfers, automated activity |
| Actual stablecoin payments | About $390 billion | About 0.02% of global payments, more than double 2024 |
| B2B payments | About $226 billion | Roughly 60% of the total, up 733% year over year |
| Share of global B2B volume | About 0.01% | Global B2B is roughly $1.6 quadrillion |
| Global payroll and remittances | About $90 billion | Under 1% of a $100 trillion+ segment, about $1.2 trillion of it cross-border |
| Capital markets settlement | About $8 billion | Under 0.01% of $200 trillion in settlement |
| Stablecoin-linked card spending | $4.5 billion | Up 673% from 2024 |
The lesson is in the first two rows. Most of what blockchain dashboards report as "volume" is not payments.
Because a blockchain records that value moved, not why it moved. Most of the movement is trading and plumbing, not a business paying another business.
McKinsey lists four kinds of activity that inflate raw volumes: exchanges and custodians moving money between their own wallets, smart contracts moving the same capital repeatedly, liquidity management and arbitrage, and protocol mechanics that split one action into many on-chain steps. Its advice is direct: treat raw volumes as a starting point for analysis, not as a proxy for payment adoption.
For a business case, that changes the denominator. A stablecoin payments strategy sized against $35 trillion is sized against trading desks. Sized against $390 billion, it's sized against actual payers.
Asia sends the most, by a wide margin. McKinsey and Artemis estimate payments sent from Asia at about $245 billion in 2025, then North America at $95 billion and Europe at $50 billion.
| Region of origin (2025) | Stablecoin payments sent | What McKinsey notes |
|---|---|---|
| Asia | About $245 billion | Driven almost entirely by Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan |
| North America | $95 billion | Second largest source |
| Europe | $50 billion | Third largest source |
| Latin America | Under $1 billion | Each region below $1 billion |
| Africa | Under $1 billion | Each region below $1 billion |
Two things to read carefully. First, this table counts all stablecoin payments by origin, not only B2B. Second, McKinsey describes Asia's share as 60% of the total; $245 billion of $390 billion works out closer to 63%, so treat the share as rounded.
McKinsey's own reading: activity is uneven across regions and corridors, and scale will depend on local market structure and constraints.
Because the data counts where a payment starts, and Latin America is mostly where payments end. A US company paying a supplier in Brazil shows up as a North American payment.
That is our reading of the methodology, not a McKinsey claim, but it fits what payment teams see. Latin American businesses receive dollars from abroad far more often than they send stablecoin payments out. The receiving side is where the work is: converting USDC into reais, pesos, or Colombian pesos and landing it in a local bank account.
There is a second factor. Starting a stablecoin payment requires an on-ramp, a way to turn local currency into stablecoins. The guide to stablecoins plus local rails in Latin America shows why instant rails like Pix and SPEI make the last mile fast, and why the first mile from local currency into stablecoins is still the harder part.
Mostly for cross-border flows where bank rails are slow or expensive. McKinsey points to supply chain payments and liquidity management, especially for small and medium-size businesses.
| Use case | Why stablecoins fit | What blocks scale |
|---|---|---|
| Supplier invoices abroad | Settles in minutes, any day, without correspondent hops | Supplier wants local currency, not USDC |
| Intercompany transfers | Moves treasury between entities outside banking hours | Accounting and FX policy for holding stablecoins |
| Paying payment partners and PSPs | Settles net positions without pre-funded accounts | Partner must accept or off-ramp stablecoins |
| Marketplace and platform payouts | One funding source, many local payouts | KYB on every seller, local rail coverage |
| Collections from foreign customers | Payer sends a bank transfer, payee receives stablecoins | Payer-side bank details and reconciliation |
The seven blockchain payment use cases walk through each flow step by step. For the B2B wire comparison, see stablecoins vs SWIFT for B2B payments.
The edges of the payment. On-chain transfers are cheap and fast, but the fiat steps on each side carry most of the cost and most of the operational work.
A March 30, 2026 Federal Reserve FEDS note makes the point plainly: the on-chain cost of sending stablecoins between parties that already hold them is likely to be small, but there may be greater on-ramp and off-ramp costs to exchange stablecoins for fiat. The same note describes the GENIUS Act, passed in July 2025, as the US framework for payment stablecoins.
In practice, four gaps decide whether a corridor grows:
McKinsey's advice to financial institutions lines up: ground business cases in actual adoption patterns, and invest selectively in the fastest-growing use cases.
BlindPay works on the receiving edge the data shows is thin. It converts stablecoins into local currency and pays bank accounts over local rails, so a supplier in Latin America receives a normal bank deposit.
Payouts run over Pix in Brazil, SPEI in Mexico, Transfers in Argentina, ACH in Colombia, SEPA in Europe, and ACH, wire, RTP, and SWIFT (POBO/COBO) from the US. Each payout starts from a quote that locks the rate and shows every fee before you execute. BlindPay is backed by Y Combinator and handles about $2.5 billion in annualized volume across 100+ countries.
To compare rails for a specific supplier or contractor payment, see which payment rail wins by scenario.
Size your stablecoin plan against real payment volume in your corridors, not on-chain totals. Pick the one cross-border supplier payment you make most often, price it against what arrives today by wire, and test it end to end.
Read the BlindPay payouts docs to see how a USDC payout reaches a supplier's bank account in Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, or Colombia.
The five risks of a stablecoin card: peg, program failure, custody, smart contracts, and fraud, with the August 2026 incident and a safety checklist.
Stablecoin payments are as safe as the issuer, the network, the provider, and your own controls. The seven risks to check, with real incidents and fixes.
Five stablecoin APIs compared for cross-border payments: primary use case, pre-funding requirement, payout regions, and developer experience, plus how to choose by buyer scenario.