Building the Infrastructure for Stablecoin Payments: Maksym Sakharov, CEO & Co-Founder of WeFi

The UK and US have now signalled a shared interest in enabling stablecoins for cross-border payments and settlement. How significant is this alignment, and could it become a blueprint for how other major financial markets approach stablecoins?

A: The significance is that two major financial markets are treating stablecoins as infrastructure that can be regulated, integrated, and used for payment and settlement. That is an important commercial signal because it moves the conversation away from whether stablecoins should exist and toward how they should operate responsibly.

It could become a blueprint if it shows that stablecoin regulation can balance innovation with clear standards. Other markets will not copy the UK or US exactly because their currencies, banking systems, and regulatory priorities differ. But if the framework creates more confidence for institutions and payment providers, it will influence how other financial centers approach stablecoins.

Stablecoins are increasingly being discussed as financial infrastructure rather than simply crypto assets. What needs to happen for stablecoins to become a genuine part of the global payments system rather than an additional layer sitting alongside existing rails?

A: Stablecoins need to connect with the parts of the payment system that businesses and consumers already depend on. That means banking access, liquidity, merchant acceptance, compliance operations, treasury systems, accounting, reporting, local payout rails, and support when something fails. A stablecoin by itself is only an asset. Payment infrastructure is the full environment that makes the asset usable.

The real test is whether stablecoins can improve the workflow around money movement. A business should be able to receive value, reconcile it, convert it where needed, and account for it without rebuilding operations around crypto-native tools. When stablecoins become part of how payments are processed, settled, and managed, they stop sitting next to the system and start functioning inside it.

The UK-US statement puts significant emphasis on interoperability and reducing regulatory fragmentation. Do you think we are moving toward a globally connected stablecoin market, or will regional stablecoin ecosystems remain the norm?

A: We are likely moving toward a more connected stablecoin market at the infrastructure level, but regional ecosystems will remain important. Interoperability is necessary because value needs to move across platforms and jurisdictions. Without that, stablecoins risk becoming another fragmented set of closed systems.

At the same time, regulation, local currency demand, banking access, consumer protection rules, and market structure will continue to differ by region. A stablecoin used in the US, the The UK, Europe, or Asia may face different requirements and different use cases. The practical outcome is likely to be connected rails with regional rulebooks, not one completely uniform global market.

As banks launch tokenized deposits while stablecoin issuers expand their payment networks, where do you see the clearest dividing line between stablecoins and tokenized bank money? Do you expect them to compete or ultimately coexist?

A: The clearest dividing line is the liability and the range of use. Tokenized deposits extend bank money into a digital format. They are tied to bank balance sheets and will often fit best inside bank-controlled environments or institutional banking relationships. Stablecoins are different because they can act as more portable settlement assets, provided the issuer, reserves, redemption, and compliance structure are strong.

They will compete in some payment and settlement use cases, but coexistence is more likely than one model taking every role. Tokenized deposits may serve environments where bank money and account relationships are central. Stablecoins may be more useful where value needs to move across networks, markets, and user-facing products with greater portability. The question is which structure solves the payment problem in that context.

The UK and US both emphasize fully backed reserves, clear redemption rights, and strong custody standards. Could stricter reserve requirements actually strengthen stablecoins as a mainstream financial product, or could they make the market too concentrated among a small number of large issuers?

A: Stronger reserve, redemption, and custody standards can strengthen stablecoins as payment instruments. If stablecoins are going to be used for payments, settlement, or treasury activity, users and institutions need confidence that the asset is fully backed, redeemable, and protected if something goes wrong. Higher standards can make stablecoins more credible for mainstream financial use because they reduce uncertainty around what the token represents.

The risk is concentration. If the cost of compliance, reserve management, reporting, custody, and banking access becomes too high, the market may favor only the largest issuers and their closest partners. That could increase trust in some products while limiting competition and innovation. The right balance is high standards without unnecessary barriers to responsible entry. Stablecoins should be hard to operate irresponsibly but not impossible to build unless you are already one of the largest institutions in the market.

One of the biggest opportunities for stablecoins is cross-border payments, particularly remittances and business payments. What is still missing from the infrastructure before sending stablecoins internationally becomes as simple as sending money domestically?

A: The missing pieces are mostly around the edges of the transaction, not the transfer itself. Stablecoins can move quickly, but international payments still need reliable local off-ramps, liquidity, FX conversion, compliance checks, payout options, customer support, transaction monitoring, and clear pricing. Without those layers, the payment may settle on-chain but still be difficult for the recipient to use.

For business payments, the gap is even more operational. Companies need invoices, reconciliation, reporting, tax treatment, treasury controls, and dispute processes. A payment is not finished when the value moves. It is finished when both sides can use it, account for it, and trust the process. Stablecoins become much more useful internationally when the infrastructure around them handles those requirements without exposing users to the technical route underneath.

As regulation becomes clearer, do you expect the next phase of stablecoin competition to be driven primarily by the issuers themselves or by the infrastructure around them—wallets, banks, cards, payment networks, and financial platforms?

A: Issuers will remain important because trust starts with the asset: reserves, redemption, disclosures, governance, and compliance. But the next phase of competition will increasingly move to the infrastructure around the issuer. A well-structured stablecoin still needs distribution, liquidity, local access, custody, payment acceptance, compliance tools, and products that make it useful.

That is where adoption will be decided. Users and businesses do not choose stablecoins only because of the issuer’s name. They choose the product that lets them use value reliably. The strongest stablecoin ecosystems will combine credible issuance with the infrastructure that turns the asset into a usable payment and settlement tool.

The UK-US framework supports regulated stablecoins having fair, risk-based access to banking and financial services. How important is that access to the next stage of stablecoin adoption, and what happens if traditional financial institutions remain cautious about working with issuers?

A: Fair, risk-based access is critical because stablecoins still need a connection to the broader financial system, requiring reliable banking and financial-service relationships. The important signal is that regulated stablecoin providers need transparent access to those services if stablecoins are going to function as payment infrastructure.

If traditional financial institutions remain too cautious, adoption may slow or become more concentrated around a small number of issuers and partners with existing access. Activity may also move toward less visible channels, which is not good for users or regulators. The answer is to create clear standards so lawful, regulated stablecoin activity can access financial services on a proportionate basis.

Looking five years ahead, what do you think will be the biggest misconception about stablecoins today, and what will the market look back on as the moment when they genuinely became mainstream financial infrastructure?

A: The biggest misconception may be that stablecoins were mainly a crypto-market asset. That was their first major use case, but it is not the full story. Stablecoins are increasingly being judged by whether they can improve payment access and value movement in environments where existing rails are slow, expensive, or difficult to connect.

The market will probably look back on mainstream adoption as the moment stablecoins became part of normal payment operations. Not when users started talking about stablecoins more, but when businesses started using them without treating them as a separate crypto process. Mainstream infrastructure usually becomes visible only through the outcome: the payment works, the record is clear, and the user does not have to manage the complexity.

If stablecoins, tokenized deposits, and other forms of digital money all coexist, what role do you ultimately see stablecoins playing in the financial system, and where does WeFi fit into that new architecture?

A: Stablecoins can become a programmable settlement and value-movement layer between different parts of the financial system. Tokenized deposits may remain closer to bank balance sheets and institutional banking relationships. Stablecoins can serve use cases where value needs to move across platforms, markets, and onchain environments. Their role will depend on whether they can combine trust, liquidity, redemption, regulation, and real usability.

WeFi fits into this architecture as a Deobanking infrastructure provider because the next problem is orchestration. Stablecoins, tokenized deposits, fiat rails, cards, compliance systems, and onchain settlement will not create adoption if they remain separate technical layers. WeFi’s role is to help connect those layers into financial products where users can access, move, and use value without managing the infrastructure underneath.