Stablecoin Payments Show Up at Checkout Despite Crypto Markets Slump

But as Presidents Day promotions roll out across the U.S., crypto holders who still have some liquidity left in their digital wallets to spend may paradoxically find more retailers than ever ready to accept their tokens.

After all, maybe a 40% dip in bitcoin’s price isn’t such a big deal when paying for a grill that’s 60% off.

Except, in most cases today, it isn’t typical crypto tokens like bitcoin or Dogecoin that consumers are shopping with. Stablecoins are what are increasingly being positioned as the best-fit crypto payment mechanism. Rather than replacing cards, stablecoins are being absorbed into card infrastructure as a new settlement and funding source, allowing merchants to accept digital assets without ever holding them, as card networks and their partners do the heavy lifting in the background.

Monthly payment flows via such cards now exceed $1.5 billion, underscoring meaningful consumer usage, and overall crypto-linked card spending has reached roughly $18 billion annualized, signaling a potential migration from more speculative use cases to pure-play retail payments.

And while those numbers represent a modest amount when compared to global card spend, the mechanics of the emerging crypto-linked card marketplace show that incumbent networks are going on offense, not playing defense.

See also: Bitcoin to Zero? ‘Big Short’ Investor Flags Crypto’s Death Spiral Risk 

How The Checkout Counter Is Going On-Chain

The range of goods and services purchasable with cryptocurrency has expanded far beyond the early days of novelty transactions. Today, consumers can use digital assets to book travel, purchase consumer electronics, pay for cloud services, acquire luxury goods, and even settle recurring bills through intermediaries that convert crypto into local currency at the point of sale.

The most consequential shift, however, may not involve consumers consciously choosing to “pay with crypto” at all, but may come from stablecoin cards that allow users to hold value outside banks while spending within the card ecosystem.

The competition around these products is less about retail payments themselves and more about which institutions will control the monetary layer beneath them, as they, in effect, represent a structural decoupling of deposit capture from payment activity.

The competitive landscape here can be understood as a three-sided race:

1. Incumbent card networks like Visa and Mastercard are racing to “wrap” stablecoins inside their rails before disintermediation risk materializes.
2. Stablecoin issuers like Circle, Paxos and more are trying to become the monetary layer those networks must carry.
3. FinTechs, exchanges and wallets, meanwhile, are fighting for customer ownership and program issuance.

Because stablecoins track sovereign currencies, primarily the U.S. dollar, they can function as transactional balances rather than speculative holdings. That stability allows card issuers, FinTech platforms and exchanges to treat them as stored value accounts that fund conventional card transactions.

To the consumer and the merchant, the experience is indistinguishable from using a traditional debit card. Behind the scenes, however, the source of funds may sit in tokenized reserves rather than bank deposits.

See also: Why Banks Want to Issue Stablecoins 

Why Incumbents May Be Leaning In, Not Resisting

Merchants evaluating crypto acceptance today may also be making a decision less about ideology than about optionality.

The earliest large-scale use cases for stablecoin-linked cards are appearing in regions where cross-border payments, currency volatility or limited banking access create friction. In such environments, holding dollar-denominated digital value while spending locally offers tangible advantages. Faster settlement and reduced foreign exchange complexity can outweigh concerns about novelty.

Developed markets, by contrast, already enjoy efficient card systems, making card adoption dependent on other value-added capabilities.

Crucially, for the networks, stablecoins represent more of a new funding source rather than a potential competing acceptance layer. If tokenized dollars can be converted seamlessly at authorization, the network still earns fees, maintains routing authority and preserves its role as the intermediary trusted by both issuers and merchants. The infrastructure remains the same; only the asset entering it changes.

At the end of the day, stablecoin-linked cards may prove to be less of a disruption than a translation mechanism between two monetary systems. Whether they ultimately reshape banking, payments, or digital commerce will depend not on consumer behavior, which has barely changed, but on which institutions succeed in controlling the infrastructure that now connects them.