The global payroll technology company announced that it is now automating more than 1.3 million payslips annually across over 125 countries, supporting around €5 billion in payroll payments. The milestone also marks two years since Payslip entered into a strategic partnership with Deloitte, a collaboration the companies say reflects growing demand for unified payroll infrastructure.

Pay Transparency Rules Are Reshaping Global Payroll

The push towards centralised payroll data is being driven in part by expanding pay transparency regulations, particularly the EU Pay Transparency Directive. As organisations prepare for new reporting requirements, many are discovering that payroll data remains siloed across local providers and systems, making consolidated reporting difficult.

For multinational businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions, producing audit-ready payroll data has become increasingly complex. The need to standardise reporting, track compensation structures and demonstrate compliance across countries is forcing companies to rethink how payroll is managed.

This is where Payslip and Deloitte are positioning their joint offering. Deloitte’s Global Payroll Operate solution integrates Payslip’s payroll control automation and AI technology with Deloitte’s advisory and implementation services, aiming to help organisations unify payroll data across regions.

Nathan Male, Global Payroll Operate Service Leader at Deloitte, said fragmented payroll environments are becoming a barrier as reporting requirements increase. He noted that bringing global payroll data together can improve oversight across multi-country operations while supporting expansion into new markets without adding operational complexity.

From Operational Necessity to Strategic Data Asset

The shift towards centralised payroll is also changing how organisations view payroll data itself. Rather than being treated as a purely operational function, payroll is increasingly seen as a strategic data source that can inform workforce planning, compliance and financial decision-making.

Fidelma McGuirk, Founder and CEO of Payslip, said rising regulatory complexity is forcing organisations to modernise payroll operations, but also presents an opportunity to unlock additional value from payroll data. She added that automation and AI can help organisations gain clearer visibility while improving compliance and operational efficiency.

Customers adopting the joint model are moving away from decentralised payroll structures towards centralised, automated control frameworks. According to Payslip, organisations using the platform have reported a 96% reduction in payroll errors, alongside 40% faster pay runs and improved audit readiness across global payroll operations.

The model also aims to standardise reporting across jurisdictions, reduce manual processing time through integrations with HR and finance systems, and simplify onboarding when expanding into new countries. As global workforces become more distributed, the ability to scale payroll operations without increasing complexity is becoming increasingly important.

AI and Automation Driving Global Payroll Transformation

The partnership also reflects a broader trend toward AI-led payroll management. As payroll environments grow more complex, automation is being used to validate data, detect anomalies and streamline workflows that were previously manual.

Payslip says its platform harmonises payroll data across vendors and countries, providing real-time reporting and analytics for multinational organisations. Combined with Deloitte’s advisory and transformation capabilities, the companies are positioning the offering as a scalable model for global payroll modernisation.

With approximately €5 billion in employee salaries processed through the platform each year, the companies argue that unified payroll infrastructure is becoming essential rather than optional for large organisations.

As pay transparency requirements expand and global workforces continue to grow, the demand for centralised payroll data is expected to increase further. Payslip and Deloitte say their continued investment in automation and AI will focus on helping multinational organisations modernise payroll operations while maintaining compliance across multiple regions.

The post Payslip And Deloitte Highlight Growing Demand For Centralised Global Payroll As Pay Transparency Rules Tighten appeared first on 91̽��.

Those gains will not arrive equally, however, and within Europe, the evidence is mounting that the continent is positioned to capture a smaller share of them than its economic weight would suggest.

Between 2013 and 2024, cumulative private AI investment in the US exceeded roughly $470 billion while all EU member states combined attracted around $50 billion. Around 61% of global AI funding flows to US firms versus approximately 6% to European companies. That capital gap isn’t abstract: it translates directly into fewer AI-driven startups, less infrastructure and slower scaling, and many European AI founders have responded by incorporating or raising capital outside the EU entirely.

With UK FinTech Week approaching and European financial competitiveness firmly on the agenda, the debate over whether Europe’s regulatory-first approach is an asset or a structural disadvantage is getting harder to sidestep.

Is Europe’s Regulatory Complexity A ‘Silent Tax’ On Innovation?

Multiple financial sector executives and institutions describe years of regulatory complexity and rising capital requirements as a ‘silent tax’ on the European economy, one that reduces investment capacity and contributes to slower growth relative to global peers.

Reports by Mario Draghi, former ECB President, and Peter Wennink, former ASML CEO, have both argued that regulatory fragmentation, slow decision-making and underdeveloped capital market structures have materially weighed on Europe’s ability to fund frontier technology investment.

Surveys of large European organisations show that over half haven’t moved beyond AI pilots or narrow use cases, lagging behind US peers in integration and scale-up. The fragmentation across 27 member-state markets, differing supervisory approaches and uneven digital infrastructure all slow cross-border AI finance innovation in ways that simply don’t apply to the more unified US market.

Is The US Model Actually That Clean?

The EU AI Act is the world’s first comprehensive legal framework for artificial intelligence, designed to set high safety and transparency standards across high-risk systems, including many financial services applications. Proponents argue this creates long-term trust and responsible adoption, particularly in consumer-facing finance where the consequences of AI failures can be severe.

Artur Szablowski, Editor-in-Chief at Finonity, argues that Europe cannot regulate its way to competitiveness, arguing that the most likely outcome of the current trajectory is becoming the world’s most trusted market for other people’s AI products rather than a producer of its own.

But the US picture is more complicated than a simple ‘faster and freer’ narrative suggests. Without a unified federal framework, AI governance in the US is a patchwork of state-level initiatives and sector-specific rules that creates its own form of regulatory confusion. The answer for Europe isn’t deregulation but modernisation: faster approvals, greater access to capital and clearer rules that support rather than obstruct deployment.

The Clock Is Ticking, But It Hasn’t Run Out

The harder reading of the data is whether Europe’s regulatory model becomes an advantage or a liability when most of those building on it are not European. If 61% of global AI funding goes to US firms and European AI founders are relocating to access capital and lighter-touch environments, the trust architecture being built in the EU may end up serving as a compliance framework for American and Asian technology rather than a foundation for European champions.

Szablowski’s assessment of the timeline is pointed: Europe still has time, but the window is narrower than its policymakers appear to believe. The data backs that up. The capital gap is documented, the adoption lag is visible and the talent drain is measurable.

Europe has built the most thoughtful regulatory environment for AI in finance. Whether it also builds the most competitive one depends on whether the pace of policy reform can keep up with the pace of the technology it’s trying to govern.

We asked four experts across fintech, finance and AI strategy where they think this is heading.

Our Experts:

• Dan Herbatschek, CEO and Founder, Ramsey Theory
• Artur Szablowski, Editor-in-Chief, Finonity
• Craig Gravina, CTO, Semarchy
• Peri Kadaster, Chief Communications Officer, Nearform
• Rachel Reid, Global Co-Head of AI and Co-Lead of Global Cybersecurity and Data Privacy, Eversheds Sutherland

Dan Herbatschek, CEO and Founder, Ramsey Theory

“The United States is outpacing Europe not because it is smarter, but because it is faster and better capitalised. However, Europe’s regulatory approach is both an asset and a liability. The asset is that it protects consumers, ensures transparency and works to lower risk. The liability is that the layering of rules has created friction that often slows innovation and deployment cycles. Speed is key in AI-driven finance.

“European AI fintech startups are trying to compete globally with the added burden of compliance weight on them and less access to capital. If this continues, Europe risks becoming an importer of AI rather than an innovation leader.

“The solution isn’t to eliminate regulation, but rather modernise it so there are faster approvals and access to more capital. Europe must find a way to both regulate AI innovation while actively being a leader in it.”

Artur Szablowski, Editor-in-Chief, Finonity

“It’s intellectually coherent and practically irrelevant if the companies building on that template are all American. The truth is – you cannot regulate your way to competitiveness. You can only regulate your way to being the world’s most trusted market for other people’s AI products.

“European fintech founders are not less talented. The point is they’re less capitalised, more constrained and operating inside a framework that was designed to manage risk rather than generate it. That’s a values choice, and I respect it. But it’s not a growth strategy.

“What would it take to close the gap? Fewer regulations. Simpler laws and faster public listings. Pension capital deployed into growth equity at scale. The Savings and Investments Union points in the right direction. The pace does not. Europe still has time. But not as much as its policymakers appear to believe.”

Craig Gravina, CTO, Semarchy

“Europe’s regulatory approach to AI in financial services is well-intentioned, but there is a real risk that caution becomes a competitive disadvantage if it is not matched by buy-in at the leadership level.

“Our latest research at Semarchy found a clear difference in how seriously AI is being prioritised from the top: 90% of US financial services leaders said AI strategy is a high priority for their organisation, compared with 78% in the UK and 67% in France. That gap matters because AI adoption is not just about access to technology or capital – it starts with executive commitment.

“We also saw a smaller but telling confidence gap in AI readiness, with 100% of US financial services leaders saying their organisation is AI ready, versus 96% in France. On paper, that percentage difference may seem marginal, but it reflects a broader difference in mindset. In the US, AI is increasingly being treated as a present-day commercial imperative. In parts of Europe, it is still too often approached as a future consideration shaped by compliance first.

“Regulation does have an important role in building trust, especially in finance. But if Europe wants to compete, it needs to pair responsible oversight with faster decision-making, stronger executive sponsorship and greater willingness to invest in the data foundations that make AI usable at scale.”

Peri Kadaster, Chief Communications Officer, Nearform

“The difference in enterprise adoption of AI between both sides of the Atlantic are stark. We’ve engaged on AI solutions and AI-native engineering capabilities with numerous North American companies since 2024, but UK and European organisations didn’t show the same level of demand until late 2025.

“While the US is home to several AI product leaders, it’s also a patchwork of state and federal regulatory systems. With a few exceptions, most US lawmakers have been slow to call for federal regulations on AI and related issues. This has led to state-specific initiatives, which in turn creates a confusing regulatory environment.

“Meanwhile the EU has been proactive in its AI legislation, incorporating elements like AI literacy requirements that may actually serve to promote innovation in the long run. Ironically, fintech startups and challenger banks have thrived in Europe, while the hurdles in the US are higher.

“Perhaps Europe can apply the best of both worlds to close the gap: enact regulations yes, but ensure they are clear and navigable. And most importantly, keep the user at the centre – developing new fintechs not for their own sake, but to truly identify new ways that AI can help consumers capture new sources of value. Financial services companies embracing AI-native engineering will ultimately win here.”

Rachel Reid, Global Co-Head of AI and Co-Lead of Global Cybersecurity and Data Privacy, Eversheds Sutherland

“Europe’s regulatory caution is doing what it’s meant to do: putting ethics, human rights and trust at the centre of AI adoption. The risk isn’t regulation itself, but imbalance. If Europe relies on rules alone, it can make it harder for startups to experiment and scale, especially against US rivals operating in a more growth-dynamic environment.

“Europe needs to treat regulation as a foundation for confidence and then build on it. For example, pairing the AI Act with incentives and ‘pathways to scale’, targeted investment, and practical mechanisms like regulatory sandboxes, certification schemes and knowledge centres so compliance becomes a runway for responsible experimentation rather than a brake.

“Closing the gap will take a coordinated strategy to unlock investment, scale skills programmes, and create clearer, more navigable frameworks, including more predictable legal frameworks around liability and use and ownership of data.”

For any questions, comments or features, please contact us directly.

The post Europe Has The Regulation But America Has The Capital, Is The EU Losing The AI Finance Race? appeared first on 91̽��.

And in many ways, this is neither unexpected nor unwarranted. The hesitation reflects how heavily Asia has been exposed to recent swings in oil prices, shipping disruption concerns around the Strait of Hormuz and broader geopolitical uncertainty. Indeed, there’s no denying that Asia has been the most severely affected by market volatility during this period, so the fact that they’re not quite ready to bounce back makes total sense.

So, even with a temporary pause in hostilities, markets across the region appear to be signalling that the risk premium hasn’t disappeared.

Asia Hit Hardest By Commodity Volatility

Asia’s economies are particularly sensitive to oil shocks. Many countries across the region are major energy importers, meaning sudden spikes in crude prices feed directly into inflation risks, currency pressure and weaker growth outlooks.

According to Firstpost, Asian stocks traded cautiously after the Iran ceasefire, with investors still weighing inflation risks tied to oil price volatility. The report notes that even as geopolitical tensions eased, concerns around energy costs and economic slowdown continued to cap upside across regional markets.

This contrasts with other global markets, where investors appeared more willing to price in a recovery. The divergence here highlights how Asia’s exposure to commodities can delay sentiment shifts, particularly when oil remains unpredictable.

No Quick Relief for Asian Markets

The lack of a strong rebound suggests that investors view the ceasefire as temporary rather than transformative, and there are a few reasons for this. First, there are obvious doubts about whether or not both sides will stick to the agreement, and these doubts are absolutely warranted given the fact that both the US and Iran have already accused each other of breaches within the first 24 hours.

But in addition to this, the truth for Asia is that a two-week pause does little to remove the structural risks around Middle East supply routes, and traders appear reluctant to rotate back into risk assets too aggressively. The US-Iran conflict has brought to the forefront what was previously a significant concern – that is, Asia’s dependence on the Middle East for oil and more.

According to Global Banking & Finance, Asian stocks turned cautious as “reality intruded” following early optimism, with markets pulling back as investors reassessed the durability of the ceasefire and the broader geopolitical backdrop. The report highlights that uncertainty around energy supply and inflation continues to weigh on sentiment, and nobody’s feeling comfortable and secure just yet. Indeed, it doesn’t seem like there’s anything that could allow for serious relief and comfort in the short term – not without some major changes in Asia’s supply chain dependence.

This cautious positioning reflects a broader theme here. That is, markets may rally in the headlines, but Asia appears to be waiting for confirmation before following suit. And given the unpredictable nature of both Iran’s unstable regime and the wrecking ball that is Donald Trump’s administration, I’d say they’re probably right to be a little skeptical.

Oil Volatility Still Shaping Sentiment

Even with the ceasefire announcement, oil prices remain highly sensitive to developments in the region. That ongoing volatility makes it harder for Asian markets to stabilise, particularly for economies already managing fragile growth and currency pressures.

According to reports, strategists are advising cautious buying amid West Asia uncertainty, noting that while global markets have shown resilience, investors remain wary of renewed volatility. This cautious stance is particularly visible in Asia, where traders appear reluctant to commit capital until energy markets settle.

The message from markets seems clear: the ceasefire may reduce immediate escalation risk, but it hasn’t restored confidence.

Tentative Confidence, Not Risk-On Sentiment

The lack of a strong relief rally in Asia suggests that investors are still worried about potential risks and aren’t yet convinced the situation has stabilised. Rather than a decisive return to risk-on behaviour, sentiment appears tentative, with markets waiting to see whether the ceasefire holds and whether oil stabilises.

This cautious tone may also reflect broader macroeconomic concerns. Rising inflation, slower global growth and fragile supply chains all compound the impact of geopolitical shocks. For Asia, where many economies depend on trade and imported energy, these pressures are amplified. And remember, it’s not only the US and Iran they’re worried about. The rest of the world will react according to how the next two weeks pan out, and that adds another layer of uncertainty.

Until oil volatility eases and geopolitical risks decline more permanently, Asian markets may continue to lag global rebounds. For now, the ceasefire has brought a pause in escalation, but it hasn’t restored confidence.

In other words, while the rest of the world may be enjoying a (brief) relief rally, Asia’s waiting for a little more than a promise for peace before things go back to “normal”.

The post No Relief Rally For Asia After Ceasefire As Investor Confidence Remains Cautious appeared first on 91̽��.

That single quarter absorbed close to 70% of all global venture capital deployed in the entirety of 2025. Year-on-year growth exceeded 150%. By any measure, this is the most capital-intensive quarter the startup world has ever seen.

Eighty per cent of it, approximately $242 billion, went to AI companies. Four of the five largest venture rounds ever recorded were closed in a single quarter: OpenAI ($122 billion), Anthropic ($30 billion), xAI ($20 billion) and Waymo ($16 billion). Those four rounds alone account for $188 billion, nearly 65% of all global venture capital in the quarter. The US captured $250 billion, or 83% of the total. The UK came third globally with $7.4 billion, up year-on-year but representing just 2.5% of the total.

The numbers are extraordinary, and also worth looking at carefully, because what they describe isn’t simply a strong quarter for technology investment. It’s a structural concentration of capital so extreme that it’s reshaping the entire venture market, and not necessarily in ways that benefit the broader startup community.

This Is Not A Rising Tide

The conventional wisdom is that a strong quarter benefits everyone in the market. More capital in the system means more opportunity, better valuations across the board, more room for early-stage companies to raise – Q1 2026 complicates that picture considerably.

Early-stage funding did grow: $41.3 billion at Series A and B, up 41% year-on-year, and seed funding reached $12 billion, up 31% – those are solid numbers in isolation. But the number of seed deals actually fell by around 30%, meaning fewer companies are receiving larger cheques. The broadening of the base that healthy early-stage markets typically show isn’t happening. Capital is concentrating upward, not spreading outward.

Late-stage funding is where the picture gets harder to spin. At $246.6 billion, it grew 205% year-on-year, driven almost entirely by a small cohort of mature, high-burn AI companies and infrastructure players. Frontier labs, semiconductors, data centres, robotics and defence-related AI absorbed the bulk of that capital. The Crunchbase Unicorn Board gained $900 billion in valuation in a single quarter, almost entirely from this group.

This isn’t a market rewarding a wide range of innovation. It is a market making a very concentrated bet.

What It Means To Be Building Outside The AI Category Right Now

When 80% of all global venture capital flows to one sector in a quarter, founders building outside it aren’t competing on a level field. They are competing in a secondary capital tier, with investors whose attention, partner bandwidth and portfolio capacity is overwhelmingly committed elsewhere. That is a real structural disadvantage that no amount of strong fundamentals entirely overcomes.

The UK picture is instructive here: British startups raised $7.4 billion in Q1 2026, a decent figure and an improvement on last year, but representing just 2.5% of global venture capital in a quarter where the US took 83%. The UK is home to world-class companies across fintech, healthtech, deep tech and climate. The funding distribution in Q1 2026 doesn’t reflect that. It reflects the gravity of a market where four US-based AI companies can raise $188 billion between them in three months.

For founders raising right now, the honest advice is to understand what environment you are raising into. Investors aren’t uniformly cautious or uniformly generous. AI-adjacent companies are raising at valuations and speeds that would have been unimaginable two years ago.

Companies in other sectors are facing longer processes, more scrutiny and more pressure to demonstrate near-term revenue. Both things are true simultaneously, and pretending otherwise leads to bad fundraising strategy.

The B-Word Nobody In The Room Is Saying

The word ‘bubble’ gets thrown around loosely, so it’s worth being precise about what the Q1 2026 data does and doesn’t show.

What it shows clearly: sky-high private valuations with no public market accountability, massive capital intensity in a small number of companies, and a disconnected IPO market that saw only 21 venture-backed companies exit above $1 billion globally in the quarter. Markets that look like this have a habit of not staying that way.

What it doesn’t show: that the underlying technology is valueless or that the companies raising are fraudulent. OpenAI is generating $2 billion in monthly revenue, Anthropic has serious enterprise traction – the AI infrastructure being built is real and likely necessary.

The question isn’t whether AI is worth investing in. The question is whether the specific valuations attached to specific companies at this specific moment are justified by the path to profitability and liquidity that investors will eventually need.

Despite $300 billion flowing into private markets in Q1, the exit market stayed narrow. Investors who wrote cheques at these valuations need a route out. If the public markets don’t open meaningfully in the next 12 to 18 months, the pressure on private valuations will build. That doesn’t mean the companies fail – it means the funding environment for everyone else gets tighter while the largest players wait for their moment.

The Quarter Nobody Will Forget, For Better Or Worse

Q1 2026 will be studied for years, and whether it’s remembered as the quarter that launched the AI era in earnest or the quarter that marked its peak depends on what comes next. The honest position is that nobody in the room knows, including the people writing the largest cheques.

What founders can take from it: the market isn’t broken, but it’s not evenly distributed either. AI is consuming capital at a rate that leaves less room for everything else, and the concentration is getting more pronounced.

Building a defensible product, demonstrating revenue and keeping your burn rate honest has always been good advice – in Q1 2026, it’s essential.

The post Investors Poured $300 Billion Into Startups In Q1 2026, And AI Claimed 80% Of It appeared first on 91̽��.

With TSA staffing at historic lows and reports of security lines exceeding four hours at major hubs, passengers are missing flights in growing numbers. More than 480 officers have resigned since the partial government shutdown began, while around 50,000 employees remain working without pay. Absenteeism has surged well beyond normal levels, reaching as high as 30 to 50 percent at some of the busiest airports, leaving screening capacity stretched to its limits.

For travellers, the impact is immediate and it’s visible. For airlines, travel platforms and payment providers, the consequences are slower, but potentially more damaging, and we’re starting to see the repercussions of these issues now.

Missed flights often translate into refund requests, and when those requests are not resolved quickly or clearly, they escalate into disputes filed directly with banks.

“Every major travel disruption event has been followed by a spike in payment disputes,” said Monica Eaton. “When passengers miss flights through no fault of their own and there is no clear path to resolution, they look for the quickest and easiest route to recover their money.”

A Clear Breakdown in Accountability

At the centre of the issue is a gap that technology and policy have yet to close. Airlines generally treat security delays as external factors beyond their control. At the same time, passengers expect compensation for services they were unable to use, regardless of where the breakdown occurred. Travel insurance, often seen as a safety net, does not consistently cover these scenarios.

This creates a fragmented system where responsibility is unclear and resolution paths are inconsistent. In the absence of a clear answer, consumers are increasingly turning to the most direct route available to them: their bank.

From a tech and startup perspective, this isn’t just a customer experience issue. It represents a failure in how systems connect and communicate across the travel stack. Booking platforms, airlines, payment processors and insurers operate in parallel, but when disruption occurs, there is no unified mechanism to determine liability or resolve claims efficiently.

Scale Turns Disruption Into Risk

The timing of the crisis amplifies its impact. Airlines for America projects that 171 million passengers will travel between March and April, averaging 2.8 million people per day. At this level of volume, even a relatively small percentage of missed flights can translate into a significant surge in payment disputes.

What makes this even more challenging for fintech and travel startups is the delayed nature of disputes. They do not appear immediately when a disruption occurs. Instead, they build over days or weeks, as passengers attempt to resolve issues through customer service channels before escalating the matter to their bank.

This lag creates a visibility problem. Without strong data monitoring and predictive systems, companies may not recognise the scale of the issue until disputes begin to impact revenue and operations.

A Global System That’s Under Strain

The US situation is not happening in isolation. Travel disruption is increasing globally, with air traffic control strikes in Europe, airspace restrictions in the Middle East and broader operational pressures affecting international routes. The UK’s Foreign Office has even issued warnings related to delays at US airports.

For startups and tech platforms operating across borders, this creates a compounding effect. A single disrupted journey can involve multiple jurisdictions, providers and policies, making it even harder to assign responsibility and resolve disputes.

The result is a growing mismatch between how travel is sold digitally and how disruptions are handled in reality. While booking and payments have become seamless, resolution processes remain fragmented and often opaque.

From Operational Issue to Product Challenge

What’s becoming clear is that airport chaos is no longer just an operational problem. It’s evolving into a product and infrastructure challenge that sits at the intersection of travel and fintech.

As disruptions increase, companies are being forced to rethink how they design systems for resilience. Clearer communication, faster refund mechanisms and better integration between stakeholders are no longer optional. They are becoming essential features of a functioning travel platform.

At the same time, rising tensions at airports highlight the human side of the issue. Incidents such as passenger disputes escalating into arrests point to the growing frustration caused by delays and uncertainty. These moments are symptoms of a system under pressure, where breakdowns in one area quickly cascade into others.

The Hidden Cost of Delays: Not So Hidden Anymore

For businesses, the financial implications extend beyond the initial disruption. Payment disputes can result in lost revenue, additional fees and reputational damage. For smaller startups, particularly those operating on thin margins, a sudden increase in disputes can have an outsized impact.

More broadly, the situation highlights a key shift in the digital economy. Physical infrastructure failures aren’t isolated anymore. Now, they move through connected systems, affecting payments, customer relationships and ultimately, business performance.

A System Being Stress-Tested

The current airport crisis is, in many ways, a stress test for the modern travel ecosystem. It reveals how tightly interconnected physical operations and digital systems have become, and how quickly issues in one area can ripple across the entire chain.

For tech companies and startups, the takeaway is clear. Building seamless booking and payment experiences just isn’t enough anymore. The real challenge lies in designing systems that can handle disruption just as effectively as they handle success.

Because in today’s environment, a missed flight is no longer just a travel problem. It’s a data problem, a payments problem and increasingly, a business-critical one.

The post Airport Chaos Is Becoming A Fintech Problem: How Security Gridlock Is Triggering A Wave Of Payment Disputes appeared first on 91̽��.

Block cut roughly 4,000 roles, representing around 40% of certain divisions, with executives explicitly framing the decision around AI-driven efficiency. Atlassian followed with 1,600 cuts, over 900 of them in software R&D and engineering. HSBC is now reportedly considering up to 20,000 redundancies as part of a multi-year AI-led overhaul. Goldman Sachs and Citi are said to be exploring similar restructurings. Morgan Stanley analysts estimate that AI could eliminate up to 10% of European banking jobs by 2030, with around 200,000 roles across 35 large banks at risk.

What makes this moment different from previous waves of financial services automation is the speed and the seniority of the roles affected. Past rounds of technology-driven efficiency typically targeted the most routine, lowest-skill work. The current wave is moving into software engineering, R&D, compliance analysis and mid-level operations , categories that were previously considered relatively safe. Atlassian cutting over 900 roles in software development at the same time as expanding its AI product capabilities is a signal.

The question nobody in a boardroom wants to answer out loud is how much of this is a genuine productivity transformation and how much is a cost-correction cycle that AI is providing convenient cover for. In 2025, AI-driven automation was cited as a factor in over 50,000 layoffs globally, though analysts have noted that some companies had already over-hired and would have restructured regardless. Klarna, often cited as a poster child for AI-driven efficiency, has since walked back some of its more aggressive headcount reduction claims.

The situation is complicated, and the people with the most to say about it are the ones closest to the decisions.

The Efficiency Case Stacks Up, So Does The Scepticism

AI tools in finance are already being credited with roughly 30% efficiency gains in areas like report generation, reconciliation and risk monitoring.

For a CFO under margin pressure, that makes workforce reductions look like rational operational decisions rather than cost cuts dressed up as strategy. The math is straightforward: if a compliance function that once required a dozen people can produce the same output with a fraction of that headcount and an AI-assisted workflow, the business case writes itself.

But a 40% workforce reduction is not the output of a careful workflow redesign. It is a blunter instrument than that, and the AI framing is doing a lot of work to make it look strategic rather than reactive. The distinction matters: ‘we’ve redesigned these workflows around AI and some roles are no longer needed’ is a strategy. ‘We’re cutting headcount by 40% and AI is how we’ll manage the gap’ is a bet, and a risky one.

The data on who bears the cost of these bets is also starting to emerge. Tracking data on AI-exposed occupations in the US shows the employment impact is sharply skewed by age. Workers in their early twenties have seen material declines in employment in these roles since 2022, while those in their thirties and above in the same occupations have seen growth. AI-related hiring outpaced AI-driven job losses in 2024 overall, but the distribution is deeply uneven.

The people losing out are disproportionately early-career workers in fintech and financial services, the same people who would historically have built the institutional knowledge that makes senior talent valuable.

The Junior Talent Problem Nobody Is Talking About

There’s a longer-term problem embedded in this wave of cuts that the quarterly numbers don’t capture.

Junior analyst roles, associate positions, entry-level compliance and operations work were never just about cheap labour – they were the training ground. You developed judgment about credit risk by processing loan applications for two years before anyone let you make a recommendation. You learned to read a balance sheet by reading hundreds of them.

When AI absorbs those tasks, the immediate efficiency gain is visible. The longer-term question, of where the next generation of senior talent comes from, is not so apparent.

We asked five experts where they think this is heading.

Our Experts:

• Leigh Coney, Founder and Principal Consultant, WorkWise Solutions
• Gershon Goren, Founder and CEO, Cangrade
• Noah Kenney, Founder and Principal Consultant, Digital 520
• James Lloyd, Digital Strategy Lead, THE LINE, NEOM
• Kelsey Szamet, Partner, Kingsley Szamet Employment Lawyers

Leigh Coney, Founder and Principal Consultant, WorkWise Solutions

“Both, and the honest answer is that most executives making these decisions can’t fully separate the two in their own heads.

“AI is absolutely eliminating specific tasks. The Decidr US AI Readiness Index found that 60% of businesses cite efficiency and cost reduction as their primary driver for AI adoption. When a compliance team that needed twelve people to review transaction alerts can now handle the same volume with four people and an AI triage layer, that’s a genuine productivity shift.

“But the speed and scale of the cuts tell a different account than pure operational logic. When Block eliminates 40% of its workforce and points to AI, that’s not a measured redeployment plan. That’s a cost restructuring with AI as the narrative frame. My research on skill erosion in AI-augmented teams points to a risk that doesn’t show up in the quarterly numbers. When you remove large portions of your experienced workforce quickly, you don’t just lose labour capacity. You lose the institutional judgment, the pattern recognition, the informal knowledge that no AI system currently replaces.

“The practical question for founders is: have you actually redesigned your workflows around AI, or have you just cut people and handed the survivors a ChatGPT login? Those produce very different outcomes. The first builds a more capable organisation. The second creates a thinner team running the same broken processes faster, with fewer people available when something goes wrong.”

Gershon Goren, Founder and CEO, Cangrade

“Honestly? Both. And that’s what makes this moment so hard to read. Some of what Block, Atlassian, and the banks are doing reflects real productivity gains from AI automating work that used to require headcount. But a significant portion is a correction that was coming regardless. These companies over-hired and AI-driven efficiency makes the rebalancing easier to explain. The danger is that organisations conflate the two and convince themselves every cut is strategic. Klarna tried that and they walked it back.

“Stop asking ‘what can AI do that my team does?’ and start asking ‘where does my team create value that AI can’t replicate?’ Those are different questions with very different answers. Founders who cut first and ask those questions later will find themselves rebuilding sooner than they expect.

“The roles being eliminated are the ones built around pattern-matching and high-volume routine work — what AI does well. What’s growing is demand for people who can exercise judgment, work effectively alongside AI tools, and bring genuine adaptability.”

Noah Kenney, Founder and Principal Consultant, Digital 520

“In fintech, trust is the product. If AI adoption introduces opacity, inconsistency, or compliance risk, it erodes enterprise value, even if it improves short-term margins. Fintech founders shouldn’t be asking where to cut headcount with AI, but instead where AI can improve trust, accuracy, and responsiveness.

“The companies that win long-term will be those that use AI to increase revenue per employee while simultaneously strengthening governance, audibility, and customer confidence. Deploying AI tools and reducing staff is not a competitive advantage in itself. The competitive advantage is upskilling existing teams in areas like AI oversight, security, and regulatory alignment.

“What we would currently consider an entry-level role in financial services will likely be redefined rather than eliminated, with the baseline expectation shifting from execution to oversight. The next generation will need to evaluate AI outputs, identify edge cases, and make judgment calls where automation breaks down. As AI handles more of the technical workload, differentiation shifts toward relationship-building, communication, and the ability to represent the institution credibly in high-stakes contexts.”

James Lloyd, Digital Strategy Lead, THE LINE, NEOM

“It is both, but not in equal proportion. In the first half of 2025 alone, 77,999 US tech job losses were attributed to AI. But the displacement is concentrated at the bottom. Entry-level workers aged 22 to 25 have seen a 13% employment decline in AI-exposed occupations since 2022, while workers over 30 in the same fields actually saw growth.

“In 2024, AI-related hiring in the US actually outpaced AI-driven job losses, which supports the cost-cutting cover argument, since companies are shedding cheaper junior roles while adding expensive AI specialists. So there are layoffs being disguised as AI-driven efficiency when in reality they’re cost corrections. The two things are happening simultaneously, and conflating them leads to bad policy decisions both inside companies and in the regulatory response.”

Kelsey Szamet, Partner, Kingsley Szamet Employment Lawyers

“From my perspective representing employees, I see no change in the employer’s legal responsibilities whatsoever. What I see is a change in how those decisions are being made and, in some instances, how they’re being rationalised.

“The risk of using AI in these decisions is that there is a risk of amplifying a bad decision on a larger scale. If there is a flawed process for evaluating employees or determining which roles are eliminated, there is a risk of a larger number of people being negatively impacted — and the employer is still legally accountable for every one of those decisions, regardless of whether a human or a machine was part of the process.

“For those in fintech: if you cannot explain and justify why certain employees were chosen for termination, there is a problem. For those entering the next generation of financial services: there are still opportunities, but they are less certain. Employees should be paying closer attention to how they are being measured and be willing to ask questions if those measurements don’t make sense.”

The post AI Is Replacing Fintech Jobs Faster Than Anyone Predicted, Is This Just The Beginning? appeared first on 91̽��.

Major banks and wealth management platforms are rolling out AI-driven portfolio recommendation tools and chat-based ‘advisers’ that sit alongside traditional human services. Anthropic has launched Claude for Financial Services, tuned specifically for market analysis, portfolio review and compliance tasks. The direction this is heading in is clear: AI is moving into the advice layer of financial services, and it’s doing so faster than the regulatory frameworks governing that layer.

It’s worth examining the tension this creates. The positive perspective is that AI democratises financial advice for people who could never afford a human adviser, making financial planning more accessible and reaching populations that were previously excluded.

The more sceptical perspective is that it’s unregulated, frequently inaccurate, and one confident-sounding bad recommendation away from causing serious harm to people who had no idea the distinction between education and advice even existed.

Both perspectives are defensible, and both are already playing out.

The Democratisation Argument Is Valid, And So Are Its Limits

The case for AI in personal finance starts with access. For generations, quality financial guidance was effectively gated behind professional fees that most people couldn’t afford.

The rise of digital banking and fintech has begun to shift that, and AI is the next step in the same direction: someone who has never sat across a desk from a financial adviser can now ask an AI to explain what an ISA is, how to think about their pension contributions, or what the difference is between a term loan and a line of credit.

Studies on AI in finance show the tools can handle many routine personal finance tasks well, covering budgeting basics, cash flow planning and rule-based savings strategies, and can significantly compress the time it takes to reach a starting point for a decision. For the tens of millions of people in markets like the UK who have historically had no access to professional guidance at all, that access has value.

However, the limits arrive quickly and they arrive in the places that matter most. AI doesn’t know your specific circumstances. It doesn’t know your actual risk tolerance, your tax situation, your debt position or the fact that your job is less stable than it looks on paper.

A UK-focused study found that many chatbots produced inaccurate or non-compliant financial advice, with major discrepancies in relevance, price accuracy and adherence to local rules around suitability, product-risk disclosures and pension-specific guidance. The tools answer with confidence regardless of whether the confidence is warranted, and most consumers have no reliable way to tell the difference.

Furthermore, a recent CFA Institute report on next-generation investors found that 92% of Gen Z and 89% of Millennials still use some form of paid financial advice, despite their digital fluency and high confidence with technology. What younger investors want isn’t AI instead of an adviser. They want advisers who can use AI to deliver more personalised, responsive guidance at lower cost.

The threat to traditional financial services isn’t replacement – it’s irrelevance for those who fail to adapt.

The Accountability Gap Is The Part Nobody Wants To Talk About

Registered financial advisers operate under fiduciary obligations, carry insurance and face regulatory consequences when advice goes wrong.

An AI tool that does functionally the same thing operates in an entirely different world. There is no fiduciary duty, no regulatory oversight and no meaningful recourse when a recommendation turns out to be wrong for someone’s specific circumstances. Most consumers using these tools have no idea that structural difference exists.

The tax and accounting space is where some of the clearest harms are already appearing. Accountants and bookkeepers are reporting clients who have taken AI-generated guidance on tax positions, VAT decisions and expense treatment as if it were professional advice.

The output looks authoritative on screen, but when a qualified professional reviews it, the errors surface quickly, and cleaning up the mess falls to the professional, not the chatbot.

We asked a group of experts from across financial services, fintech and consumer finance to weigh in on the central question: is AI financial guidance a democratising force, a regulatory timebomb, or something more complicated than either framing suggests?

Our Experts:

• Adam Woodhead, Co-Founder and Senior Financial Platform Analyst, The Investors Centre
• Carl Hazeley, CEO, Finimize
• Artur Szablowski, Editor-in-Chief, Finonity
• Leigh Coney, Founder and Principal Consultant, WorkWise Solutions
• Jacob Bennett, Co-Founder and CEO, Crux Analytics
• Paul Lodder, VP of Accounting and Product Strategy, Dext

Adam Woodhead, Co-Founder and Senior Financial Platform Analyst, The Investors Centre

“We can see this every day. Retail investors come onto our site having used AI. While there is no issue with them using AI, the issue is that the same tool that teaches you what an ISA is will also recommend a particular investment strategy based solely on the information you input, regardless of how much debt you may owe, your income level or how much risk you are willing to take. Most consumers do not know where education ends and advice begins. That is where the damage occurs.

“It is democratising education, but not outcomes. For those who cannot afford an IFA and have never had a face-to-face meeting with a financial professional, AI does lower the cost of entry to learning about finance. That is true. However, the biggest concern is the over-confident middle class: individuals who have learned some things about finance, have some disposable income, and have enough experience with AI to use its output as the basis for making decisions without questioning it.

“More than one-third of all consumers across various demographics are currently using AI to help guide their investment choices. This is not a measure of adoption. It is a liability gap waiting to evolve into a consumer harm incident. Regulated advisers assume responsibility for the advice they provide. Currently, AI tools do not.

“Fintech founders need to stop referring to this as democratisation. Embedding AI-driven guidance within a product that manages actual money without providing the protections afforded by a regulated adviser is nothing short of regulatory arbitrage dressed up as innovation.”

Carl Hazeley, CEO, Finimize

“AI-generated financial advice done well should be treated like an analytical co-pilot. It can help investors understand concepts, model scenarios, simplify jargon, and stress-test ideas before they act. It can lower the intimidation barrier that often stops people engaging with investing or financial planning in the first place.

“But decisions that affect your financial future should never rely on a single source, human or machine. Where the risk comes in is when guidance starts to feel like certainty. AI can present information in a very confident, polished way, even when the underlying logic is incomplete, generic, or simply wrong.

“We are way past thinking that technology is neutral, especially AI. The moment a tool begins shaping how people save, invest, borrow or assess risk, its creators can no longer avoid responsibility. That means being clear about what the tool can and cannot do. It means avoiding the temptation to overstate personalisation or predictive power. And it means designing products that encourage users to question, not just accept. The standard cannot just be ‘is it impressive?’ It has to be ‘is it responsible?'”

For any questions, comments or features, please contact us directly.

Artur Szablowski, Editor-in-Chief, Finonity

“About a third of our readers, maybe more, come to us after they already got an answer from ChatGPT or Claude about some market situation. They come to verify. Think about what that means for a second. People are already making financial decisions based on what a chatbot told them and then checking afterwards whether it was right. That’s backwards.

“The democratisation part is real. Someone in Lagos or Ho Chi Minh City who could never afford a Bloomberg terminal can now ask an AI about interest rate policy or what a yield curve inversion means. Five years ago that person had nothing, now they have something.

“The problem is that something sounds incredibly confident while being incomplete. AI will explain what a bond is perfectly. It will not tell you about the liquidity risk in your specific market, the tax treatment in your jurisdiction, or the fact that your local broker charges a 3% spread that eats the entire trade. The answer reads like it came from a textbook because it literally did. Real financial decisions happen in the messy details that textbooks leave out.

“And nobody is responsible when it goes wrong. If I publish bad analysis, my name is on it. If a licensed adviser gives a terrible recommendation, they can lose their licence. If ChatGPT says buy Nvidia at the top and someone listens, who answers for that? Nobody. There is no accountability layer and there won’t be one anytime soon, because regulators are still figuring out how to regulate the last generation of fintech.”

Leigh Coney, Founder and Principal Consultant, WorkWise Solutions

“Fidelity just launched an AI tool called Freya that answers personal finance questions but, their words, ‘makes very clear its responses are not advice.’ You built a product that walks, talks, and looks exactly like financial advice, and then you put a disclaimer at the bottom. That’s a legal strategy. It’s not accountability.

“There’s a gap right now where registered advisers have fiduciary obligations, carry insurance, and face regulatory consequences when things go wrong. AI tools that do functionally the same thing operate in a totally different world. No fiduciary duty. No insurance. No one to call when the recommendation was wrong for your situation. And the consumer has no idea that distinction exists.

“I think fintech founders need to sit with a specific scenario and be honest about it. A 62-year-old retiree uses your AI product. Follows its portfolio suggestion. The allocation was wrong for someone in their situation, and they lose a chunk of their retirement savings. Your terms of service say you’re not liable. Your marketing implied your product was trustworthy and personalised. Who picks up the pieces? Nobody. That’s the current answer. Nobody.

“The adviser shortage is coming. McKinsey projects something like 100,000 financial advisers short by 2034. AI will fill part of that gap whether the industry likes it or not. But if founders treat this as a growth opportunity with disclaimed risk, we’re going to see real consumer harm, followed by heavy regulation, followed by years of rebuilding trust.”

For any questions, comments or features, please contact us directly.

Jacob Bennett, Co-Founder and CEO, Crux Analytics

“There is a meaningful difference between using AI to understand your financial options and using it to make financial decisions, and I think we are conflating the two in ways that will eventually hurt people.

“For a business owner trying to figure out whether a specific loan makes sense, or how rising rates affect their borrowing capacity, AI can be a useful starting point. It can surface information, explain terminology, and help you ask better questions before you walk into a bank. That is real value.

“But the moment you move from understanding to deciding, context matters enormously. AI can process information at scale, but it cannot weigh your specific circumstances, your cash flow history, or the nuances of your local market. The democratisation argument is appealing, but access to information and access to good advice are not the same thing. The risk is not that people will start asking AI financial questions. The risk is that they will stop there.”

Paul Lodder, VP of Accounting and Product Strategy, Dext

“General-purpose AI tools such as ChatGPT are increasingly being used for tax guidance, but they were never built for that role. These systems generate answers based on patterns in training data, not by understanding a specific business’s finances or applying tax rules to a real situation. That distinction matters more than many people realise.

“Across the country, accountants and bookkeepers are starting to see the repercussions play out. A business arrives with a tax position, expense decision or VAT approach that began life as a chatbot prompt. On screen it can look neat and convincing, but once a professional digs into it, the cracks quickly appear. When that happens, it’s the professional who has to unravel the advice and work out what actually complies with HMRC rules.

“With Making Tax Digital for Income Tax only weeks away, the pressure is about to ramp up. Thousands of sole traders and landlords are preparing for more frequent reporting and new compliance demands, and in that environment the temptation to ask ChatGPT for quick tax guidance will only grow. AI definitely still has a place in modern finance, but general-purpose LLMs should not be mistaken for tax advisers. What’s needed now are clearer guidelines and firmer guardrails around how these tools are used when financial advice is involved.”

For any questions, comments or features, please contact us directly.

The post Experts Comment: Your Next Financial Adviser Might Be An AI, Should That Worry You? appeared first on 91̽��.

But something’s shifted. Today, stablecoins aren’t just sitting on the sidelines of finance – now, they’re becoming woven into the industry, moving quietly, steadily and in ways that are becoming harder to ignore. But, why would we want to?

From Crypto Convenience to Real Financial Utility

In their earliest form, stablecoins were mostly confined to crypto markets. Traders used them to avoid volatility, exchanges relied on them for liquidity and that was about it.

But now, their role looks very different. As Shantnoo Saxsena, CEO AND Founder of Encryptus, puts it, “stablecoins have moved well beyond the crypto ecosystem. They are no longer just a tool for traders looking to park value between positions. They are becoming critical infrastructure for cross-border payments, remittances and settlement layers that traditional finance has struggled to modernise.”

That shift from niche tool to real-world utility is where the story gets interesting. Stablecoins are increasingly being used to move money globally, settle transactions instantly, and enable financial products that operate outside the constraints of traditional banking hours.

An Era of Integration Era

The real transformation isn’t just about what stablecoins do; it’s about where they’re showing up.��They’re being embedded into fintech platforms, integrated into payment systems and explored by banks for treasury and settlement use cases. In many ways, they are becoming the connective tissue between different parts of the financial system. They’re popping up everywhere, from standard trading to life insurance.

Danat Tungushbayev, Global Head of Sales at Mansa, highlights this evolution, noting that stablecoins are becoming “the connective layer between already-efficient domestic payment networks”, helping bridge systems that work well locally but struggle across borders.

This idea of stablecoins as a “layer” rather than a replacement is a recurring theme. They are not tearing down the financial system. They are slotting into its gaps.

Backbone or Bridge?

So, are stablecoins becoming the backbone of modern finance? The answer, frustratingly, is both yes and not yet – most experts seem to at least kind of agree on this.

On one hand, their growing role in payments, settlement and liquidity management suggests something deeper is happening. As Lucas Outumuro, VP, Institutional DeFi at Sentora, explains, “stablecoins aren’t just supporting the financial system anymore, they’re starting to look a lot more like the infrastructure behind it.”

Similarly, Sid Powell, CEO and Co-Founder of Maple, describes a clear evolution happening before our eyes: “what started as a tool for crypto traders has evolved into core financial infrastructure.”

On the other hand, there are still limitations. Regulation remains fragmented, infrastructure is not fully unified, and stablecoins still rely heavily on traditional financial systems for trust, liquidity, and backing.

That’s why many experts frame them as a bridge rather than a backbone – well, at least for now.

“Upgrading the Plumbing”, So To Speak

A more accurate way to think about stablecoins might be that they’re upgrading the plumbing of finance.

Mitchell DiRaimondo, Founder at Steelwave Digital, puts it bluntly when he says that “they are upgrading its plumbing. They sit between legacy finance and the next version of capital markets.”

This is where their real power lies. Stablecoins are not replacing banks or payment networks overnight. Instead, they are making them faster, cheaper, and more flexible.

From cross-border payments to treasury management, from remittances to on-chain lending, stablecoins are being deployed wherever inefficiencies exist.

A Quiet Shift, But a Fundamental One

What makes this moment particularly interesting is how quietly it is happening.��There’s no single “big bang” event. No headline moment where stablecoins officially become infrastructure. Instead, we’re seeing a gradual, almost invisible integration into the systems we already use. Did you even realise how deeply embedded stablecoins have become in industries beyond straightforward crypto? Because I’ll be honest, I didn’t.

And, is that may not the clearest signal of all?

As Emma Campbell, Chief Banking Officer at ONE.io, notes, “today, stablecoins operate alongside existing payment infrastructure as an alternative settlement layer, raising expectations for speed, availability, and capital efficiency.”

In other words, even where they are not dominant, they are already changing the rules.

So, What Are Stablecoins Really?

Stablecoins aren’t just a feature anymore, but at the same time, calling them the backbone might still be premature.

For now, they sit somewhere in between – a critical layer, a powerful bridge and an increasingly essential piece of financial infrastructure. But they’re not everything.

The trajectory, however, feels pretty clear when you look at it like this.

As adoption grows, regulation matures, and integration deepens, stablecoins are moving closer to becoming something foundational. Not by replacing the system, but by embedding themselves so deeply within it that removing them would no longer be possible.

Whether they become the backbone or remain the most important supporting player may ultimately come down to one thing – how seamlessly they disappear into the fabric of finance.

Our Experts

• Danat Tungushbayev: Global Head of Sales at Mansa
• Shantnoo Saxsena: CEO AND Founder of Encryptus
• Lucas Outumuro: VP, Institutional DeFi at Sentora
• Sid Powell: CEO and Co-Founder of Maple
• Carl Grimstad: CEO of Global Digital Assets Infrastructure at Lydian
• Mark Nichols: Digital Assets Consulting Co-Leader at Ernst & Young LLP
• Kathryn Dodds: Corporate and FinTech Partner at gunnercooke
• Mitchell DiRaimondo: Lead Project Manager and Founder at Steelwave Digital
• Bill Barhydt: Founder and CEO at Abra
• Robbert Bink: Founder and Crypto Wallet Recovery Expert at Crypto Wallet Recovery Service
• Pratiksha Pathak: Partner, Head of Payments at RedCompass Labs
• Ian Salmon:��Head of Product Marketing at Adaptive
• James Burnie: FinTech Partner at gunnercooke
• Nick Fernando: Co-Founder and Director at Aqua Global
• Amram Adar: CEO, Co-Founder and CVO (Chief Vision Officer) at Oobit
• Jean-Baptiste Gaudemet: SVP Strategic Innovation Lab at Kyriba
• Serge Kuznetsov: Co-Founder at INXY Payments
• Boris Bohrer-Bilowitzki: CEO at Concordium
• Kelly Mathieson: Chief Business Development Officer at Digital Asset
• Anil Oncu: CEO at Bitpace
• Emma Campbell: Chief Banking Officer, ONE.io
• Marcel Thiess: CEO at Thiess Invest
• Adam Bialy: Founder and CEO of Fiat Republic

Danat Tungushbayev,��Global Head of Sales at Mansa

“Danat’s view is that stablecoins are becoming most useful not as a separate financial system, but as the connective layer between already-efficient domestic payment networks. His comment looks at how rails such as PIX, UPI, SPEI and SEPA work well locally, while stablecoins and blockchain-based settlement help connect them across borders more efficiently.

“He also addresses the commercial drivers behind adoption – speed, cost, visibility and operational efficiency – as well as the remaining constraints around fragmented licensing, uneven liquidity across corridors and the need for stronger institutional-grade infrastructure. Looking ahead, his perspective is that the conversation has moved from potential to execution, particularly in cross-border payments and in markets where traditional banking infrastructure remains limited.”

Shantnoo Saxsena, CEO AND Founder of Encryptus

“Stablecoins have moved well beyond the crypto ecosystem. They are no longer just a tool for traders looking to park value between positions. They are becoming critical infrastructure for cross-border payments, remittances and settlement layers that traditional finance has struggled to modernise.

“The numbers speak for themselves. Stablecoin transaction volumes surged past $33 trillion in 2025, now rival those of major card networks, and institutional adoption is accelerating as regulatory frameworks take shape across jurisdictions like the EU and the UAE. Banks that once dismissed digital assets are now exploring stablecoin integration for faster, cheaper settlement.

“Calling them merely supportive undersells what is happening. Stablecoins are quietly rewiring the plumbing of global finance, not replacing traditional systems, but making them significantly more efficient. At Encryptus, we see this first-hand as businesses increasingly choose stablecoin rails for real commercial activity, not speculation.

“The backbone analogy is not far off. It is just being built in plain sight.”

Lucas Outumuro,��VP, Institutional DeFi at Sentora

“Stablecoins aren’t just supporting the financial system anymore, they’re starting to look a lot more like the infrastructure behind it. The change over the past few years is that usage has moved away from pure speculation. Even when crypto prices are volatile, stablecoin activity holds up because people are using them for things like payments, savings and earning yield.

“That’s the point where they stop being just a feature and start becoming something much more fundamental to how financial systems operate. They allow money to move globally, almost instantly, and open up access to financial services in a way traditional systems simply can’t.

“For fintechs and neobanks, they’re becoming the easiest way to offer faster payments and more competitive returns without rebuilding the entire stack. What’s more, the adoption curve is a little different too. Usually, there’s one or two champions internally pushing for crypto integrations, and the rest of the team needs to get up to speed on how blockchains work. The smart platforms abstract all the complexity — users just see a clean interface, earn yield or make payments, without worrying about what’s happening behind the scenes.

“That said, they’re not replacing banks overnight. Right now, they sit alongside existing infrastructure, where they improve it rather than displace it. But as adoption grows and the technology matures, their role will become very important to how modern finance operates.”

Sid Powell, CEO and Co-Founder of Maple

“Stablecoins are moving into the mainstream because they do something incredibly well: they make dollars more usable on the internet. For a long time, moving money across borders or between platforms has been slower, more expensive, and more operationally messy than it should be. Stablecoins change that by giving users and businesses a faster, more programmable way to move value, which is why they are becoming increasingly important across both crypto and traditional finance.

“What started as a tool for crypto traders has evolved into core financial infrastructure. Stablecoins now underpin lending markets, treasury management, and yield-bearing products that institutions and companies are actively using. A business in Southeast Asia can access dollar liquidity in minutes rather than days. A treasury team can put idle capital to work on-chain overnight. That shift is less about hype and more about utility, and the infrastructure is now mature enough that traditional finance is paying serious attention.

“The next stage will be about scale and trust: clearer regulation, deeper liquidity, and more institutions willing to build on these rails rather than just watch from the sidelines. From where we sit, that moment is closer than most people think.”

For any questions, comments or features,��please contact us directly.

Carl Grimstad, CEO of Global Digital Assets Infrastructure at Lydian

“Stablecoins have been touted as the backbone of the finance industry. In reality, it’s far too early for that. What we’re currently experiencing is a transition phase. Stablecoins are proving they can solve real-world problems – offering faster settlement, lower costs, and fewer of the frictions that businesses and consumers have come to accept as normal.

“However, the system around them is still fragmented. Banks, fintechs, and digital asset providers are building in parallel rather than together, which limits how seamlessly stablecoins can be used in day to day commerce. Right now, it’s a jungle of incompatible payment networks adding unnecessary complexity for both merchants and consumers.For many users, simply understanding how to get started – which wallet to use, what works where, and how payments are accepted – stands as a major deterrent to adoption

“Where stablecoins are becoming critical is in how they connect these worlds. They’re starting to act as a bridge between traditional finance and digital assets, not a replacement for either. The real shift will come when that connectivity becomes invisible. At that point, when they’re part of everyday practice for merchants and consumers alike, stablecoins will underpin global finance.”

Mark Nichols: Digital Assets Consulting Co-Leader at Ernst & Young LLP

“The evolving role of stablecoins in fintech and traditional finance

“Stablecoins are redefining modern payments, serving as a bridge between traditional finance and on‑chain markets. Their value is straightforward. They allow money to move faster, at lower cost, and with fewer operational frictions than many existing systems. Recent EY research shows that usage is already underway, with 13% of financial institutions and corporates already using stablecoins, and a majority of non‑users planning to adopt them within the next year.”

“This momentum reflects a shift in how organizations view stablecoins. Stablecoins are no longer viewed as niche digital assets. They are increasingly treated as practical infrastructure supporting everyday financial activity, including crossborder payments, liquidity management, and transaction settlement, while aligning with existing risk, treasury, and compliance frameworks. As markets continue to modernize, stablecoins are emerging as an extension of today’s cash and payments infrastructure.”

“Are stablecoins are becoming core financial infrastructure or remaining a complementary tool?

“Stablecoins are moving beyond experimentation and into real operational use, particularly in payments and settlement. EY’s latest research shows strong near‑term momentum, with 54% of organizations that are not currently using stablecoins expecting to begin doing so within the next 6 to 12 months. That level of intent signals that many firms are no longer treating stablecoins as a theoretical innovation, but as a practical capability that can be integrated into core financial operations.”

“Adoption remains pragmatic. Stablecoins are not replacing traditional banking systems. They are being deployed alongside them to address specific gaps, most notably speed, cost, and continuous availability. This measured approach reflects a broader modernization underway across financial services, as institutions reinforce existing infrastructure to operate faster, more efficiently, and in real time.”

“Key drivers behind growing adoption

“Cost savings and speed are the clearest catalysts behind adoption. EY research found that 52% of organizations cite reduced transaction costs as a primary driver of stablecoin adoption, while 45% point to faster cross-border payments. For early adopters, the benefits are already measurable with 41% report cost savings exceeding 10%, particularly in U.S. dollar‑based, business‑to‑business and cross‑border transaction, areas where traditional payments have historically been slow, complex, and costly.”

“The adoption appeal also extends beyond cost savings. Always on settlement and improved liquidity are emerging as meaningful differentiators, with roughly one-third of respondents highlighting the value of 24 seven payment availability and near instant finality. Together, these factors are pushing organizations beyond pilots and proofs of concept. As regulatory clarity improves, stablecoins are increasingly seen as a practical way to streamline existing financial processes and improve performance.”

“Potential risks, limitations, and regulatory considerations

“Regulatory certainty remains central to sustainable adoption. While recent progress has improved confidence, institutions continue to focus on governance, liquidity management, operational integration, and ecosystem readiness. Many are addressing these risks through phased rollouts, hybrid bank–fintech models, and use case specific implementations that balance innovation with established risk management practices.”

“What the future holds for stablecoins in the broader financial ecosystem

“Stablecoins are expected to extend the reach of existing currencies, particularly the U.S. dollar, rather than replace them. Survey respondents estimate that stablecoins could account for 5% to 10% of global cross‑border payments by 2030, representing approximately $2.1 trillion to $4.2 trillion in annual transaction value.”

“Looking ahead, stablecoins are expected to coexist with tokenized bank deposits and central bank digital currencies, serving as market‑driven settlement and liquidity rails within a more always‑on global financial system. Their role will increasingly center on enabling speed, efficiency, and interoperability across traditional and digital financial ecosystems.”

Kathryn Dodds, Corporate and FinTech Partner at gunnercooke

��

“Stablecoins are increasingly becoming core financial infrastructure, but it’s more accurate to say they are bridging traditional finance and a new digital layer rather than replacing it entirely. Their real value lies in what they enable: faster settlement, programmability, and global, 24/7 transfer of value. This is attractive to institutions looking to reduce friction, cost and counterparty risk.

In DeFi, stablecoins are already foundational, acting as the primary medium for trading, lending, liquidity provision and collateral. They underpin how value moves within on-chain financial ecosystems. Adoption is also being driven by integration into existing systems; fintech platforms, payment providers and increasingly banks.

So while not yet the “backbone”, stablecoins are becoming a critical layer underpinning the evolution of modern finance.”

Mitchell DiRaimondo,��Lead Project Manager and Founder at Steelwave Digital

“Yes, and that is the point.

“Stablecoins are no longer some side pocket of crypto that only matters to traders and Telegram groups. They are increasingly becoming the transactional layer that modern finance can plug into when it wants faster settlement, 24/7 transferability, global dollar reach, and programmable movement of value. But let’s be precise: today, stablecoins are not replacing the financial system. They are upgrading its plumbing. They sit between legacy finance and the next version of capital markets. That makes them more than a complementary tool, but not yet the full foundation.

“The real shift is that stablecoins are moving from crypto utility to financial infrastructure. Fintechs, payment companies, and now regulated financial institutions are integrating them because they solve actual problems: instant settlement, lower friction in cross-border flows, better treasury mobility, and programmable cash movement. Treasury has already flagged that the U.S. stablecoin framework can create meaningful new demand for short-dated Treasuries, while the Fed has explicitly noted that mainstream Stablecoin adoption could reshape bank funding, liquidity profiles, and credit intermediation. That is not “nice add-on” territory. That is system-level relevance.

“My view is simple: stablecoins are becoming core infrastructure for certain functions first, then broader financial rails second. Payments, settlement, collateral mobility, onchain FX, and tokenized asset distribution are the obvious beachheads. In those lanes, they are already acting more like infrastructure than product. But they still depend heavily on the credibility of the existing system, especially the U.S. dollar, Treasury markets, banking relationships, and regulation. So for now, the honest answer is that stablecoins are becoming the backbone of modern financial rails while still drawing strength from the old backbone underneath them.

“The biggest drivers of adoption are straightforward. First, dollar demand is global, and stablecoins deliver digital dollars with fewer frictions. Second, regulatory clarity has improved materially, especially with the GENIUS Act in the U.S. and MiCA in Europe, which reduces institutional hesitation. Third, tokenization is pushing stablecoins forward because once assets move on-chain, the market needs native on-chain cash settlement too. Fourth, users want “always on” settlement, not banker’s hours wrapped in compliance theater. ECB research specifically notes stablecoin growth has been fueled by investor demand and regulatory developments, and BIS continues to frame tokenization as a major financial market upgrade, even while criticizing stablecoins as the end state for money itself.

“That said, anyone calling stablecoins a clean win is getting ahead of their skis. The risks are real. Depegging risk is real. The run risk is real. Regulatory arbitrage is real. Bank deposit displacement is real. And fragmentation across chains is a mess. BIS research this year highlighted that stablecoin liquidity is scattered across many blockchains, often with poor native interoperability, which undermines the seamless fungibility money is supposed to have. ECB has also warned that rapid stablecoin growth creates spillover risks through structural weaknesses and rising links to traditional finance. So yes, this thing is scaling, but no, it is not institutionally perfect yet. Far from it.

“This is also where the policy debate matters. The winning framework is not one that tries to suffocate stablecoins to protect the incumbents. It is one that forces reserve quality, transparency, redemption standards, AML controls, and operational resilience, while still allowing innovation to happen in the U.S. Treasury has outlined that the GENIUS Act requires 1 to 1 backing with cash like or short duration government assets, and the Fed has emphasized that stablecoins will only work as a durable form of private money if users view them as safe and properly protected. That is the correct lane. Clear rules, hard standards, and an open field.

“So what does the future look like? Stablecoins will not stay boxed in as a crypto settlement chip. They are going to become a key monetary wrapper for internet-native finance. The likely path is not “stablecoins replace banks.” It is “stablecoins become embedded across banks, fintechs, capital markets, and tokenized asset platforms.” In other words, they become a default transactional rail for portions of the system where speed, programmability, and global settlement actually matter. The institutions that win will be the ones that stop viewing stablecoins as a side experiment and start treating them as digital-dollar infrastructure.

“Stablecoins are no longer just supporting the old system. They are becoming the settlement layer for the next one. But they only become true backbone infrastructure if regulation, interoperability, and reserve integrity keep pace with adoption. Right now, we are in the buildout phase. The rails are being laid in real time.”

For any questions, comments or features,��please contact us directly.

Bill Barhydt, Founder and CEO at Abra

“Stablecoins basically take the best of the decentralized world where there’s nobody in the middle of the transaction and the best of the traditional government money issued world where now instead of moving paper around you can move these digital tokens around. There are really two risks you have to be aware of.

“The first is are the dollars or dollar backed securities really in the accounts that back those tokens? Are they audited? The second risk is technology risk. Could that token’s code be hacked? The good news is for the stablecoin specific type of product we have really addressed the technology risk. What we’re calling a stablecoin now is actually in reality a tokenized real world asset. Today those digital assets are a combination of crypto and stablecoins. They’re about to become everything.”

Robbert Bink,��Founder and Crypto Wallet Recovery Expert at Crypto Wallet Recovery Service

“Stablecoins are rapidly establishing themselves as both core financial infrastructure and vital enhancements to existing systems. Their capacity for instant, low-cost cross-border payments and stable value is already reshaping global finance – especially where traditional banking falls short. At the same time, stablecoins are seamlessly integrating with legacy networks, bridging decentralized and mainstream finance.

“Their emergence as a foundational layer will rely on broader adoption, regulatory clarity, and technological refinement. The reality is clear: stablecoins are no longer just disruptive—they are essential. The future of finance depends on how effectively they balance innovation with integration.”

Pratiksha Pathak, Partner, Head of Payments at RedCompass Labs

“What we are seeing is that technology is already capable of enabling near-instant cross-border settlement, but policy and treasury operating models are still built around legacy assumptions.

“Most government and institutional treasury functions are still structured around business-day liquidity cycles, prefunding models, and end-of-day reconciliation. That mindset does not translate well into always-on settlement environments, whether through instant payment rails or tokenised settlement models. The result is that the technology can settle instantly, but the funding and governance models behind it remain slow.

“Policy also continues to lag in terms of cross-border alignment. Individual jurisdictions are moving forward with frameworks but the real challenge is how these regimes interact. Stablecoin issuance, redemption, custody, and reserve treatment are still interpreted differently across markets, which creates friction for global scalability.

“The gap is no longer about whether the technology works. It is about whether treasury, funding, and regulatory models can adapt quickly enough to support always-on liquidity, real-time risk controls, and global settlement certainty.”

Ian Salmon,��Head of Product Marketing at Adaptive

“Stablecoins are increasingly being integrated into traditional finance, with a number of financial market infrastructures in the US and EU (namely DTCC, ICE and Nasdaq) announcing initiatives to go live in 2026 for the trading and settlement of digital assets.

“The SEC’s ‘no-action’ relief for DTCC’s plan to tokenise real world assets, which shares similar ambitions to Nasdaq and Boerse Stuttgart’s Seturion platform – to enable 24×7 on-chain settlement – require always-on digital payment rails.

“The increased regulatory clarity, paired with the clear business benefits of instantaneous, highly available collateral mobility has therefor accelerated the requirement for stablecoins. In fact, they do become the backbone of the next generation of settlement and collateral management platforms where more digitally native and highly-available payment rails are required for atomic delivery.

“The moment that will define whether Stablecoins are the backbone of a new financial world rather than the support for the existing industry will be when institutional consumers can natively interact with digital currencies across their whole infrastructure. This involves rearchitecting existing systems and workflows to be always-on, highly resilient, and instantaneous.

“Increased regulatory clarity and focus on instantaneous, highly available collateral mobility have placed stablecoins squarely in the spotlight.

“Stablecoins are being proven as critical for certain use cases, driving demand for infrastructure change to support new payment rails and 24×7 operation.

“In digital-native markets they are the backbone, enabling instantaneous movement of cash and assets. In traditional markets they support the increased efficiency of a growing number of valuable use cases.”

For any questions, comments or features,��please contact us directly.

James Burnie,��FinTech Partner at gunnercooke

“Stablecoins are quietly becoming the backbone of modern finance, as they allow faster, cheaper and automated payments. Their importance is shown by the FCA Stablecoin sprint, which we were involved in earlier this year, which considered how best to integrate them with the broader UK economy.

“However, the pathway is not going to be straightforward. The core problem is “what is a stablecoin”, as there are currently a range of purported stablecoins, which are stablecoins as such would be understood by the general public, but which are not what regulators consider a “stablecoin”.

“To be a stablecoin, in the regulated sense, a coin would generally need to be fully backed by a fiat / highly liquid reserve (i.e. not cryptoassets nor algorithmically backed) in accordance with local domestic requirements. The local requirements are highly conflicting, as e.g. in the EU the requirement is that stablecoin issuers need an e-money licences, whereas the UK is likely to prohibit e-money being used as a backing reserve asset. The consequence of this is likely to be a proliferation of stablecoin use cases for internal markets, providing a backbone for internal payments, but their status on the initial stage is going to be a much tougher journey.”

Nick Fernando, Co-Founder and Director at Aqua Global

“Stablecoins are no longer sat at the edges of finance, instead they are starting to expose where the system is weakest. Cross-border payments, long defined by delays and complexity, are the clearest fault line. Digital rails offer a more direct alternative, with faster settlement, lower costs and enhanced oversight via blockchains.

“But calling them the backbone is premature. At this moment, they mostly plug into and improve what already exists, rather than replace it. Most banks are still running on infrastructure that cannot fully integrate with digital money, held back by legacy systems and manual processes. The risk is that banks and digital rails won’t communicate properly, with existing platforms unable to handle the structured data that comes with digital transactions. This means fragmented data, more complex reconciliation and a higher likelihood of delays or failed payments.

“Momentum is building around digital payments, from UK Finance tokenised deposit pilots to Swift’s push into digital interoperability. But stablecoins alone will not redefine the system. The real shift will come from banks that modernise first.”

Amram Adar, CEO, Co-Founder and CVO (Chief Vision Officer) at Oobit

“1. Stablecoins are shifting from being simply instruments of trade to being integral components of the payment ecosystem. FinTech applications and payment systems are already quietly leveraging them to make payments more efficient and cheaper. What used to take days in international transactions is now being cleared in seconds. It’s not hype; it’s making the system work better.

“2. Stablecoins are not yet disrupting the system but are working alongside it. However, they are gradually becoming the system. In the case of remittances, stablecoins are not an added feature but the feature. As their use continues to rise, wallets that hold them will soon replace traditional bank accounts. This is the real disruption.

“3. Stablecoins continue to grow in popularity because they address real-world problems such as exorbitant fees and slow money movement. Sending USDC abroad, for example, is instant and essentially free compared to traditional wire transfers. Another factor is the evolution of wallets, which makes them as easy to use as contactless payments. People will gravitate towards them when they are comfortable with them, and comfort breeds quick adoption.

“4. However, the biggest challenge is not the technology but rather trust and regulation. People have to be assured that their stablecoins are fully backed and can be converted into fiat money. Another challenge is the fragmentation of different blockchains and the lack of standardization in the market. Clear regulation of the sector could be the solution to these challenges and could make them more mainstream.

“5. Stablecoins are set to become the default system of settlement in the digital financial system. Over time, people won’t even be aware that they are using blockchain technology, just as people do not know when they are using payment systems today. The disruption will be felt in wallets, which will be the conduit through which people spend their stablecoins. At that point, stablecoins will be digital money.”

Jean-Baptiste Gaudemet,��SVP Strategic Innovation Lab at Kyriba Corp

“Stablecoins originated in crypto trading but are now solving real-world treasury problems. Their first role is straightforward: offering alternative payment rails for expensive cross-border corridors. Traditional infrastructure charges 1-3% and takes days, whereas stablecoin rails cost pennies and settle in minutes.

“What makes the stablecoins technology more than an incremental improvement is the infrastructure being built underneath. Beyond alternative payment rails, the next development is on-chain liquidity through tokenized money market funds offering anytime subscription and redemption with yield calculated minute-by-minute. The following phase will see corporates enable decentralized financing by tokenizing their own real-world assets such as receivables and payables.

“The evolving role is this: Payments are extending the current system. On-chain liquidity will create new capabilities traditional finance can’t match. And asset tokenization will change how corporate financing fundamentally works.

“Stablecoins alone are complementary because they sit outside the banking system: you need on-ramps and off-ramps for every transaction involving your bank deposit account. However, bank-issued deposit tokens change this equation.

“When banks tokenize deposits, you get a bridge between traditional banking and on-chain liquidity. A treasury can hold bank deposits that are natively blockchain-compatible. This isn’t just plugging crypto into banking – it’s having banking infrastructure that works on-chain. This is essential to getting the best of both worlds: the stability and regulatory clarity of bank deposits with the programmability and 24/7 availability of blockchain settlement.

“The development of multiple stablecoins in different currencies plus bank deposit tokens creates a many-to-many settlement challenge. This will require new clearing infrastructure to ensure that on-chain banking delivers value without introducing liquidity fragmentation or additional operating costs.”

For any questions, comments or features,��please contact us directly.

Serge Kuznetsov,��Co-Founder at INXY Payments

“Stablecoins are gaining increasing popularity because they meet a clear market demand from both financial institutions and end users. In the banking sector, this demand is particularly evident among corporate and high-net-worth clients — it is their requests that are driving neobanks, fintech companies, and even traditional players to launch stablecoin-based products, even as they all remain cautious due to risks related to regulation, compliance, and reputation.

“The reason why stablecoins are so prevalent in the market, despite the still-evolving regulatory environment, is that the market often outpaces regulation.

“Stablecoins gained traction before regulators had fully defined requirements for reserves, disclosure, auditing, legal frameworks, and operational risks. Regulators are following a familiar pattern, in which adoption comes first and formal rules follow later. Crypto infrastructure originally grew out of the idea of decentralization and independence from the traditional monetary system, while stablecoins emerged as a more convenient form of payment in the digital environment.

“Payments in stablecoins are particularly relevant for tech-savvy audiences and internationally mobile groups, such as digital nomads and certain segments of the premium market – for them, digital payments have already become a natural part of everyday life.

“For businesses, this presents a pragmatic and profitable opportunity: accepting payments in stablecoins helps attract younger, tech-savvy customers, speed up international transactions, reduce transfer costs, and resolve certain issues related to chargebacks and currency conversion.”

Boris Bohrer-Bilowitzki,��CEO at Concordium

“Banks and payment providers are essential for evolution, as they bring consumer trust built on regulatory expertise and established relationships, which are vital for stablecoin development and adoption. We’re already seeing consortia working towards developing a Euro-backed stablecoin, aiming to contribute to Europe’s strategic autonomy in payments, while reducing dependence on the U.S. dollar.

“However, fresh infrastructure built from the ground up is needed for compliance and security at its core. The future is likely a hybrid with banks and payment providers acting as bridges with users, while blockchains handle the rails and automation.

“2026 is the year when hype will get separated from real-world utility. The ones that’ll survive are the serious infrastructure builders who prioritize security, privacy-preserving identity, and actual utility for consumers in their daily economic activities.”

Nadish Lad, Global Head of Product and Strategic Business at Volante Technologies

“Stablecoins are not becoming the backbone of modern finance, but they are moving well beyond being a supporting feature.

“What makes them different is simple. They are digital assets backed by a guarantor, typically a financial institution or bank, meaning they carry the same value that the guarantor has promised, but can be exchanged purely digitally on a blockchain-supported network.

“That combination is what is driving their shift into mainstream infrastructure. As institutions operate more globally, cross-border banking and payment processes are becoming more important. In cross-border payments, stablecoins reduce reliance on intermediary networks and remove the need to maintain liquidity across multiple nostro and vostro accounts. Value can be transferred directly between parties who accept that asset.

“They do not replace existing systems but sit alongside them. The reality is we are moving towards a multi-rail, multi-asset environment, where stablecoins become a critical layer in how value moves, rather than the foundation the system is built on.”

Kelly Mathieson, Chief Business Development Officer at Digital Asset

“Over the last year, we’ve seen stablecoins gain traction within the global financial system. They have become a more significant part of the conversation around modern financial infrastructure, especially where always-on settlement and greater flexibility can make a clear difference.

“As the conversation has matured and institutional interest has also increased, privacy has become an increasingly important piece of the puzzle. If financial firms want to use stablecoins for treasury operations or collateral management, their activity cannot be publicly visible in real time. Privacy as well as increased regulatory clarity will help unlock the next wave of stablecoin adoption.”

Anil Oncu,��CEO at Bitpace

“In enabling fast, low-cost global payments, without relying on traditional rails, stablecoins allow new levels of transactional convenience.

“The recent wave of crypto acquisitions is accelerating with crypto sector growth and the tangible, positive impacts DeFi payments are having across industries, particularly in emerging markets. Large financial institutions now see crypto as critical infrastructure for commerce, treasury, and liquidity management. With the convergence of fiat and digital rails accelerating, large payment companies are racing to secure capabilities and talent before the market consolidates, rather than risk being bypassed by more agile, crypto-native players.

“This validates where the market is heading, toward faster, more transparent, and interoperable payment systems, where fiat and digital assets coexist and work together seamlessly to make payments better than ever.”

For any questions, comments or features,��please contact us directly.

“Stablecoins settled over $11 trillion in adjusted volume in 2025. However, roughly 70% of in stablecoin transaction volume in 2024 was driven by automated trading bots. The actual organic, human-initiated usage is a fraction of what the industry celebrates.

“That said, I’m still bullish on stablecoins becoming foundational infrastructure. Strip away the inflated numbers and you find Visa and Mastercard integrating USDC settlement, major banks piloting tokenized deposits, and real cross-border payment flows growing every quarter.

“The foundation is being built. It’s just smaller and more boring than the headlines suggest.

“Moreover, the EU’s MiCA regime and the US GENIUS Act now impose bank-grade reserve, redemption, and disclosure standards on issuers. Stablecoins become backbone infrastructure when they become regulated, trusted, and embedded. And that process has started.”

Adam Bialy, Founder and CEO of Fiat Republic

“Stablecoins aren’t quietly becoming the backbone of modern finance – that’s already happened. The Mastercard/BVNK deal this month is the clearest signal yet. When a $400 billion payments network spends $1.8 billion on stablecoin infrastructure, it shows they are playing catch up.

“Stablecoins matter and we know it. The question is whether the infrastructure underneath them is actually fit for purpose. Settlement needs to be instant, compliant, and connected to real banking rails. That’s what institutions are demanding, and it’s what’s being built right now.”

For any questions, comments or features,��please contact us directly.

The post Are Stablecoins Quietly Becoming The Backbone Of Modern Finance Or Merely Supporting It? appeared first on 91̽��.

HSBC has appointed David Rice as its inaugural Chief AI Officer, effective 1 April 2026, making it one of the first major global banks to formalise AI leadership at the highest level. Rice is an HSBC veteran of nearly 20 years, most recently serving as COO of Corporate and Institutional Banking. The fact that they promoted an operations leader rather than a technologist tells you a lot about how the bank is reading the moment.

This is primarily a governance hire, rather than a technical one. Rice’s mandate covers enterprise-wide AI adoption, including generative AI tools for all staff and customer-facing personalisation, all while maintaining what HSBC describes as “human oversight”.

AI at HSBC already touches cybersecurity, transaction monitoring and risk assessment, and with CEO Georges Elhedery explicitly targeting above 17% return on tangible equity from 2026 to 2028, this appointment is as much about commercial accountability as it is about technology.

Several other financial institutions have taken a similar approach: UBS appointed a Chief AI Officer in October 2025, Commonwealth Bank of Australia followed in December, and NatWest created a Chief AI Research Officer role in June. And JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America are all embedding AI deeply into their operations. A pattern is forming, and it’s accelerating.

AI Is Moving Out Of The IT Department And Into The Boardroom

For years, AI in banking was largely an IT conversation – pilot projects, innovation labs, impressive presentations at conferences. The global race for AI talent was being watched from the sidelines by most traditional financial institutions, cautious and uncertain about where accountability sat.

What’s changed is that AI has matured past the point where it can live in a silo. When a model starts shaping whether a loan gets approved or a fraud flag gets raised, it moves past just being an IT project and becomes regulated behaviour. And regulated behaviours need executive ownership.

HSBC’s partnership with Mistral AI, announced in December 2025, is part of the same story. Building proprietary generative tools doesn’t just require computational resources and data, but someone at the top table who can answer for what those tools do when they go wrong. That’s the structural reasoning behind the CAIO role.

Will Every Major Bank Have A Chief AI Officer Within Five Years?

The short answer, based on what’s already happening, is probably yes. The more interesting consideration is whether those roles will actually matter.

Giving someone a title without enforcement authority, budget ownership and cross-functional decision rights is, as more than one observer has noted, just an expensive way of looking like you’re taking something seriously.

Where a CAIO carries real weight, the role can meaningfully shift how a bank operates. Where it doesn’t, it becomes a rebranding exercise. How well banks thread that needle will determine whether this moment marks a genuine turning point or just another cycle of AI ambition that fades from view.

We asked five industry experts which side most banks are likely to land on.

Our Experts:

• Zahra Timsah, PhD, CEO of i-GENTIC AI
• Rav Hayer, Managing Director UK and Ireland and Head of BFSI Europe at Thoughtworks
• Ciaran Cosgrave, CEO at Nearform
• Steve Round, Founder and President, SaaScada
• Dean Clark, CTO, GFT

For any questions, comments or features, please contact us directly.

Zahra Timsah, PhD, CEO of i-GENTIC AI

“I’ll be a bit contrarian here. The title itself doesn’t matter. In many cases, it’s a lagging indicator, not a leading one.

“Banks didn’t suddenly realise AI is important. They’ve known that for many years. What’s actually happening is that AI has reached a level of risk and visibility where it can no longer sit fragmented across teams. When models start influencing credit decisions, AML flags, or customer outcomes, you’re not managing AI anymore. You’re managing regulated behaviour.

“So creating a Chief AI Officer is less about innovation and more about containment. It’s about putting a name and a face to accountability before regulators force the issue.

“Will every bank have the role in five years? Likely. But most of those roles will struggle unless they control governance and compliance, not just strategy. AI without enforcement is just expensive experimentation.

“For fintech startups, this is where it gets interesting. This doesn’t kill startups. It exposes them. If your product can’t stand up to audit, explain decisions, or operate across jurisdictions, you’re already obsolete. We’re entering a phase where ‘good enough AI’ is not acceptable in banking. The real shift is from building models to governing decisions. That’s the layer most people are still underestimating.”

Rav Hayer, Managing Director UK and Ireland and Head of BFSI Europe at Thoughtworks

“HSBC are following a trend that is already shaping UK boardrooms. Our data found that 69% of UK finance organisations have already appointed a Chief AI Officer, well above the 46% average across industries. Another one in four organisations are actively looking to do so. HSBC are just the latest to formalise what many of their peers have already done.

“The Chief AI Officers who are making a real difference are the ones maturing into a proper P&L position, owning budgets and being held accountable for business outcomes, as opposed to a figurehead ‘PR’ position.

“What’s particularly shifted in the last year is where AI sits in the C-suite conversation. Organisations have largely moved past the cost-efficiency argument. They are chasing growth, which is a harder brief and needs real executive ownership, not a committee. That’s why we’re seeing the CAIO role mature from adviser to a far more accountable leader.”

Ciaran Cosgrave, CEO at Nearform

“HSBC didn’t appoint a technologist as Chief AI Officer. They promoted their Chief Operating Officer. That tells you exactly what this move is: an operations play, not an innovation play. In banking, the hardest part of AI has never been the models. It’s threading AI safely through complex, regulated workflows at scale, and HSBC clearly understands that.

“Within a year, every major bank will need someone in a role like this, not to chase the latest AI trend, but to operationalise it. For fintechs, this is the warning that banks are turning AI into an execution discipline, not an experiment. Competing now means proving you can embed AI into real, risk-heavy infrastructure, not just build clever demos.

“It’s also interesting to see this reflected elsewhere in the industry where other companies are creating a hybrid AI and COO role. This tells us exactly where AI leadership is heading: placing AI at the heart of how companies run, not off in a silo. It’s business first, AI second.”

Steve Round, Founder and President, SaaScada

“Big banks’ investment in AI leadership is long overdue, so let’s hope this is the first sign that financial institutions are getting serious about AI implementations in place of surface-level chatbots. But, I don’t envy HSBC’s new CAIO.

“For the past few years, fintechs and challengers have been embedding AI deep into their business models, using it to drive real value and grow the gap between the AI can-dos and can’t-dos.

“CAIOs at large financial institutions are starting from two steps back. They’ll be faced with the Herculean task of working through decades of built-up legacy tech to give AI the lifeblood it needs to function well: real-time data. All the while, the innovation gap keeps growing.

“Much of banks’ AI effort so far has focused on customer-facing initiatives, giving the impression of agility. But that’s only the surface. The real challenge, and the source of lasting competitive advantage, lies in the core.

“To close the innovation gap and catch up with fintechs, banks must move fast to build strong leadership teams who can focus on modernising their core banking systems and implementing AI at an operational level. If not, they’ll miss out on vital efficiency gains, personalised products for their customers, and ultimately haemorrhage market share.”

Dean Clark, CTO, GFT

“HSBC appointing a Chief AI Officer is the line in the sand, stating that AI is now a board-level priority and value-lever for banks rather than a side project in a lab.

“For high-street banks, the role only matters if it’s given teeth. Chief AI Officers need control over data strategy, model assurance and AI risk. The mandate needs to move from ‘prompt and pray’ experiments to rigorously governed, production-grade AI platforms that actually transform how a bank operates. Other financial institutions will be spurred on by this to appoint their own Chief AI Officers, not simply out of competition, but out of recognition that a modern bank cannot run without accountable ownership of AI across security, compliance and customer experience.

“For fintechs, this is a warning sign and an opportunity in equal measure. Gone are the days when a startup trumped a traditional bank by bolting a shiny LLM onto a niche use case. Fintechs are now competing with incumbents industrialising AI on secure data, private and sovereign models, and deep AI assurance. They can still outrun them, mind you, by focusing on sharper propositions, faster execution and ethical, transparent AI from day one.”

For any questions, comments or features, please contact us directly.

The post HSBC Just Hired Its First Ever Chief AI Officer. Every Other Bank Is Taking Notes appeared first on 91̽��.

Nearly two-thirds of euro area card transactions are now handled by non-European firms. In 13 countries, there’s complete reliance on international payment schemes with no domestic alternative.

For Piero Cipollone, a member of the ECB’s Executive Board, that statistic is the whole argument. In speeches earlier this year, he made the case that a digital euro isn’t optional, it’s essential. Without a public, European-owned digital currency, he argues, the continent’s monetary sovereignty will be quietly eroded by Big Tech payment platforms and private stablecoins operating outside central bank oversight.

The ECB is now in its preparation phase, with legislation expected in 2026, pilots potentially beginning by mid-2027 and issuance targeted for 2029. The “if” debate is largely over. The “what kind” debate is just getting started, and it’s a heated one.

Two Sides Of The Same Coin

The pro-CBDC argument is fundamentally a sovereignty argument, and it has merit. Europe currently depends on payment infrastructure it doesn’t control, and that dependency carries real economic and geopolitical risk.

A digital euro would offer a public alternative to private payment rails, potentially at lower cost – merchant fees could drop to roughly half current levels according to ECB projections – with universal access and offline functionality designed to preserve the privacy properties of physical cash.

Proponents also point to financial inclusion – across the eurozone, there are populations underserved by traditional banking. A digital euro with guaranteed access and no requirement for a bank account addresses that gap directly. And the geopolitical timing is noteworthy: European leaders called for accelerated development in October 2025, explicitly citing stablecoin risks and rising geopolitical tensions. The message was clear: this is no longer just a monetary policy conversation.

However, the critics aren’t fringe voices. Members of the European Parliament have raised formal concerns, and they centre on questions that don’t have comfortable answers.

The first is privacy. The ECB’s offline functionality only covers small transactions – anything of meaningful size flows through regulated intermediaries, which by law must verify identities, monitor transactions and retain records under EU anti-money laundering rules. The ECB describes this as pseudonymisation and frames it as privacy protection. The distinction that critics draw, however, is between anonymity and pseudonymity: the latter can, under the right circumstances, be reversed. That’s a practical concern that depends entirely on who controls the infrastructure and what future rules permit.

The second is programmability. A digital currency can be programmed – money that expires, money restricted to certain categories, money that can be withheld based on compliance rules. In the hands of a trustworthy government, that’s a feature. In any other scenario, it’s an expansion of state power over individual financial behaviour that no democratic mandate has explicitly authorised.

Where Does The Rest Of The World Stand?

The transatlantic picture sharpens the stakes further. The Bank of England is still in the design phase for a digital pound, with a decision expected post-2026 and legislation required before any rollout.

The UK’s approach to digital currency regulation has been cautious, prioritising private sector innovation alongside public infrastructure. The US position is stark: a Senate provision passed in March 2026 bans retail CBDC issuance until at least 2030, with the Fed explicitly prioritising private stablecoins over a public digital dollar.

That divergence sets up a real contest between two fundamentally different visions of what money should look like – one public and state-backed, the other private and market-driven. For fintech founders and operators building across both markets, that’s a concrete policy debate. It’s an infrastructure decision they’ll need to build around, and the shape of that infrastructure is being decided right now.

We asked a group of experts across banking, regulation, crypto and consumer rights to weigh in on the most consequential financial debate of 2026.

Our Experts:

• Lissele Pratt: Co-founder of Capitalixe and Forbes 30 Under 30 honouree
• Martin de Rijke: Head of Growth at Maple
• Riccardo Spagni: Entrepreneur and Open Source Contributor
• David Parkinson: Founder and CEO of Musqet
• Joe David: CEO of Nephos Group
• Anthony Yeung: CCO of CoinCover

For any questions, comments or features, please contact us directly.

Lissele Pratt, Co-founder of Capitalixe

“The digital euro is essentially Europe catching up with reality. Cash is disappearing with online payments exploding, and right now the euro relies heavily on foreign systems like Visa and Mastercard. That’s a risk. If a suddenly became dominant and then collapsed, the fallout could hit the euro itself. That’s the kind of fragility the EU can’t afford.

“However, a well-designed digital euro can fix that. It can preserve privacy through offline functionality and encryption, give people real choice in how they pay, and strengthen banks rather than replace them. Most importantly, it safeguards the credibility of the euro, which is still a pretty young currency having been established in 1999. This is about giving Europe the financial tools it needs to stay independent, resilient and ready for the digital age.”

Martin de Rijke, Head of Growth at Maple

“Fintech is headed in a much bigger direction and the digital euro is part of that story. As payments and financial products become more digital, more programmable and connected to modern internet infrastructure, this evolution is inevitable. From that angle, the ECB’s push makes a lot of sense. Central banks don’t want to lose ground as consumer payment habits evolve due to the rise in private digital currencies.

“That said, the future of fintech won’t be defined by public sector projects alone. A lot of the where teams are moving faster and building around real user demand. I don’t think this becomes a winner-takes-all story between CBDCs and stablecoins. More likely, the next phase of fintech includes a mix of public and private digital money serving different needs. A digital euro could help modernise the baseline for digital payments in Europe, while stablecoins and tokenised dollars continue pushing cross-border payments, capital efficiency and on-chain financial products forward.”

Riccardo Spagni, Entrepreneur and Open Source Contributor

“The ECB says the digital euro will be ‘as good as cash in terms of preserving privacy.’ That’s the claim. The reality is that the offline mode, the only version that offers genuine anonymity, is capped at €50 per transaction. Everything above that goes through intermediaries who are required to comply with EU anti-money laundering law, which means identity verification, transaction monitoring and data retention. The ECB says they’ll only see ‘pseudonymised’ data, but pseudonymised is not anonymous. Metadata analysis on pseudonymised payment flows is a solved problem. Intelligence agencies and commercial data brokers have been doing it for years.

“The framing that this is about ‘monetary sovereignty’ is misleading. Europe already has monetary sovereignty. What the ECB doesn’t have is a direct window into retail transactions, which currently flow through commercial banks and card networks. A digital euro changes that.

“I’ve spent over a decade building financial systems. The lesson from that work is simple: if the architecture allows surveillance, surveillance will happen, regardless of what the policy documents promise today. Policies change. Governments change. But infrastructure persists. The question isn’t whether the people running the ECB today have good intentions. The question is whether you’d trust every future government with the same infrastructure.”

David Parkinson, Founder and CEO of Musqet

“Calling the digital euro ‘essential’ for monetary sovereignty conflates two different things: control over payment infrastructure versus control over the currency itself. The euro’s sovereignty already rests on legal tender laws and the ECB’s mandate, not on whether citizens hold balances in a retail CBDC. What a digital euro really does is extend state control deeper into retail payments.

“A retail CBDC hard-wires every transaction into an identity-linked, fully digital ledger, making cash-like anonymity impossible. Once programmable central bank money exists, the constraint on what can be done with it becomes political, not technical. Future governments can add controls on who may spend, on what, where and when, turning money into a policy instrument rather than a neutral settlement asset.

“If the ECB’s goal is genuine sovereignty, citizens need credible exit options from any single issuer. delivers the opposite of a CBDC: fixed issuance, decentralised validation and true self-custody, giving users a base layer for sovereign savings that cannot be quietly reprogrammed.”

Joe David, CEO of Nephos Group

“The digital euro debate has shifted from ‘if’ to ‘when’, but the more honest question is ‘why.’ Central banks frame CBDCs as essential to monetary sovereignty, yet the real threat to sovereignty isn’t stablecoins or Big Tech – it’s poorly designed state-controlled alternatives that erode the very trust they claim to protect.

“From our work with crypto-native businesses across the UK, UAE and beyond, we see the gap between CBDC ambition and operational reality daily. Businesses already navigate a maze of digital asset regulations. Adding a central bank digital currency without clear tax treatment doesn’t simplify anything – it adds another layer of complexity to an already fractured landscape.

“The private sector has already built faster, cheaper, more transparent payment rails. Rather than competing with that innovation, central banks should be focused on regulating it properly.”

Anthony Yeung, CCO of CoinCover

“The debate around the digital euro should not just be framed as digital innovation versus privacy or stability. The overarching question is how a new form of digital money can be introduced in a way that is secure, resilient and trusted by the people expected to use it.

“CBDCs may offer potential benefits like faster payments and more efficient cross-border transactions, but that alone won’t win over sceptics. To date, $350 billion worth of Bitcoin has been irretrievably lost, with wallet access cited as the foremost reason. None of a CBDC’s benefits will matter if users and institutions remain exposed to loss of access, operational failures or unclear recovery mechanisms. If the infrastructure isn’t built with security and recovery in mind from the outset, trust will remain fragile.

“For any to gain meaningful adoption, whether public or private, it must be supported by robust safeguards that protect access and enable recovery when things go wrong. The real test isn’t whether a digital euro is technically possible. It’s whether it can deliver confidence as well as convenience.”

For any questions, comments or features, please contact us directly.

The post Experts Comment: Is The Digital Euro The Future Of Money Or The End Of Financial Privacy? appeared first on 91̽��.