Eighteen percent of corporates have now used stablecoins in production. That’s double the share EY-Parthenon found a year earlier, and it’s the clearest sign yet that the stablecoin question has moved past whether companies will try them.
The figure comes from EY-Parthenon’s 2026 Blockchain Payments Survey, which polled 521 decision-makers at corporations and financial institutions. Tokenized deposits aren’t far behind, with 15% of corporates reporting adoption.
A year ago, the argument was hypothetical: would regulatory clarity, plus gains in speed, cost and liquidity, be enough to pull businesses in? The new numbers suggest the market is moving from experiments to implementation. It isn’t mass adoption yet, and the survey doesn’t claim it is.
Banks more than doubled their commitments
The bigger jump came from financial institutions. In total, 69% now offer stablecoin services or plan to launch them within two years. In 2025, that number was 30%.
Tokenized deposits are getting similar attention. Among banks, 49% already offer them or plan to within the same two-year window.
Prashant Kher, partner at EY-Parthenon, said the data shows the market shifting from technology trials toward building these capabilities into existing payment workflows and treasury operations.
The pain point is cross-border payments
Nobody in this survey is buying stablecoins for the novelty. The most common use case is cross-border business payments. Across both stablecoins and tokenized deposits, 50% to 53% of all respondents have used or are exploring each one for cross-border supplier payments or for accepting cross-border business-to-business (B2B) payments.
Cross-border B2B flows lead for most respondents. Interest in payouts is concentrated among banks and payments firms.
The complaints driving that interest are familiar to anyone who has wired money overseas for a business. Slow processing and settlement was cited by 56% of corporates. Foreign exchange costs or spreads came in at 52%, regulatory, sanctions and compliance delays at 48% and correspondent banking fees at 36%.
Financial institutions see the same opening from the other side. Faster settlement and lower costs rank among the top reasons they’re interested in both stablecoins and tokenized deposits.
Banks are also looking past simple money movement. Among financial institution respondents, 63% picked tokenized asset settlement as the top opportunity to add value on top of blockchain payment rails. In other words, they want blockchain-based money to settle trades in other tokenized assets.
Most respondents plan to use both rails
The stablecoin vs. tokenized deposit argument may matter less than it looked. Among respondents interested in blockchain payments, 45% of corporates and 53% of financial institutions said they favor using both. Flexibility and an expectation that the two will coexist were the leading reasons.
The two do different jobs. Stablecoins reach across wallets, platforms and public blockchain networks. Tokenized deposits bring commercial bank money into programmable environments. Kher said organizations can pick between them by use case, counterparty, geography and liquidity needs.
For banks and payment providers, Kher said, the task is letting clients switch between traditional fiat and blockchain payments through integrated processes and one unified experience.
Your existing bank has the advantage
Corporates don’t want a separate crypto app. Integration with existing enterprise resource planning, treasury management and banking platforms was rated very important or critical by 76% of them. Another 74% want blockchain payments fully built into the banking and payment interfaces they already use. Only 14% want a separate experience for digital assets.
That gives incumbents an obvious head start: 63% of corporates would likely adopt blockchain payments if their current bank or payments provider offered them. Kher said that trust still has to be backed by credible economics, secure execution and regulatory readiness.
Programmable payments are the other revenue angle. Among financial institutions, 54% already offer them or plan to within two years, and 75% see them as at least a moderate revenue opportunity. Their top priorities are liquidity and cash management automation (51%), conditional payments (51%), automated reconciliation (49%) and cross-border automation (47%).
Kher said blockchain payment adoption may increasingly happen inside familiar banking and payment products. In his view, the institutions best positioned to lead are those that fold stablecoins, tokenized deposits and traditional rails into existing workflows and add programmable services on top.
Issuing a stablecoin is the easy part
Sam Boboev, founder of Fintech WrapUp, said payment providers today earn mostly from transaction fees, currency conversion and other financial services. A company-issued stablecoin could add revenue from the reserves backing tokens in circulation, subject to whatever regulatory framework applies.
He also pointed to a strategic upside. A payment company with its own stablecoin could link merchant settlements, cross-border payouts and customer balances on one infrastructure, which could cut its reliance on outside settlement providers and improve liquidity management.
But Boboev said distribution is the hard part. Launching a token is relatively simple compared with getting businesses to hold and use it, and he expects payment companies with established merchant networks to have the edge.
The banks are building their own
In Europe, Qivalis has brought together 37 financial institutions across 15 countries to develop a regulated euro stablecoin. Separately, a global consortium of 21 financial institutions, including Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo, announced plans in September 2026 to launch a U.S. dollar stablecoin in the first half of 2027. Euro issuance is also a priority for that group.
Boboev said these projects could let banks offer around-the-clock settlement while still managing customer funds. He sees the biggest opening in institutional payments and tokenized asset settlement, where banks already have customer relationships and payment infrastructure.
Competing with existing issuers will take enough liquidity and broad distribution, he said. The test is whether these consortiums can turn existing banking relationships into meaningful transaction volume.
Euro stablecoins have a narrower target
Dollar stablecoins dominate, and that’s a problem for European businesses that want blockchain payments but keep their transactions and treasury balances in euros. Boboev said using dollar stablecoins adds foreign exchange costs and currency exposure.
The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation gives euro stablecoin issuers a regulatory framework, and European banks are building infrastructure for euro-denominated settlement. Boboev said the strongest opportunities are in European B2B payments and corporate treasury.
He doesn’t expect euro coins to topple the dollar globally, though. Dollar liquidity and established distribution networks give current issuers a considerable advantage. The more realistic goal, Boboev said, is a strong euro stablecoin market serving European businesses and financial institutions, and that depends on liquidity and integration with existing banking systems.
