The head of crypto at Visa tells us why the payments giant isn't worried about stablecoins
But for traditional payments companies, the landmark legislation was being eyed as a threat. That's because the law would allow more issuers to mint their own stablecoins. In June, The Wall Street Journal reported that Amazon and Walmart were considering issuing stablecoins. Market experts say such a move could allow companies to bypass credit card transaction fees by having customers use their native stablecoins.
But Cuy Sheffield, the head of crypto at Visa, told Business Insider that the payments giant sees the rise of stablecoins as an opportunity.
Sheffield made it clear that Visa isn't worried about corporations adopting stablecoins, even if they offer consumers a new way to make payments that doesn't involve credit cards.
Opportunity in a new market
Sheffield said that he doesn't think stablecoins will dramatically impact how most consumers shop in the US.
"We don't really think stablecoins solve much of a problem for retail payments," he said, adding that he thinks the US payments infrastructure already works well for US consumers.
He also said that Visa's data shows that the majority of stablecoin volume is generated by "high-value transfers, not retail transactions."
Sheffield said that Visa has seen the potential of stablecoins to transform global payments for years. In 2021, he told Business Insider, "We support many different currencies on our network today. A stable coin isn't even a new currency, really. It's just another way to represent an existing currency."
Four years later, the company sees even more opportunity in the stablecoin market, as new policies help spur mainstream adoption. Sheffield said that Visa sees the opportunity mainly outside the US, specifically in emerging markets.
"We think the opportunity for stable coins is overwhelmingly outside the United States, emerging market focused economies where there's demand for dollars and not a lot of access," he stated.
Sheffield said that stablecoins may be enticing for people who need to make a lot of cross-border payments, which can be slow. He added that he sees Visa playing a key role in emerging markets in helping consumers become comfortable holding and using stablecoins.
"We're seeing activity in Latin America, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Argentina," he said, adding that Visa had also seen high activity in Kenya, Nigeria, and parts of the Asia-Pacific region. "We think that the most impact we'll have will be democratizing many emerging systems and providing dollars for places that weren't really prepared before."
In Sheffield's view, stablecoins could be the bridge that helps connect emerging markets with companies in developed economies, ultimately creating economic opportunity in both directions.
"You can serve consumers and markets that haven't really had many things that we've had in the US and in Europe," he said. " I think stablecoins will become this platform that many different companies will build on top of to offer modern, efficient products in emerging markets."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
New Zealand proposes ban on card payment surcharges by 2026
The New Zealand government has put forward a proposal to ban surcharges on most debit and credit card transactions in retail settings, with the aim of implementing this change by May 2026, reported Reuters. The proposal follows a decision made by New Zealand's Commerce Commission last year to reduce the fees that local businesses incur for processing Visa and Mastercard payments. This initiative is projected to save consumers around NZ$150m ($90.2m) each year. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was quoted by Reuters as saying: "We are scrapping surcharges at the till. New Zealanders are paying up to NZ$150m in surcharges every year. That's money that could be saved or spent elsewhere." He further noted, "You no longer will be penalised for your choice of payment method, whether that's tapping, swiping, or using your phone's digital wallet." However, the ban will not apply to online transactions or payments made with foreign-issued cards, as well as prepaid, travel, and gift cards, the report added. The Commerce Commission estimates that consumers currently incur approximately NZ$150m in surcharges annually, which includes up to NZ$65m in excessive charges. Commerce Minister Scott Simpson said: "Surcharges cover the fees businesses pay for accepting contactless payments and credit cards, but we know these are often excessive. In some cases, the retailer doesn't even make it clear what the percentage is." The government plans to present the bill to prohibit most card surcharges by the end of this year. Retailers in New Zealand typically charge around 0.7% for debit card transactions and up to 2% for credit card transactions, according to the Commerce Commission. In a similar context, Australia's central bank has recently proposed the removal of surcharges on most debit and credit card payments, indicating that the existing system no longer effectively encourages consumers to make more efficient payment choices. "New Zealand proposes ban on card payment surcharges by 2026 – report" was originally created and published by Electronic Payments International, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
New Zealand plans to scrap card payment surcharges
(Reuters) -The New Zealand government on Monday proposed to ban surcharges on most payments in stores made using debit and credit cards from May next year, a move which it said could save roughly NZ$150 million ($90.2 million) for Kiwi consumers. The plan follows the decision last year by New Zealand's Commerce Commission to lower fees that local businesses pay to accept Visa and Mastercard payments. "We are scrapping surcharges at the till. New Zealanders are paying up to NZ$150 million in surcharges every year. That's money that could be saved or spent elsewhere," Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said. "You no longer will be penalised for your choice of payment method, whether that's tapping, swiping, or using your phone's digital wallet," Luxon told reporters. Visa and Mastercard did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment. The proposed ban will not include online payments or transactions made using foreign-issued cards, prepaid, travel and gift cards. New Zealand's Commerce Commission estimates that consumers pay about NZ$150 million in surcharges annually, including up to NZ$65 million in excessive surcharges. "Surcharges cover the fees businesses pay for accepting contactless payments and credit cards, but we know these are often excessive. In some cases, the retailer doesn't even make it clear what the percentage is," Commerce Minister Scott Simpson said in a statement. The government plans to introduce the bill to ban most card surcharges by the end of this year. Shops in New Zealand typically charge consumers around 0.7% for debit card payments and up to 2% for credit card payments, according to New Zealand's Commerce Commission. Australia's central bank this month proposed to scrap surcharges on most debit and credit card payments for consumers, saying it no longer achieved the intended purpose of steering consumers to make more efficient payment choices. ($1 = 1.6633 New Zealand dollars) Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Business Insider
8 hours ago
- Business Insider
Torn between Amsterdam and the US for grad school, she made a pros and cons list to guide her decision. Take a look.
When Royanne Ng got into Columbia University last year, she should have been elated. Instead, the nearly $80,000 first-year tuition and fees — not including housing — made her stomach turn. The Singaporean student turned the Ivy League program down and chose one across the Atlantic instead for a fraction of the cost. At Columbia, she was offered a spot in the Film and Media Studies MA with a concentration in emergent media — a track that explores formats like virtual and augmented reality. The 28-year-old is now pursuing a one-year master's in cultural data and AI at the University of Amsterdam, a program that blends machine learning with theory and tech policy. Ng also applied to NYU but wasn't accepted, and she ultimately dropped her application to the University of Edinburgh in the UK. Her postgrad degree had to be "very strategic," she told Business Insider — a move to boost her job prospects and reposition her career in Singapore. "If I'm going to spend this much of my financial savings on a degree, it has to be really, really worth it," she said. The US once had a near-monopoly on elite higher education. But as tuition rises, safety concerns grow, and political rhetoric turns hostile toward international students, the calculation is shifting. Here's how Ng made her choice. Please help BI improve our Business, Tech, and Innovation coverage by sharing a bit about your role — it will help us tailor content that matters most to people like you. Continue By providing this information, you agree that Business Insider may use this data to improve your site experience and for targeted advertising. By continuing you agree that you accept the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . Prestige vs practicality Columbia's program offered big advantages: name recognition, accomplished alumni, and the implicit promise of career opportunities, Ng said. The brand name, she added, carried the common assumption that it gives students "a head start when it comes to job opportunities." But the costs were impossible to ignore. Columbia's program ran for two years and charged nearly $80,000 in tuition and fees just for its first-year students. In contrast, the University of Amsterdam's fees were about €17,000 for a one-year program. "The difference is just so stark," she said, especially when Columbia required a hefty deposit that felt like too much commitment. It wasn't just about money. She said many US courses were "more traditional" — rooted in legacy disciplines and slower to adapt. Europe had programs that were a lot more novel and flexible, often designed with interdisciplinary or future-facing themes, she added. Amsterdam's curriculum hit the mark. Ng said it aligned with her goal of transitioning from tech communications and a humanities background into a career that connects AI and policy — one she hopes to pursue in Singapore. Safety and geopolitical concerns Ng's family was also worried about her safety if she chose to study in New York — and so was she. For someone who had lived in Singapore her whole life — a country known for its low crime rates and political calm — she was concerned about gun violence, racial politics, and geopolitical uncertainty in the US. Still, she said the right school depends on the student's goals after graduation. Students hoping to stay and work in the US might prioritize a school's brand, alumni network, and credentials. But Ng plans to return to Singapore, so standing out in the local job market mattered more. Ng is set to finish her program in August. Here's her pros-and-cons list of US graduate schools: Ng had created a rough version at the end of 2023 while debating whether to choose the US for graduate school. When BI reached out to her in June, she pulled it together into a neat table: Pros Cons 1) Education quality Vibrant and mentally stimulating study environment, with motivated students and highly reputable professors. There's also an assumption that many top US schools have extremely good courses and teaching 1) Health and safety Worries among family members about safety of living in certain cities, with more risk due to geopolitical instability. Not sure if causing my loved ones to constantly worry would be a worthwhile trade-off for great education 2) Reputation and optics Excellent brand name, which would be helpful for future job securing and possible advancement 2) Financial costs Some schools I applied to cost about 5x more than graduate schools in Europe. Not sure if this cost difference can really be compensated by an equivalent degree of education quality. There were also a lot of miscellaneous fees involved just in applying to schools and securing spots when offered. 3) Solid alumni network Would be in connection with illustrious alumni network, which could also be helpful for career and job advancement 3) Local labour market incompatibility Given that I was looking at programmes within humanities and social sciences departments, I was also very conscious about whether certain courses would help me stand out or gain an edge in the Singapore job market. I had to consider the possibility that even excellent brand names might not be able to change the fact that many companies still look for science, tech and data roles. 4) Course material and programmes During my research of graduate schools, I observed that many US schools offered relatively traditional programmes, based on the write-up and descriptions of Masters courses. I did tend to see more exciting and novel courses offered in the UK and Europe, marketing interdisciplinary skills combining humanities/social sciences, data science or specific sector knowledge. I felt that this interdisciplinary angle was of particular interest as someone wanting to stay relevant in the job market, so this was a major consideration in choosing my graduate programme.
