Stablecoins are often framed as faster and cheaper.

But the more I think about it, the more it feels like we’re asking the wrong question.

In a recent conversation with John, CEO of Payoneer, one point stood out: if you send USDC and then pay ~8% to convert it back into fiat, is that actually cheaper, or did the cost just move somewhere else?

For traders, maybe that doesn’t matter.

For real businesses operating on tight margins, it matters a lot.

That’s where the conversation gets more interesting.

Because stablecoins are not just about transaction cost. They are about how money moves, how treasury is managed, and how global operations are structured.

If a company can hold funds globally, move them instantly, and manage liquidity across entities without friction, that’s not just a payments improvement. That’s a structural shift.

So maybe the real question isn’t:

Do stablecoins reduce costs?

It’s:

Where do they actually create value?

In speed? Yes.

In programmability? Definitely.

In treasury and capital efficiency? Potentially much bigger than we think.

But the last mile still matters.

Bank rails, regulation, and conversion points still define the real-world experience.

So for now, it feels like stablecoins are not eliminating cost.

They are redistributing it across the system.

And the winners will be the ones who redesign the system around that, not just plug stablecoins into the old one.

Curious how others see this:

Are stablecoins a cost innovation, or a system design shift?