Federal Reserve Moves on Real-Time Payments: Use of Intermediaries Proposed A new rulemaking from the […] Сообщение Fed mulls FedNow x-border use появились сначала на Payment Week.
Federal Reserve Moves on Real-Time Payments: Use of Intermediaries Proposed A new rulemaking from the central bank seeks to broaden routing options on its instant payment rail, potentially extending reach to international corridors while keeping core connectivity intact. Dive Brief On Wednesday, the Board of Governors proposed allowing FedNow participants to route transfers through third-party intermediaries, alongside Reserve Banks, to move funds over the service. The central bank also invited public comments on the plan. The Fed said authorizing U.S. financial institutions to work with such intermediaries—including a non-U.S. correspondent bank—should enable completion of payments both within the United States and across borders. The Board voted unanimously on Tuesday to advance the proposal. The proposal notes that added flexibility would foster new private-sector use cases for the FedNow Service, such as letting U.S. banks interact with correspondent institutions to handle the international segment of a cross-border payment. Dive Insight The draft would revise the regulation that put the FedNow Service into operation in July 2023. FedNow is an instant payment service operated by the Federal Reserve that enables participating financial institutions to send and receive credit transfers that settle in seconds, around the clock, every day of the year, with the core purpose of providing a always-on rail for real-time funds movement and final settlement. In a typical FedNow transaction, a sender initiates a payment through its bank or credit union; the sending institution submits the payment message to the FedNow Service; the service validates and routes it to the receiving institution; settlement occurs in real time on the Federal Reserve’s books (debiting the sender’s and crediting the receiver’s Federal Reserve account); and the receiving institution makes the funds available to the recipient. Key benefits include faster availability of funds, 24/7/365 processing, settlement finality, operational efficiency, and a standardized rail that can support stronger fraud and risk controls at the participating institutions. Currently, a FedNow transfer may involve only two U.S. depository institutions—whether banks or a credit union—plus a Reserve Bank. That structure limits the service to domestic transactions because participants cannot move funds directly to institutions outside the United States. Under the proposal, FedNow would still settle only between eligible U.S. participants, with any cross-border component occurring through separate “before” and “after” legs handled by intermediaries; the change would depend on a final rulemaking, and the notice does not set a firm date for when cross-border routing would be available. The Fed indicated that permitting intermediaries would give U.S. participants a pathway to send money beyond national borders. Enabling intermediaries could let banks extend real-time settlement to the domestic leg of an international transfer while relying on established correspondent channels for the cross-border segment. According to staff, since FedNow launched, users have expressed strong interest in initiating or receiving cross-border instant payments through the rail to improve the speed and efficiency of international transfers. In cross-border payments, the often-cited “holy grail” is a transfer that is fast, low-cost, transparent, and predictable end to end, with near-immediate settlement and clear compliance checks across jurisdictions rather than multi-day, opaque processing. The contemplated amendments would not change the payment flow between FedNow participants, nor would they alter which entities are eligible to connect to the service. Participation is generally limited to depository institutions eligible to hold accounts at the Federal Reserve (and certain other eligible entities), while consumers and businesses access FedNow-enabled payments through their bank or credit union rather than connecting directly. FedNow pricing is set by the Federal Reserve and includes a monthly participation fee of $25 per routing transit number, a $0.045 fee per credit transfer, a $0.01 fee per request-for-payment message, and a $1.00 fee per liquidity management transfer. FedNow also applies a per-transfer limit of up to $500,000 by default, and participating institutions can set lower internal limits to manage risk. Potential use cases for FedNow include payroll and earned-wage access, bill payments, person-to-person transfers offered by financial institutions, business-to-business payments (including invoice settlement), insurance claims disbursements, and time-sensitive merchant or account-to-account funding scenarios. FedNow differs from other rails in several key ways: Zelle is a bank-offered consumer and small-business experience that typically rides on existing bank account rails rather than being a central bank settlement service; Fedwire Funds Service is a Federal Reserve real-time gross settlement system generally used for large-value payments during defined operating hours; the Automated Clearing House network is a batch-based system commonly used for payroll and recurring payments with non-instant settlement; and the Swift messaging network primarily provides standardized payment messaging that banks use to coordinate cross-border transfers, while settlement and timing depend on the underlying correspondent and clearing arrangements. Payment System Supports Intermediaries Cross-Border Capability Settlement Speed Availability Fedwire Funds Service Yes Indirect, typically via correspondent banking and related arrangements Real-time gross settlement Limited operating hours on business days FedNow Service Proposed (would allow routing via third parties in addition to Reserve Banks) Indirect under the proposal, using intermediary legs before and after the FedNow domestic leg Seconds 24/7/365 1,700 financial institutions live on FedNow. Most of the largest U.S. banks are connected. Ongoing recruitment of smaller institutions. The Fed further stated it does not expect the changes to introduce new risks related to money laundering, sanctions evasion, or overall payment system integrity, pointing to Fedwire’s long-standing, successful operation with intermediaries. Сообщение Fed mulls FedNow x-border use появились сначала на Payment Week.
Visa and Mastercard: Why the Card Duopoly Still Shapes United States Payments The Nilson Report, […] Сообщение How US credit card fees may ebb появились сначала на Payment Week.
Visa and Mastercard: Why the Card Duopoly Still Shapes United States Payments The Nilson Report, a payments industry research firm, has observed the global payments market from a United States vantage point for more than half a century. In a wide-ranging discussion, Publisher David Robertson explained why Visa and Mastercard are positioned to continue leading domestically, even as other regions evolve along different tracks. In the March interview, Robertson, who owns the firm, described how the card networks countered digital challengers and adopted elements from fintech rivals. He also outlined possible shifts ahead as merchants intensify pressure to reduce interchange fees. In practice, Visa is generally the larger network by payment volume and cards in circulation, with Mastercard close behind; on merchant acceptance, both are broadly “everywhere you want to be” in the United States, and the differences most consumers feel tend to come from the issuing bank and the card product rather than the network logo. Visa and Mastercard also have more in common than not: they operate global networks that set rules, provide routing and authorization messaging, and sell value-added services such as fraud tools and data products. They do not typically earn the interchange fee that merchants pay on each transaction; interchange is largely paid to the issuing bank, while the networks earn processing and other network fees (often paid by acquirers and issuers) plus revenue from services. Issuers can shift portfolios or launch programs on either network, and many do both. Capital One, for example, continues to issue Mastercard-branded cards on many of its products, even as network choices can vary by program economics, co-brand arrangements, and strategic priorities. He said the networks have already begun to lose some pricing leverage. A pending federal decision on a proposed settlement in litigation waged for over 20 years between merchants and the networks could ultimately bring materially lower fees. If the court rejects the deal, he expects negotiations to push toward more comprehensive changes. Editor’s note: This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity. Digital Rivals vs. Incumbent Card Networks: Who Keeps the Upper Hand? David Robertson: Visa and Mastercard built their lead over decades by recruiting banks to issue cards, signing merchants to near-universal acceptance, and standardizing the operating rules and fraud controls that make payments predictable at scale. For card-free, fully digital transactions, think: Apple Pay Samsung Pay Google Pay Those wallet payments are authorized and carried over Visa or Mastercard rails, so the duopoly retains the activity rather than losing it. Even when the checkout experience changes, networks that provide global acceptance, risk controls, and settlement tend to stay embedded behind the scenes. Looking ahead in the United States, direct account-to-account transfers could bypass both networks by moving over the Automated Clearing House. That payment system is not yet broadly adopted domestically. Given today’s economics, routing a transaction over the card networks is already inexpensive, so the Automated Clearing House provides limited additional savings. The effect would matter most for mega-merchants with heavy debit card volume, while midsize and small merchants would see little change from account-to-account transfers. So are forecasts that digital upstarts would cut out the card networks proving wrong? It is premature in the United States. Similar shifts are underway in parts of Asia, Europe, and Latin America, but here the machine runs efficiently. Credit is bank-issued money, so the credit card side is unlikely to be displaced; any disintermediation will largely touch debit, enabling bank-to-bank payments using our own funds. In Europe, policymakers are motivated to build a region-first payment system. Across Asia, fragmentation meant those brands never became the universal foundation for payments. Retail Power Plays: Walmart’s Push and Merchant Leverage How far along is Walmart in building an alternative to the card networks? Walmart can reach consumers directly and offer incentives that nudge behavior. Once its United States technology stack is fully in place, it will be able to educate shoppers efficiently about bank-account-to-bank-account payments. Are large retailers gaining or losing bargaining power with the card networks and issuing banks? Incrementally more. For the biggest sellers, scale can translate into better economics. Merchant Type Pricing Leverage Infrastructure Efficiency Negotiated Fees High-Volume Merchants Higher Higher due to throughput and simpler unit economics Lower than standard Midsize Merchants Moderate Moderate Closer to standard Small Merchants Lower Lower Limited room to negotiate Policy and Courts: Credit Card Competition Act and the Settlement Outlook Is passage of the Credit Card Competition Act realistic? Unlikely, though not impossible. Congress could cap interchange fees again—it happened on debit after the banking crisis—but retailers do not have the same pull in Washington they once did. Both financial institutions and merchants are mounting major lobbying efforts, and the eventual outcome is likely hammered out by the titans outside Congress and beyond the courtroom. What about the pending settlement between the networks and merchants in federal court? If the judge rejects it again, Visa and Mastercard may need to cut prices more aggressively than they have proposed so far. The current offer sketches a framework for fee relief, but as Walmart argues, it is not a truly comprehensive reduction. Longer term, the biggest threats to the duopoly are less about a single new “card killer” and more about a bundle of pressures: account-to-account options that get easier to use, real-time payment systems that improve consumer expectations, new front ends such as embedded finance and buy now, pay later, and regulatory or antitrust actions that could reshape routing choices and fee economics. Over the next five to 10 years, the most likely path is continued adaptation rather than sudden displacement: more volume initiated through digital wallets and app-based checkout, more merchant and regulatory pressure on fees, and more network revenue tied to services that sit alongside payments (risk management, tokenization, authentication, and data-driven tools). For consumers deciding “which is better,” acceptance is usually close, so the practical decision tends to come down to the specific card’s pricing and benefits—and, for frequent international travel, which network is more consistently accepted in the places you go. Сообщение How US credit card fees may ebb появились сначала на Payment Week.
Stablecoins to infiltrate market, investors say
Stablecoins and the Future of Payments As usage of stablecoins spreads worldwide, venture investors predicted […] Сообщение Stablecoins to infiltrate market, investors say появились сначала на Payment Week.
Stablecoins and the Future of Payments As usage of stablecoins spreads worldwide, venture investors predicted they will plug into blended payment architectures that fuse established bank rails with cryptocurrency networks during a panel last week. Specialists from QED Investors said a stablecoin payment will settle into roles where it offers the most utility for each transaction type. The global VC, which backs fintech firms, hosted a discussion on how these assets can augment established ways to pay. Payment Integration: A Hybrid Model Gbenga Ajayi, a QED partner leading the firm’s Africa and Middle East business, compared the shift to email not eliminating postal mail for certain needs. We will align stablecoins to the tasks they excel at, while conventional fiat rails keep handling the jobs they perform best. It isn’t crypto versus banks — it’s both working in concert. Bill Cilluffo, a QED partner based in Alexandria, Virginia, said the tougher challenge is how tokens and legacy payment systems interoperate. Interoperability tends to come down to shared standards, clear APIs, and predictable settlement finality across systems. Payment stablecoins are stablecoins designed primarily for everyday settlement, meaning they aim to be redeemable at par value and easy to route through payment flows like invoices, payroll, and checkout. They differ from other stablecoins that are optimized for trading, leverage, or specialized on-chain strategies, where liquidity, exchange integration, or yield mechanics can matter more than merchant tooling and dispute handling. Businesses that want to accept stablecoin payments typically have a few practical options: Choose what to accept: decide which stablecoin(s) to support and which networks to support for settlement. Pick an acceptance model: use a payment processor that offers stablecoin checkout and settlement, or integrate a wallet flow directly into an app or invoice. Set treasury and accounting rules: decide whether to hold the tokens, convert to fiat on receipt, and how to reconcile on-chain transaction IDs with internal records. Implement customer and risk controls: establish refund, compliance, and fraud processes that fit the business’s product and jurisdiction. Adoption Trends and Payment Infrastructure These assets are pegged to fiat currencies like the U.S. dollar or the euro, so their prices swing far less than Bitcoin or Dogecoin. After the U.S. provided clearer rules last year through the Genius Act, activity has accelerated. Stablecoins generally fall into a few buckets: fiat-collateralized stablecoins backed by cash and short-dated government securities; crypto-collateralized stablecoins backed by overcollateralized digital assets; algorithmic stablecoins that rely on market incentives and on-chain mechanisms to target a peg; and commodity-collateralized stablecoins backed by assets such as gold. The market is dominated by a handful of large tokens by market capitalization, including USDT, which is widely used for exchange and cross-border liquidity; USDC, which is positioned around regulated issuance and payment integrations; DAI, which is minted through overcollateralized on-chain mechanisms; and USDe, which is designed around crypto-native hedging to maintain stability. Stablecoin issuers typically make money through interest earned on reserve assets and through fees tied to issuance, redemption, or enterprise services. Some ecosystem participants also generate revenue from payment processing, conversion spreads, and custody or compliance tooling layered on top of stablecoin settlement. Even so, they still represent a sliver of total payment volume, with concentration in crypto trading and remittance corridors, according to JPMorgan Chase, the largest U.S. bank. Challenges include compliance obligations that vary by jurisdiction, technology and integration risk, counterparty and custody risk, and the possibility of a peg break if reserves or stabilization mechanisms are stressed. Current transaction volume: About $269 billion moved through these digital assets last year. Projected transaction volume: S&P Global Market Intelligence estimates that could rise to $434 billion by 2028. Institutional vs. consumer adoption: The buildout is being driven by institutional infrastructure rather than consumers. Consumer awareness statistics: Only 12% of U.S. consumers are familiar with stablecoins, the research group said. Stablecoin payments are secured through a mix of wallet controls and payment-ops safeguards, including private-key management, multi-signature approvals, transaction monitoring, and smart-contract audits where applicable. On the regulatory and compliance side, firms generally need customer due diligence, sanctions screening, and record-keeping that align with money transmission and AML requirements, alongside reserve, disclosure, and operational expectations that apply to issuers and their partners. In practice, the security story is as much about operational controls and compliance discipline as it is about cryptography and blockchains. The most consequential uptake is behind the curtain — faster settlement, better capital efficiency, and smoother liquidity transfers — not at the consumer point of sale, said Jordan McKee, director of fintech research at S&P Global Market Intelligence. Evaluating Payment Flows: Cost, Speed, Privacy, and Recourse Panelists compared payment options across multiple factors that can matter differently depending on the transaction. Payment Method Cost Speed Security Privacy Recourse Traditional bank rails Often higher for cross-border due to intermediaries and FX steps. Cross-border wires can take days to finalize. Mature controls, established authentication, and institutional risk management. More data is shared across intermediaries and compliance checks. Disputes, returns, and reversals may be available depending on rail and jurisdiction. Stablecoin settlement Can be lower by reducing intermediaries, though network fees and conversion spreads may apply. On-chain settlement can finalize in minutes depending on the network. Relies on key custody, smart-contract safety, and issuer/reserve integrity. Transactions are visible on public ledgers, but identities may be masked behind addresses. Final by default; recourse typically requires escrow, smart contracts, or off-chain agreements. Users tend to optimize for different trade-offs depending on context, Conrad said. Against legacy correspondent networks, tokens clearly dominate on settlement time. A supplier in Mexico or Nigeria selling to a buyer in China or Korea may wait roughly three days for a cross-border payment via wire to finalize, Ajayi said. Long settlement windows can lock up working capital and add operational friction, he said; faster finality changes how firms manage cash. On price, these instruments reduce intermediaries and can lower transfer costs. They can also broaden global access for counterparties that struggle with local banking constraints, support programmable payment logic such as conditional release, and provide transparent settlement records that are easy to reconcile. For safety and reversibility, however, established rails still hold clear advantages, Ajayi noted. Dispute processes, chargebacks, and liability rules are built into many traditional payment systems, he said. Сообщение Stablecoins to infiltrate market, investors say появились сначала на Payment Week.
Fiserv, grocer expand pay-by-bank effort
Pay by Bank in Grocery Retail: Ahold Delhaize USA and Fiserv Expand Cardless Checkout Ahold […] Сообщение Fiserv, grocer expand pay-by-bank effort появились сначала на Payment Week.
Pay by Bank in Grocery Retail: Ahold Delhaize USA and Fiserv Expand Cardless Checkout Ahold Delhaize USA and Fiserv are widening their bank-to-bank payment pilot to reach more U.S. shoppers, extending direct-from-account checkout across the grocer’s digital storefronts. Key Updates: Pay by Bank Pilot Scales Up Fiserv and Ahold Delhaize USA will broaden their bank payment pilot so more customers nationwide can access the option, the companies said. The feature debuted last year on the grocer’s websites and mobile apps for three banners—The Giant Company, Giant Food, and Stop & Shop—and is now being offered to a larger audience. Tens of thousands of shoppers have signed up for the pay by bank option. Customers can enroll and select their financial institution during setup. Customers authenticate through their bank experience to authorize payment. The option adds another cardless way to pay for digital grocery orders. Industry Context: Real-Time Payment Momentum Retailers across the U.S., including Walmart, are promoting cardless ways to pay to curb interchange and network costs tied to card payments, giving merchants another payment solution at checkout. Support is typically limited to eligible customers at participating banks and credit unions connected to the payment provider’s network, with coverage expanding as more financial institutions enable account-authenticated checkout and faster bank-to-bank transfers. With an East Coast footprint spanning Stop & Shop, Giant Food, The Giant Company, Food Lion, and Hannaford, Ahold Delhaize added the capability last year for customers to set up bank-to-bank payments for future orders, with an emphasis on reliability, security, and account authentication. Brand Pay by Bank Availability Enrollment Start Date Stop & Shop Available for a broader audience as the pilot expands Last year Giant Food Available for a broader audience as the pilot expands Last year The Giant Company Available for a broader audience as the pilot expands Last year Food Lion Not announced as part of the current pilot — Hannaford Not announced as part of the current pilot — The expansion makes the bank payment option fully available on Ahold Delhaize USA’s proprietary omnichannel platform across e-commerce sites and mobile apps for the three participating brands. Digital grocery customers should now see the option for online orders across those storefronts. Paying directly from a bank account streamlines the experience and gives shoppers another way to pay, said Keith Nicks, Ahold Delhaize USA’s chief commercial and digital officer. In this context, “pay by bank” generally refers to a cardless checkout method where a customer authorizes a payment straight from a bank account to a merchant, bypassing card networks and their associated rails. The payment can be routed through different bank-to-bank systems depending on the provider and the customer’s bank. Pay by bank is widely considered a legitimate payment approach when offered by established merchants and payment processors, and it typically relies on account authentication and verification to help confirm the payer is authorized to use the bank account. Common protections can include bank-level login or app-based authentication, encrypted data handling, and fraud monitoring designed to reduce unauthorized use. Well-designed pay-by-bank checkout pairs bank-grade authentication with real-time risk checks, helping merchants confirm account access without exposing shoppers’ card credentials. Pay by bank is not necessarily the same thing as ACH, though it can use ACH in some implementations. ACH is a long-running bank transfer system that is often batch-based, while pay by bank can also run over faster, real-time payment rails; the shared idea is moving money account-to-account rather than through card networks. Interest in bank-to-bank payments has accelerated alongside real-time payment rails. In addition to the real-time payments network operated through The Clearing House, the Federal Reserve launched an instant payments system for banks in 2023. As those rails mature, merchants are looking for lower-cost payment acceptance and fewer card-related fees, while consumers are increasingly comfortable approving transactions through their bank’s authentication flows and getting faster payment confirmation for digital purchases. Benefits of pay by bank can include an additional checkout choice for shoppers, the ability to pay without a card on hand, and a transaction that is reflected directly in bank activity; for merchants, potential advantages include lower payment acceptance costs relative to cards and less exposure to some card-specific fraud and chargeback dynamics. Challenges can include uneven availability across banks, customer adoption friction during setup, the need for tight technical integration and risk controls, and operational questions around refunds and customer support. Depending on the underlying rail, some transactions may also be harder to reverse once authorized, which raises the importance of clear consumer messaging and strong authentication. Disputes for pay-by-bank transactions are typically handled through a combination of the merchant’s refund and customer-service process and the consumer’s bank processes for investigating errors or unauthorized account activity. Compared with card chargebacks—which are formalized through card networks—bank-to-bank dispute handling can be more dependent on the payment rail used and the policies of the participating institutions. Also in 2023, executives at Milwaukee-based Fiserv highlighted an agreement to bring bank-based checkout to Walmart, while grocery rival Kroger signaled interest in the method. Looking ahead, pay by bank is expected to expand as more banks enable authenticated digital checkout experiences and as instant payment capabilities become more common across U.S. financial institutions. Further adoption could be supported by improved consumer protections, more standardized account-authentication experiences, and broader merchant integration across additional commerce channels. Сообщение Fiserv, grocer expand pay-by-bank effort появились сначала на Payment Week.
Illinois Interchange Fee Prohibition Act: State Defends Limits on Taxes and Tips Illinois’s ban on […] Сообщение Illinois AG defends card fee law появились сначала на Payment Week.
Illinois Interchange Fee Prohibition Act: State Defends Limits on Taxes and Tips Illinois’s ban on assessing swipe charges to the portions of a purchase that are sales tax or gratuities does not intrude on banks’ or card networks’ authority to set pricing, the state attorney general argued Friday while defending the measure before an appeals court. The Illinois Interchange Fee Prohibition Act is a state law that prohibits charging interchange fees, network fees, or other per-transaction “swipe” charges on the tax and tip portions of an electronic payment, requiring those portions to be excluded from the fee calculation. Interchange fees are charges tied to card transactions that flow through the payment chain: a merchant’s payment processor routes a card purchase through a network, and the merchant’s bank (the “acquirer”) pays the cardholder’s bank (the “issuer”) an interchange amount that is typically passed back to the merchant as part of overall processing costs. Preemption Dispute Over Interchange Fees In a brief to the 7th United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office said the law is not preempted by the National Bank Act because the state rule does not restrict national banks’ ability to establish or collect interchange fees from their own customers. The state also pointed to continued federal regulation of payment fees—such as the Durbin Amendment’s framework for regulating certain debit-card interchange and routing—as consistent with the idea that fee rules can coexist with bank powers, while lenders argue that Congress set specific federal boundaries that states cannot extend. Preemption disputes like this often turn on whether a state rule merely increases costs or whether it meaningfully prevents a bank from exercising a federally granted power. The state’s filing answered an appeal by a coalition of banks and credit unions challenging the statute. Four trade associations for those institutions sued Illinois in August 2024 over the first state law of its kind. Federal Court Ruling and Expedited Appeal In February, United States District Judge Virginia Kendall in Chicago declined to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the state law, but she invalidated a provision that restricted how banks, networks, and other entities could use transaction data. Last month, the 7th Circuit granted lenders an accelerated schedule, and on Tuesday the court set oral arguments for May 13. Unless further court action intervenes, the case is expected to proceed through argument and a later merits decision while the parties continue to dispute whether any part of the law should be paused. Effective Date and One-Year Delay The statute is slated to take effect July 1, following lawmakers’ vote last year to postpone implementation by one year. For merchants, supporters say the change could reduce processing costs on transactions where sales tax and tips make up a meaningful share of the total, while also pushing businesses and their vendors to ensure receipts and transaction records can reliably identify and separate those amounts for fee calculations and reconciliation. Industry Opposition and Amicus Briefs Banks and their allies submitting amicus briefs contend the Illinois measure will harm the United States payment system by encouraging other states to adopt similar fee limits, and they argue it is unlawful on multiple theories, including federal preemption and claims that it impermissibly interferes with federally conferred banking powers. They also warn that the rule effectively reaches beyond Illinois because card transactions are cleared through nationwide networks and issuer systems, meaning compliance could require changes to pricing, settlement, and reporting practices that are not easily confined to in-state activity. Amici backing the lenders include: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Ten former Office of the Comptroller of the Currency officials Electronic Transactions Association Electronic Payments Coalition In a March 16 brief, amici described payment card networks as essential to credit card lending and deposit services and said the Illinois measure substantially interferes with those powers. Banks also contend that operational compliance would require reconfiguring payment systems to identify taxable and gratuity components with sufficient accuracy, updating merchant and processor data formats, managing exceptions (such as returns and adjustments), and absorbing added monitoring and dispute-resolution costs when transaction details do not cleanly separate those amounts. State’s View Under the National Bank Act The attorney general also asserted that when Congress enacted the National Bank Act, it anticipated continued state regulation of national banks so long as such rules do not impair the exercise of federally conferred powers. States may regulate banks even-handedly, including in ways that affect or add costs for financial institutions. At bottom, plaintiffs’ preemption claim amounts to an objection that complying with the interchange-fee limitation is expensive. Сообщение Illinois AG defends card fee law появились сначала на Payment Week.
Global cyber fraud attacks rose last year
2026 Cyber Threat Report: Key Findings New analysis details how digital fraud escalated worldwide, with […] Сообщение Global cyber fraud attacks rose last year появились сначала на Payment Week.
2026 Cyber Threat Report: Key Findings New analysis details how digital fraud escalated worldwide, with automated tools and synthetic identity tactics reshaping the threat landscape and exposing shifting targets across regions. Briefing: Global Cyber Fraud Snapshot Region Fraud Rate (%) Notable Trends Most Targeted Sectors and Why Global 1.6 Across more than 100 billion transactions last year, fraud rose alongside a 19% jump in bot-driven and synthetic identity attacks, according to a March report from LexisNexis Risk Solutions. Gaming and gambling (high-velocity activity that masks abuse). E-commerce (account takeover, promo abuse, and rapid resale incentives). Other sectors face lower overall exposure but rising spillover as attackers reuse tested playbooks. North America 2.2 The overall rate held near 2.2%, yet the region saw a pronounced rise in desktop-focused attacks, the 2026 Cybercrime Report noted. Desktop-browser sessions tied to high-value consumer and business workflows (attackers exploit familiar browser paths, stolen credentials, and inconsistent step-up checks). The report warned that increasingly sophisticated schemes relentlessly probe defenses to exploit lapses, targeting the vulnerable, the uninformed, or anyone momentarily distracted. Common examples include credential-stuffing and account-takeover campaigns, payment and refund manipulation, SIM-swap and help-desk social engineering, and stealthy bot traffic designed to mimic human behavior; these approaches often succeed by chaining small weaknesses such as reused passwords, weak or bypassable verification, misconfigured authentication flows, and delayed detection of anomalous session behavior. Insights: Regional Patterns and Defensive Shifts The Atlanta-based firm examined 116 billion digital events worldwide to calculate regional fraud rates, tracking payments, logins, and new-account openings through its identity network—a 12% increase in monitored volume year over year. Generational behavior diverged: Younger users leaned into mobile apps for transactions, while older cohorts favored desktop and browser-based activity. After a flat 2024, the global rate ticked up last year. A feared AI-fueled “fraud storm” did not fully materialize in 2025, but the data shows tactics are evolving and attack patterns are shifting. AI is already changing both offense and defense. On the criminal side, operators use AI to draft convincing phishing lures at scale, generate realistic voice or video deepfakes for social-engineering and verification bypass, and automate reconnaissance such as scanning for exposed services or quickly iterating on exploit attempts; on the defensive side, AI is increasingly applied to anomaly detection across logins and payments, alert triage and correlation, faster identification of bot-like behavior, and semi-automated containment steps that reduce response time when attacks move too quickly for manual workflows. Across 2026, many organizations expect pressure from familiar threat types that continue to mutate: ransomware that combines disruption with data theft, phishing and business email compromise that target payment processes, supply chain intrusions that leverage vendors and software dependencies, insider-driven misuse of access, and DDoS or other availability attacks used to distract teams or force concessions. Risk remains uneven by sector. Healthcare, finance, government, critical infrastructure, and education are frequently treated as high-value targets because they hold sensitive personal data, rely on always-on operations, run complex third-party ecosystems, and often face constraints that complicate rapid patching and modernization. Ransomware tactics are expected to keep evolving toward “double extortion” and beyond, with greater emphasis on data exfiltration, pressure campaigns that target customers or partners, attacks that seek out backups and recovery tooling, and broader use of ransomware-as-a-service models that let affiliates scale operations quickly while specializing roles across an underground supply chain. Geopolitical tension remains a force multiplier. State-aligned actors and proxy groups blend espionage, disruptive operations, and influence objectives, while hacktivist campaigns can surge around elections, conflicts, and sanctions—creating a threat mix where the same incident can serve political aims and criminal monetization at once. Human-led incidents grew a modest 8% versus 2024, while bot-triggered attempts surged 59%, underscoring the expanding role of automation in cyber operations. In North America, adversaries increasingly target desktop sessions. Browser-based attacks on desktop more than doubled, while attempts against mobile apps fell 77% in the region. As a result, North America exceeded the global average for desktop-browser attack rates and aligned with the worldwide average on mobile-app risk. The report highlighted a sharp swing away from app-based targeting and toward browser exploitation during 2025. Mobile app attack volume halved in 2025 across most regions except EMEA, while browser-based threats spiked. The downturn likely reflects organizations hardening app defenses after long treating that channel as relatively safe. Zimperium, a Dallas-based provider of mobile security software for financial institutions and enterprises, reports that threat actors increasingly seed malware by enticing users to install free utilities—such as gaming titles or mortgage calculators—to compromise devices. Once attackers gain persistence via malicious apps, they quietly execute small, repeated transactions to siphon funds and avoid detection. Fraudsters can wake a device, open a banking app, sign in, and move money while the user is unaware. Their ability to persist and remain hidden enables these covert transfers, said Krishna Vishnubhotla, the company’s vice president of product strategy. Zimperium, acquired by Liberty Strategic Capital for $525 million in 2022, deploys on-device tooling that guides users away from risky behaviors and alerts security teams when threats are detected. For many organizations, improving cybersecurity hygiene still comes down to execution: enforce phishing-resistant multi-factor authentication where feasible, patch internet-facing systems quickly, harden identity and recovery paths, segment networks, protect and routinely test backups, monitor for anomalous access and data movement, train staff on social-engineering patterns, and rehearse incident-response decisions before a crisis compresses timelines. Investigating and prosecuting cybercrime remains difficult. Cross-border jurisdictional friction, rapid infrastructure churn, encrypted communications, the use of intermediaries, and anonymizing payment rails can slow attribution and evidence collection, while many teams face resource constraints that make sustained pursuit of large, distributed operations hard to maintain. A shortage of cybersecurity professionals compounds these pressures. Understaffed teams can struggle to keep up with patch cycles, alert volume, vendor risk reviews, and incident-response readiness, which can lengthen dwell time for attackers and increase the odds that smaller signals are missed until damage is already underway. Recent large-scale breach disclosures have included: Change Healthcare: A ransomware-linked disruption that exposed the downstream risk of third-party concentration in healthcare operations and raised concerns about the potential theft of sensitive personal and health-related data. AT&T: Reported exposure of customer information that renewed attention on long-lived identifiers and the lasting fraud risk that follows large credential or account-data leaks. Ticketmaster: Reported theft and attempted sale of customer data, illustrating how consumer platforms can become attractive targets for monetization and follow-on phishing. Snowflake-related customer incidents: A wave of reported data theft tied to compromised credentials and insufficient account protections, highlighting how identity controls can be a decisive factor even when core infrastructure remains intact. LexisNexis Risk Solutions attributed recent gains in fraud prevention to: Advances in defense technology. Refreshed regulatory frameworks. Deeper collaboration among institutions. Even so, threat actors are refining operations and scaling their campaigns. Cybercrime has become an industrialized business, with specialists handling access, social engineering, laundering, and monetization in parallel to speed up attacks and reduce friction. Despite widely publicized raids, scam centers continue to expand globally. The sheer volume of people involved in this mature, industrialized enterprise strains fraud prevention teams worldwide, the report said. Сообщение Global cyber fraud attacks rose last year появились сначала на Payment Week.
Us digital wallet use projected to grow by 2030
Digital Wallet Adoption Outlook: U.S. and Global Trends to 2030 Worldpay’s 11th annual Global Payments […] Сообщение Us digital wallet use projected to grow by 2030 появились сначала на Payment Week.
Digital Wallet Adoption Outlook: U.S. and Global Trends to 2030 Worldpay’s 11th annual Global Payments Report signals rapid expansion of mobile wallets across e-commerce and store checkouts, with the United States expected to narrow the gap with global behavior by 2030. A digital wallet is an app or built-in phone feature that stores payment details (or secure substitutes for them) so you can pay without repeatedly entering card or bank information. In practice, you add a payment method, confirm it with the provider, and then authorize purchases using device security such as a screen lock, biometrics, or in-app verification. Beyond checkout, wallet apps are commonly used for online purchases, in-store tap-to-pay, peer-to-peer transfers, and sometimes bill payments. Many also let users store items like loyalty programs, gift balances, and event or travel tickets, depending on the provider and what local merchants support. Digital wallets generally fall into three buckets: closed-loop wallets meant for a single brand’s ecosystem (such as a retailer or transit app); semi-closed wallets that work across a set of participating merchants; and open wallets that can be used broadly where supported payment networks are accepted. Zelle is typically considered a bank-to-bank transfer service rather than a digital wallet, because it routes payments through participating banks and usually does not function as a stored wallet for in-store tap-to-pay. Setup is usually straightforward: download or open the wallet app, create an account if required, add a card or bank account, and turn on device security before making a first purchase. To pay online, you select the wallet button at checkout and authenticate; to pay in-store, you authenticate and complete a contactless transaction where the merchant supports it. Acceptance can vary by website, point-of-sale system, and country, and international use may involve currency conversion or network limitations depending on the wallet and underlying card or bank. Many providers do not charge consumers for standard purchases, but fees can apply for expedited transfers, certain cross-border transactions, currency conversion, or moving money out to a bank account under specific conditions. As with any financial tool, wallet safety is a balance of built-in protections and user habits. Common safeguards include encryption, device-based authentication, and transaction alerts, while common risks include account takeover attempts, lost devices without strong screen locks, and scams that trick users into approving payments; using strong device security, enabling two-factor authentication when available, and reviewing activity regularly can reduce exposure. Potential disadvantages include technical failures (dead batteries, outages, or app errors), uneven merchant acceptance, privacy concerns around data collection and sharing, and a higher dependency on a functioning device and connectivity for certain features. Users also generally should avoid storing highly sensitive secrets or documents in a wallet app—such as account passwords, full personal identification numbers, or scans of sensitive identity documents—if the app is not specifically designed for secure document storage. As wallets become a default checkout option, the biggest shift will be less about novelty and more about ubiquity—more merchants enabling tap-to-pay, more consumers trusting device-based authentication, and more everyday transactions moving into wallet flows. Key Takeaways: How Consumers Use Wallet Apps Region/Scenario Wallets Credit Cards Debit Cards Account-to-Account Buy Now, Pay Later Cash Global: Online transaction volume (last year) 56% 20% 10% 7% 4% — Global: In-person spending (last year) Led 24% 22% — — 14% U.S.: E-commerce transactions 40% 32% 16% — 6% — U.S.: Point of sale 17% 40% 28% — — 10% In the U.S., shoppers are projected to pick a wallet app for 44% of online checkouts and 26% of in-store purchases by 2030, the Global Payments Report estimates. Market Insight: Shifts, Security, and Rules for Credit and Mobile Pay The report expects credit card and debit card shares to decline in U.S. brick-and-mortar settings as contactless wallets scale. By 2030, in-store credit use is projected to ease to 36% and debit to 25%, while tap-to-pay via a digital wallet gains ground. Gen Z is accelerating the move to phone-based checkout. Among 18–24-year-olds, mobile payments are already the top online method at 39%, rising to 41% for ages 25–34, according to a March 31 press release accompanying the report. Payment app activity is poised to expand further. Globally, the value of payment app transactions climbed to $10.6 trillion last year from $9.3 trillion in 2024, with a forecast of $15.6 trillion by 2030. Bob Cortopassi, president and chief operating officer of Global Payments, said merchants that align with customer payment preferences and deliver flexible options across demographics will be best positioned for the next wave of growth. Saved payment cards. Pay-over-time plans. Direct bank transfers. Cryptocurrency balances. Fraud controls and liability policies vary by provider. Consumer Reports found that Block and PayPal Holdings offer stronger fraud monitoring and protections than mobile wallets from Google and Apple. In the U.S., the category — led by PayPal and Block’s Cash App — continues to navigate a patchwork of state and federal requirements. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized digital app payment rules in 2024 to extend oversight to nonbank wallet providers, but Congress repealed the rule last year, and President Donald Trump signed the measure. Сообщение Us digital wallet use projected to grow by 2030 появились сначала на Payment Week.
Inside Kitestring’s Vendor-Neutral Point-of-Sale Lab for Omnichannel Retail As merchants pursue unified checkout across channels, […] Сообщение Walmart alumni open POS test lab появились сначала на Payment Week.
Inside Kitestring’s Vendor-Neutral Point-of-Sale Lab for Omnichannel Retail As merchants pursue unified checkout across channels, a retail technology company founded by former Walmart technologists has built a hands-on lab where buyers can trial offerings from multiple point-of-sale vendors under one roof. Vendor-Neutral Testing: How Retailers Compare Point-of-Sale Options Kitestring Technical Services presents its innovation laboratory as a neutral environment for evaluation and live demonstrations, giving retailers a controlled space for quality-assurance-style reviews of equipment from seven software providers and 14 hardware makers. In that setting, retailers typically focus on testing that reduces the risk of disruptions at checkout and across connected channels. Teams look for reliable transaction handling to avoid revenue loss from system failures, protections for sensitive customer data, adherence to relevant industry requirements, and a smoother experience that keeps lines moving and customers satisfied. Those evaluations span the core components that tend to break in the real world: payment processing, inventory management, the user interface cashiers and associates rely on, receipt printing, loyalty and promotions logic, and integrations with external systems that feed orders, pricing, and customer profiles. To cover those areas, buyers commonly run functional testing, integration testing, performance testing, security testing, usability testing, compliance testing, and regression testing to confirm that updates do not reintroduce defects across stores and devices. That work can be difficult to standardize because point-of-sale deployments often involve complex hardware-software integration, multiple payment methods and devices, real-time transaction processing requirements, the need for consistent omnichannel behavior, and evolving security and compliance obligations. Selecting a point-of-sale system often means a multi-year, multimillion-dollar commitment with intertwined hardware and software considerations, including performance and reliability risks, said Lindsay Schwab, Kitestring’s head of partnerships and growth. That scale pushes teams to move deliberately. Common test cases in those deliberations include a successful sale from scan to authorization, failed payment scenarios such as declines or timeouts, correct discount and promotion application, inventory updates after a sale, receipt generation across supported printers, and secure user login and logout flows for associates. We bring retailers into our Bentonville, Arkansas lab so they can place the systems they’re considering next to each other and make like-for-like comparisons. Launch and Company Evolution The lab made its public debut in January during the National Retail Federation’s Big Show in New York City. Kitestring is a private, family-owned firm of roughly 140 employees, led by chief executive officer Jared Smith, who acquired the company from his father, Larry Smith. Schwab said the leadership’s experience grew out of two decades of point-of-sale work for Walmart. Schwab noted that Walmart and Sam’s Club now account for about 20% of Kitestring’s revenue. The client roster includes major grocers, department stores, and several large convenience-store chains, with most customers posting annual sales above $300 million. Omnichannel Integration and Real-World Demos Many retailers want an integrated retail point-of-sale platform that manages digital orders, in-store checkout, kiosks, mobile transactions, and marketplace flows from DoorDash and Uber Eats, said Justin Clark, a retail technology specialist at Kitestring. In today’s market, buyers expect a modern architecture that unifies online and in-store journeys. Clark added that the market has grown more agnostic, allowing retailers to combine components from different providers so long as they share an operating system such as Android, Linux, or Windows. Automation is also becoming more practical as retailers seek repeatable coverage across frequent updates. Teams increasingly use test automation frameworks to simulate transactions and device interactions, run automated regression suites, and plug those checks into continuous integration pipelines so issues surface earlier in the release process, with less manual effort and broader coverage. Security and compliance checks, meanwhile, often include validating encryption of payment data, ensuring secure user authentication, and testing against payment-card security requirements and applicable data privacy regulations as configurations change across devices, stores, and channels. Altaine, a digital commerce company, used the lab to walk a prospective client through end-to-end order flow on real terminals, said co-founder and chief operating officer Jo Gelb during a joint call with Kitestring. Anyone can run an emulator and flip through screens, but pairing it with physical devices is far more convincing, she said, noting that Altaine’s ordering platform supports a major fuel brand, Pizza Hut, and Subway. Gelb added that when Altaine engages a prospect, the team often relies on the facility for demonstrations because Kitestring’s hands-on work in the lab makes its engineers nearly as fluent in Altaine’s technology as Altaine’s own staff. Diebold Nixdorf, a North Canton, Ohio supplier of point-of-sale and automated teller machine solutions, has also deployed its retail hardware and software stack inside the lab. Beyond physical labs, retailers and vendors are also experimenting with cloud-based point-of-sale testing environments, more continuous testing practices tied to faster release cycles, and emerging approaches such as artificial-intelligence-driven test automation aimed at expanding coverage for omnichannel experiences without slowing delivery. Retailers can gauge how their point-of-sale and broader omnichannel solutions behave in store-like scenarios and envision seamless experiences with personalized interactions, said Ed McCabe, Diebold Nixdorf’s head of retail sales for North America. Сообщение Walmart alumni open POS test lab появились сначала на Payment Week.
Kitestring Technical Services Lab: Hands-on Point-of-Sale Evaluation for Retailers As chains push to unify checkout […] Сообщение Walmart alum open POS test lab появились сначала на Payment Week.
Kitestring Technical Services Lab: Hands-on Point-of-Sale Evaluation for Retailers As chains push to unify checkout across channels, a retail technology company founded by former Walmart technologists has opened a hands-on lab where merchants can trial offerings from multiple vendors side by side. Kitestring Technical Services is a retail technology services firm that helps merchants plan, implement, and support store systems, including point-of-sale and related digital commerce capabilities. Vendor-Neutral Solution and Methodology Kitestring Technical Services positions its innovation laboratory as an impartial test and demo environment so retailers can evaluate point-of-sale equipment now on the market. 7 software providers. 14 hardware makers. A vendor-neutral lab lets retailers validate real-world compatibility and performance before they commit to a multi-year rollout. Beyond the lab, Kitestring supports retailers with vendor evaluation and selection, systems integration across software and hardware, rollout planning, associate training, and ongoing operational support once deployments are live. Strategic Decisions and In-Store Experience Choosing a checkout stack is a high-stakes, multi-year, multimillion-dollar commitment with intertwined hardware and software risks, said Lindsay Schwab, Kitestring’s head of partnerships and growth. Buyers therefore proceed with great care. We want retailers to visit our space and compare, in one place, the different checkout systems they’re considering, she said from the Kitestring lab in Bentonville, Arkansas. Kitestring introduced the facility in January during the National Retail Federation’s Big Show in New York. Retailers modernizing point-of-sale typically run into practical hurdles such as integrating new software with existing back-office systems, managing the cost and downtime of store-wide hardware refreshes, training associates on new workflows, and maintaining compatibility with legacy peripherals and payment requirements. Common approaches include piloting in a controlled environment, using an API-first integration layer to reduce coupling, phasing deployments store by store, and building repeatable training and support playbooks to smooth change management. When designing a custom enterprise point-of-sale system, teams commonly weigh scalability for peak traffic, integration needs across inventory, loyalty, and digital ordering, associate and customer user experience, compliance requirements, hardware and peripheral compatibility, resiliency and offline behavior, and operational observability for troubleshooting in the field. In parallel, some retailers lean on safety apps to support store operations, and they often overestimate what those tools can do on their own. A safety app automatically prevents incidents without changes to processes or training. Faster alerts always translate into faster resolution, regardless of staffing and escalation paths. Location sharing is precise everywhere inside stores, backrooms, and parking lots. Installing the app is sufficient even if employees are not routinely using it during shifts. Company Background and Clients The privately held, family-owned firm employs about 140 people and is led by chief executive officer Jared Smith, who acquired the business from his father, Larry Smith. According to Schwab, the team’s roots trace to two decades of point-of-sale work many leaders delivered for Walmart. Today, Walmart and Sam’s Club contribute roughly 20% of revenue. The diversified client list now includes: Leading grocers. Department stores. Major convenience store chains. Digital Commerce Platform and Ecosystem Retailers increasingly want ordering and checkout capabilities that work across store, kiosk, and mobile experiences, including orders that start on third-party platforms such as DoorDash and Uber Eats, said Justin Clark, a retail technology specialist at Kitestring. When evaluating the market today, you want a modern architecture that unifies ecommerce with the store-floor experience, he said. Clark added that the checkout landscape is more mix-and-match than before, as long as components share a common operating system—Android, Linux, or Windows. In practice, retailers also evaluate how systems behave during connectivity gaps, with offline operation typically relying on local transaction queuing and store-and-forward synchronization when service returns. For multi-region deployments, time zone handling is usually addressed by storing a consistent timestamp standard and translating times for receipts, reporting, and order promises based on each store’s local settings. Modern point-of-sale deployments can also change the customer experience in tangible ways, especially for legacy retailers that are replacing older lanes and workflows. Shorter lines through faster tender and streamlined on-screen flows. Smoother omnichannel journeys, such as buying online and returning in store with consistent order context. More tailored experiences when loyalty and offers are applied consistently across checkout touchpoints. Mobile checkout is another area many retailers test, with distinct impacts for shoppers and associates. Benefits for customers include: More convenience by completing purchases without returning to a fixed lane. More speed during peaks and promotions. Benefits for sales associates include: More mobility to assist customers where decisions are being made. More efficiency by combining selling, checkout, and simple service tasks on one device. As point-of-sale systems connect more tightly to digital commerce, retailers also account for security exposure across store devices and online services. Data breaches targeting customer and payment data. Malware on endpoints, including register and handheld devices. Payment fraud, including card testing and refund abuse. Credential theft and account takeover against employee or customer logins. Misconfigured services and exposed interfaces that attackers can probe. To improve both operational efficiency and security, retailers commonly standardize device management and patching, segment store networks, enforce strong authentication and least-privilege access, monitor logs for anomalies, and use tokenization or encryption to reduce the exposure of sensitive data during processing and storage. Altaine Demonstrations and Hardware Partners Altaine, a digital commerce platform provider, used the lab to show a prospective retailer how its software manages end-to-end order flow on real devices, said co-founder and chief operating officer Jo Gelb during a joint call with Schwab and Clark. Anyone can demo an emulator, but pairing it with the physical peripherals is far more persuasive, she said. Altaine’s ordering platform serves brands including Bp, Pizza Hut, and Subway. Gelb noted that when Altaine advances with a prospect, it leans on the lab for demonstrations because the team there becomes nearly as fluent in Altaine’s technology through hands-on integration. Diebold Nixdorf, a leading supplier of checkout and automated teller machine solutions headquartered in Ohio’s North Canton, has deployed its retail hardware and software in the lab. Retailers can see how their checkout and omnichannel solutions behave in realistic store scenarios and envision seamless journeys with personalized interactions, said Ed McCabe, Diebold Nixdorf’s head of retail sales for North America, in an emailed statement. Сообщение Walmart alum open POS test lab появились сначала на Payment Week.
Mastercard to Acquire BVNK in a $1.8 Billion Stablecoin Play The payments giant struck a […] Сообщение Mastercard to buy BVNK for $1.8B появились сначала на Payment Week.
Mastercard to Acquire BVNK in a $1.8 Billion Stablecoin Play The payments giant struck a deal to buy London-based BVNK, aiming to link on-chain transfers with traditional money rails and speed settlement across its network. Deal Snapshot: Terms of the BVNK Purchase Deal Component Details Purchase price and earnout Mastercard reached an agreement to buy BVNK of London for as much as $1.8 billion; $300 million of the consideration depends on future targets, the company said Tuesday in a press announcement. Core integration plan The network plans to leverage BVNK—already integrated with many leading blockchains—to connect stable-value tokens with fiat money. Chief Product Officer Jorn Lambert told analysts the technology could ultimately accelerate settlement even on card rails. Long-term platform thesis Lambert said most banks and fintechs are likely to introduce digital-currency services over time, and adding on-chain pathways to Mastercard’s platform would enhance speed and enable programmability across transactions. Strategy and Context: Connecting On-Chain Payments and Fiat Rails BVNK operates as a business-to-business provider, offering blockchain tooling to financial institutions and fintechs across 130 countries. The platform is blockchain-agnostic and uses stablecoins from issuers such as Circle and PayPal to move digital currencies for payment use cases. In practice, “stablecoin rails” refer to the payment and settlement pathways that move value using stablecoins on public or permissioned blockchains. Instead of passing exclusively through card, bank transfer, and correspondent-banking systems, funds can be transferred wallet-to-wallet on-chain and then converted to local currency at the on- and off-ramps, with compliance checks, reconciliation, and reporting handled around that flow. The market backdrop is increasingly competitive as card networks, banks, fintechs, stablecoin issuers, and crypto infrastructure firms all push into faster, always-on settlement. Large financial institutions are moving from experiments to production use cases—particularly cross-border payouts, treasury movements, and merchant settlement—while networks like Visa have also explored stablecoin use, including cross-border payment offerings and advisory services for clients entering the space. For global financial institutions, the strategic interest in crypto and Web3 infrastructure is often less about trading and more about modernizing money movement. Common objectives include reducing cross-border friction, enabling near-real-time settlement, adding programmable controls to payments, improving treasury visibility, and positioning for future central bank digital currency and tokenized-deposit models that could coexist with existing accounts. Against that backdrop, major players have pursued acquisitions and partnerships to build blockchain capabilities into regulated financial stacks. Mastercard, for example, has previously acquired blockchain analytics firm CipherTrace to strengthen monitoring and risk tooling, and stablecoin ecosystems have also advanced through issuer-and-platform partnerships that plug tokens into wallets, exchanges, and merchant checkout. The BVNK deal could affect the stablecoin market by signaling deeper mainstream distribution for stablecoin settlement in regulated channels, raising expectations on compliance and reliability, and pressuring competitors to match integrated “on-chain plus fiat” offerings. It may also accelerate product innovation around always-on settlement, programmable payment flows, and new checkout options that feel familiar to existing acquirers, processors, and merchants. Founded in 2021, the startup has raised $90 million. Its global footprint spans the United Kingdom, the United States, Europe, and Africa, with offices in San Francisco and New York to support expansion. The company’s stablecoin infrastructure underpins multiple applications focused on practical payment flows rather than speculation. Helping fintechs launch tokens. Enabling firms to pay international staff. Supporting crypto deposits for trading. Supporting crypto deposits for gaming. Although the crypto segment remains early-stage, it is growing quickly. Mastercard cited research estimating about $350 billion in payment volume last year, underscoring rising demand for digital currencies in commerce. Lambert noted that oversight of stablecoins differs widely by jurisdiction and continues to evolve. In the United States, stablecoin compliance can involve a patchwork of federal expectations alongside state-by-state licensing and money-transmission rules, creating uncertainty around who can issue, custody, and redeem at scale. In the European Union, frameworks such as Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) aim to standardize requirements for issuers and service providers, while the United Kingdom has been developing a regime that brings stablecoins into payments oversight and broader financial-services rules. Across regions, key challenges include consistent reserve and disclosure standards, clear redemption rights, custody and safeguarding expectations, and how stablecoin flows are monitored for sanctions and anti-money-laundering controls. Regulators are converging on common themes—reserves, redemption, and controls—but cross-border use still exposes gaps where compliance responsibilities shift between issuers, wallets, exchanges, and payment intermediaries. He said Mastercard’s familiarity with banking rules and its longstanding relationships with regulated institutions will help BVNK navigate compliance. Serving highly scrutinized, licensed banks is a core focus, Lambert emphasized, framing regulatory expertise as a differentiator for the combined business. While some view stablecoin payments as competition to card networks, Lambert positioned them as complementary. He highlighted material benefits to faster settlement, including on existing card rails, as the technology matures. Mastercard remains the No. 2 United States card network behind Visa, which has also explored stablecoin use, including cross-border payment offerings and advisory services for clients entering the space. From BVNK’s perspective, co-founder and CEO Jesse Hemson Struthers said the company expects to benefit from Mastercard’s relationships with financial institutions and experience working with regulators. BVNK reports processing roughly $30 billion in payments annually. BVNK will power token-based capabilities across Mastercard endpoints, enable 24/7 stablecoin settlement for processors and acquirers, and add a stablecoin checkout option to the gateway, while Mastercard contributes global fiat infrastructure such as push-to-card, account, and wallet. Struthers assured customers there will be no service disruption during the regulatory review period. The parties expect to close the transaction by the end of the year. Сообщение Mastercard to buy BVNK for $1.8B появились сначала на Payment Week.