As headlines fixate on whether stablecoins will replace banks at the point of sale, a quieter shift is happening in the plumbing of global finance. Teresa Cameron, group CEO of Clear Junction, looks at stablecoins not as a consumer novelty but as a treasury and operations tool—one that can help fintechs and financial institutions move liquidity faster and more efficiently across borders.
From out‑of‑hours settlement and cross‑border liquidity management to hybrid rails that blend fiat infrastructure with on‑chain settlement, Cameron is focused on where stablecoins are solving pain points inside payment flows today, and how institutions can test these capabilities without ripping out their existing stacks.
CM: Most public conversations frame stablecoins as a rival to banks and card networks. From your vantage point, what does that narrative get wrong?
TC: It overlooks how payments actually work inside regulated institutions. Stablecoins are often framed as a replacement for banks or card networks, but in practice, they’re another tool not a substitute. The real opportunity lies in combining traditional banking rails with digital infrastructure to expand what financial institutions can offer, not replace it.
Stablecoins enable payments to move outside traditional banking hours, which is particularly useful for cross-border flows and time-sensitive settlement. But they’re not a one-size-fits-all solution. Different payment flows have different requirements.
The principle is straightforward: choose the rail that best fits the timing, counterparties, and controls of a specific transaction. It’s about optionality – making sure no single rail, issuer, or network becomes a point of dependency.
The real question isn’t “stablecoins or banks?”, it’s “which rail is right for this payment?”
CM: Where are you seeing the most tangible, real‑world use cases for stablecoins today, and why is cross‑border liquidity rising to the top?
TC: From a treasury perspective, stablecoins are already solving real problems, particularly around liquidity. Traditional payment rails operate within fixed hours, which means transactions outside those windows are delayed. To meet real-time customer expectations, remittance companies often need to hold liquidity across multiple locations so payments can appear instant on the front end. That creates a significant cost burden, with capital tied up in the system instead of being used to support growth.
Stablecoins remove that constraint by enabling 24/7 settlement. Funds can move at any time, reducing the need for pre-funded liquidity and giving treasury teams far more flexibility and control. That’s why cross-border liquidity is emerging as one of the most compelling use cases – it solves an immediate, operational challenge.
CM: Can you walk through a practical example of how a fintech or financial institution might use stablecoins to manage liquidity between two currencies or regions?
TC: It depends on the business, but remittance is a clear example. These companies operate globally and serve customers around the clock. Historically, they’ve relied on liquidity pools on both sides of a transaction to ensure payments appear instant, even though the actual movement of funds happens in the background. Stablecoins change that model. Value can move at any time, with settlement in minutes rather than hours or days.
They also introduce a level of transparency – transactions are traceable, with tokens linked to their issuer and underlying reserves. That makes flows not only faster, but easier to verify. In cross-border payments, where timing, access, and visibility are critical, that combination delivers a meaningful improvement.
CM: How are stablecoins being used alongside domestic instant payment systems, and what problems do they solve that real‑time rails still don’t
TC: Domestic payment systems work well in established markets. Where infrastructure is strong and counterparties are known, traditional bank-led rails remain highly effective.
But there are still gaps, especially when it comes to timing, reach, and consistency across borders. Stablecoins are proving useful in scenarios where payments need to happen outside banking hours, or where access to reliable banking infrastructure isn’t guaranteed. Because they operate continuously, they allow for real-time settlement at any time of day.
They’re particularly well suited to use cases like cross-border payouts, merchant settlement, and end-of-day adjustments – where timing and availability create operational friction. Importantly, they don’t replace existing systems. They complement them, filling in the gaps where traditional rails fall short.
CM: Many payment providers are building “hybrid rails” that combine traditional fiat infrastructure with stablecoin settlement. What does a hybrid architecture look like in practice?
TC: In practice, hybrid rails are about abstraction and simplicity. Behind the scenes, you’re integrating multiple systems (traditional banking infrastructure, digital asset networks, FX, compliance layers) all operating under different rules and requirements. But from the client’s perspective, it should feel like a single platform. One integration, one API, one consistent experience.
The complexity sits in how those rails are orchestrated – routing payments through the most efficient path depending on timing, geography, and use case, while ensuring everything remains compliant and controlled. That’s where a lot of the real work happens.
CM: From a risk and compliance standpoint, what comfort do institutions need around regulation, reserves, or counterparties before they scale these use cases?
TC: Regulation is essential, but it does introduce complexity, particularly when you’re combining fiat and digital systems that sit under different frameworks. That complexity increases further in cross-border payments, where you’re navigating multiple jurisdictions, regulators, and licensing requirements.
My advice is to start with a clear understanding of the regulatory landscape in every market you operate in, and across every rail you use. From there, you can begin mapping overlaps and contradictions; which is often where the real challenge lies. It can feel like you’re taking two steps forward and one step back at times, but that’s part of operating in an evolving space.
What’s crucial is ensuring that all flows are compliant, secure, and well-controlled. That means strong governance, clear segregation of flows, and robust documentation. And despite all of that complexity behind the scenes, the end-user experience must remain seamless.
CM: Looking three to five years out, where do you think stablecoins will be most embedded in mainstream payment infrastructure, and where will they remain more niche?
TC: We’ll see stablecoins become embedded first in areas where they solve clear operational problems – cross-border payments, treasury management, and liquidity optimisation. Those are use cases where the benefits are immediate and measurable. At the same time, broader adoption will depend on regulation and trust. As frameworks mature and more credible, well-backed stablecoins enter the market, we’ll see greater institutional confidence.
There are also wider forces shaping this, including geopolitical uncertainty, which is increasingly influencing how businesses think about risk, currency exposure, and infrastructure. That impact runs through everything, from strategy to day-to-day operations. Alongside this, technologies like AI will continue to evolve, but as a tool rather than a replacement. It can support areas like data processing and financial crime detection, but human oversight and decision-making remain vital.
Ultimately, stablecoins will become part of a broader, more flexible payments ecosystem – not the dominant rail, but a key component within it.
The post Where Stablecoins Actually Fit in Payments Infrastructure appeared first on Connect Money.
