Matthew Driver, Mastercard's executive vice president of services for Asia Pacific, has a caution for the stablecoin industry: the technology's speed can be undone by the conversions at either end of a payment. He made the point in an October 27 interview with CNBC.

The Warning Comes From the Company Selling the Bread

Driver's argument runs in three steps. Converting ordinary money into stablecoins can be slow, the blockchain transfer in the middle is fast, and turning the tokens back into local currency can add another delay.

“You don't want to have a 'stablecoin sandwich,'” Driver said.

He sees openings in selected remittance corridors and in currency pairs that trade less often, with more scope in corporate payments — including transfers triggered automatically by smart-contract conditions, such as paying a supplier once a delivery is confirmed. Where domestic payment systems already work well, he sees less for consumers to gain. Singapore, in his own region, is a case in point: its FAST system already moves Singapore dollars between participating banks almost instantly.

Driver is also describing a problem his employer is paying to solve. Mastercard agreed in March to buy stablecoin infrastructure company BVNK for up to $1.8 billion, as reported by The Block, and completed the deal in August. On October 15, the two companies launched the Global Money Platform, which holds fiat and stablecoin balances in a single account, converts between them, and links stablecoin balances to local bank payouts through Mastercard Move. Mastercard's own launch materials describe the same pain from the business side: managing separate accounts, providers and prefunded balances in every market. In other words, the bread in Driver's sandwich — the conversion at each end — is the product.

BVNK's Own Timetable Shows Where the Delays Sit

A payment can count as “done” at three different moments: when tokens reach a wallet, when a provider credits an account, and when local currency lands in a bank account the recipient can spend from. Only the last one pays a supplier or covers rent.

BVNK's payment-scheme documentation, updated on October 23, shows what that final step looks like on its rails. Every fast route on the list is a domestic rail in the US, the eurozone or the UK. BVNK lists local bank networks in Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Chile, the Philippines and South Korea as upcoming and not yet available. Outside its three live markets, the route in BVNK's table is SWIFT — the messaging network that underpins traditional cross-border bank transfers — paying out in dollars or euros.

Consider a payment sent on a Friday evening to a supplier in Singapore. The stablecoin leg finishes in seconds. If the exit runs over SWIFT, the payout waits for Monday's processing window, can take up to five business days from there, and arrives in dollars or euros that the supplier must still convert. The example sits in Singapore for a reason: it is the market Driver himself cited as one where domestic payments already work well, and it is not among the markets BVNK lists as live or upcoming, so the delay in the scenario falls entirely on the cross-border exit. It also bears directly on the corporate payments Driver flagged — transfers meant to fire the moment a delivery is confirmed: the smart contract speeds only the start of the payment, and if the exit rail is a multi-day SWIFT payout, the supplier still waits. Mastercard says local-currency payouts from stablecoin balances through Mastercard Move will expand to more than 40 currencies across 200-plus countries and territories in 2027. Until then, how fast the last step runs depends on which rail is actually live for the recipient's currency.

The Real Rival Is Money Already in Place

The competition is not only a three-day bank wire. A BIS working paper published October 19, by Wenxin Du, Catherine Huang and David Scharfstein, compares banks, fintech money-transfer operators and stablecoin routes. Fintech operators such as Wise and Remitly can pay recipients quickly from balances already sitting in the destination market, then settle their own cross-border positions separately.

They set a tough cost benchmark. In the authors' sample, bank wires carried foreign-exchange markups of roughly 2% to 4.7% before any wire fee, even in liquid currencies. Fintech transfers were far cheaper: for $10,000 sent from the US into developed-market currencies, median costs ran around $40 to $60, or about 0.4% to 0.6%.

The paper also measures Driver's sandwich. Stablecoin transfers still rely on exchanges and other intermediaries at each end, whose trading, conversion and withdrawal fees can substantially raise the total cost. Liquidity between dollar stablecoins and non-US currencies is generally very thin. Where stablecoins did offer better exchange rates into some emerging markets, the authors trace the advantage to capital controls rather than to the technology.

When There's No Sandwich at All

The conversions only matter if money starts and ends as local currency. A freelance developer in Manila who is paid in dollar stablecoins and keeps them as savings — or spends them with a stablecoin-linked card — skips both ends. Converting later, and only the amount needed, turns the sandwich into a single slice.

Holding the token instead means taking on the issuer: its reserves, its redemption terms, and whether the holder can redeem directly or only through an exchange. For a household paying rent in pesos, the case is weaker. For a contractor who already prices work in dollars, it can make sense.

The test Mastercard's platform has to pass is the one Driver set out. On a given corridor, compare the amount that reaches the recipient, the time until it can be spent, and whether the route works on a weekend, against the fintech already serving it. How many corridors pass will depend on which of BVNK's upcoming local rails go live, and how quickly.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Payment availability, fees and processing times vary by provider, route and jurisdiction.