Where do stablecoins pay off in your business?
Seven quick questions map the size of the prize against your ability to execute, then point you at the right next step. Depth adapts to the opportunity, not to jargon.
How this works
You are ready for stablecoins when two things are true at once: the flow is large enough to matter, and you can execute against it. Outrun's assessment scores Opportunity (monthly flow size, geographic footprint, and institution type against your sharpest friction point) against Readiness (a named owner, live infrastructure, and on-chain transaction monitoring).
Last updated . Stablecoin regulation (MiCA, the GENIUS Act) moves monthly; the regulatory notes in this assessment are reviewed on that cadence.
The two axes
Opportunity: is the prize big enough?
Scored 0 to 10 from three inputs:
- Flow size. How much money moves through the flows in question per month, banded under €1M, €1M to €10M, €10M to €100M, and €100M or more. The single most load-bearing input, weighted 1.5×.
- Geographic footprint. Single country, regional or a few corridors, multi-region, or moving money for others across borders. Weighted 0.8×.
- Institution type × primary friction point. A fit value of 0 to 2 for the specific pairing. A bank with trapped pre-funding scores differently from a bank whose customers cannot access on-chain balances.
An Opportunity score of 6.0 or more counts as high.
Readiness: can you execute?
Scored 0 to 8 from three inputs, measured rather than self-graded on familiarity:
- Ownership (0 to 3). From nobody owning it, through a working group and a team with an unclear mandate, to a named accountable owner with a P&L mandate.
- Infrastructure maturity (0 to 3). From nothing in place, through vendors selected and a pilot running, to live in production on some flows.
- Compliance monitoring (0 to 2). From traditional AML not adapted to on-chain, through designed but not live, to on-chain transaction monitoring live and integrated.
A Readiness score of 5 or more counts as capable.
The two axes cross into a 2×2 with four tiers.
The four tiers
- ScaleO ≥ 6 · R ≥ 5
- The prize is material and you can already execute. The work is centralised governance with decentralised execution, so the next use case reuses what this one built. Typically organisations already live in production on some flows, such as large banks and multi-product fintechs.
- BuildO ≥ 6 · R < 5
- Material opportunity, but ownership, infrastructure or monitoring is not yet in place. This is the most common position, and the honest answer is a 90-day roadmap with one accountable owner. Typically PSPs, platforms and neobanks with a pilot running and no clear mandate.
- TargetedO < 6 · R ≥ 5
- The execution capability exists, but this particular flow does not justify it. The same capability pointed at a larger corridor or a bigger book changes the economics. Typically crypto-native firms and capable single-country operators.
- ExploreO < 6 · R < 5
- Neither flow size nor execution capability supports a build yet. A workshop that creates internal alignment is worth more than a pilot that stalls in evaluation. Typically corporate treasuries at the working-group stage.
Institution types and their friction points
The pairing of what you are with where money movement hurts most is what drives the fit score and the use-case ranking. The friction points most relevant to each institution type:
| Institution type | Friction points most relevant | Usually less relevant |
|---|---|---|
| Bank / credit institution | Pre-funding & trapped liquidity; cross-border cost; inter-entity movement | Customer access to on-chain balances |
| Neobank / digital bank | Pre-funding & trapped liquidity; cross-border cost; market & rail coverage | None stands out |
| PSP / payment company / acquirer | Pre-funding; cross-border cost; payout latency; reconciliation; market & rail coverage | Customer access to on-chain balances |
| Marketplace / platform | Pre-funding; payout latency; reconciliation; market & rail coverage | Customer access to on-chain balances |
| Large fintech (multi-product) | Pre-funding; cross-border cost; payout latency; inter-entity movement; reconciliation; coverage | None stands out |
| Corporate treasury (non-financial) | Pre-funding; cross-border cost; inter-entity movement; reconciliation | Customer access to on-chain balances |
| Crypto-native / digital-asset firm | All seven, including customer access to on-chain balances | None stands out |
Each pairing then ranks five use cases: treasury & liquidity optimisation, cross-border B2B payments & settlement, merchant & platform settlement, embedded wallets & internal accounts, and cards & access layer. Cards is ranked down whenever Readiness is below 5, because it is an access layer that works once treasury, settlement and custody foundations exist.
Supporting evidence
Of organisations globally have already used stablecoins for payments or other operational use cases: 23% of financial institutions, against 8% of corporates.
EY-Parthenon Stablecoin Survey, September 2025 (n=350)Financial institutions are roughly three times as likely to be operationally live, which is a difference in execution capability rather than in the size of the prize. This is the practical case for scoring Opportunity and Readiness separately.
Of organisations that have adopted stablecoins report cost savings of 10% or more, primarily from cross-border payment efficiencies.
EY-Parthenon Stablecoin Survey, September 2025; n=22 corporate adopters (a small base, the subset of an already-small group of users), so read it as directionalMiCA is Regulation (EU) 2023/1114.
Outrun's view
“Every stalled stablecoin project I've seen has the same shape: real opportunity, no one accountable for it. Readiness comes down to three specific things you either have in place or you don't.”
JBJamie Brew, Partner, Outrun Advisory
Common questions
What is stablecoin readiness?
Stablecoin readiness is the ability to execute, measured separately from the size of the opportunity. This assessment scores it on three inputs. First, ownership: whether a named person owns stablecoins internally with a P&L mandate, or whether it sits with a working group that cannot commit budget. Second, infrastructure: how far you have moved from nothing in place, through vendor selection and a pilot, to live in production on real flows. Third, compliance: whether on-chain transaction monitoring is live and integrated, or whether you are running traditional AML that was never adapted to on-chain activity. Each input is scored, and 5 or more out of 8 counts as capable. Readiness here is not a measure of enthusiasm or familiarity. A team that has read widely about stablecoins and a team that has shipped them score very differently, which is the point. Low readiness against a large opportunity is the most common result this assessment returns.
What are the four outcome tiers?
The four tiers come from crossing two axes, opportunity and readiness, at fixed thresholds: opportunity of 6.0 or more out of 10 counts as high, readiness of 5 or more out of 8 counts as capable. Scale means the opportunity is material and you can already execute. The work there is standardising governance and treating the rails as shared infrastructure, so the next use case reuses what the first one built. Build means the prize is real but ownership, infrastructure or monitoring is missing. That is the most common result, and the answer is a 90-day roadmap with one accountable owner. Targeted means the capability exists but this particular flow does not justify it, so the same capability should be pointed at a larger corridor or a bigger book before anything new is built. Explore means neither flow size nor capability supports a build yet, and internal alignment is worth more than a pilot that stalls in evaluation.
Which businesses benefit most from stablecoins?
Organisations that move large volumes across borders and already carry the cost of pre-funding. In practice that is banks and credit institutions, neobanks, payment service providers and acquirers, marketplaces and platforms that pay out to sellers, large multi-product fintechs, corporate treasuries with many entities, and crypto-native firms such as exchanges, custodians and brokers. Benefit tracks the friction being solved rather than the institution type alone. The seven friction points this assessment scores are pre-funding and trapped liquidity, cross-border cost and multi-hop intermediaries, payout latency, inter-entity movement and ledger rigidity, customer access to on-chain balances, reconciliation breaks and manual exceptions, and missing banking or local rails in target markets. A single-country business with modest volumes and no pre-funding problem gains little, whatever its sector. A payment company pre-funding accounts in six markets gains a great deal.
Does using stablecoins require a licence?
It depends which of three things you are doing, and the three sit under different regimes. Using stablecoins for your own payments or treasury is generally not itself the provision of a regulated crypto-asset service, though AML/CFT obligations and transfer-of-funds rules (the Travel Rule) still apply to the flows. Issuer diligence matters too: under MiCA an e-money token must come from an authorised credit institution or electronic money institution. Servicing clients (custody, exchange, transfer, operating a trading venue) is a licensed activity in most developed regimes; in the EU that is CASP authorisation under MiCA, which covers the defined service headings and nothing beyond them. Issuing a stablecoin is a licensing programme measured in quarters. CASP authorisation does not permit issuance, which is a common and expensive misreading. Scoping which of the three you are doing is the first piece of work, before any build. This is not legal advice and Outrun is not a law firm.