Yellow Card teams up with Visa for stablecoin payments
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
One of Africa's premier exchanges, Yellow Card, has partnered with Visa (NASDAQ: V) to expand stablecoin payments across the region.
The partnership will center around cross-border transfers, which continue to be slow, inefficient, and expensive. According to the World Bank, Africans pay 8.5% in costs, with the global average at 6.6%.
'When you look at stablecoins, there's a lot of excitement in the market and all the major payment companies are exploring ways to get into the space,' Yellow Card CEO Chris Maurice told Bloomberg.
Yellow Card has been shifting its business model to focus on stablecoins for years. In January 2024, the exchange told CoinGeek that its African users were now turning to stablecoins to make payments abroad and receive remittances.
Under the new partnership, the exchange plans to launch its new stablecoin service in at least one African country this year, Maurice said. It intends to expand its services to more than 20 countries in which it operates next year.
While the company didn't reveal which country it would launch in first, Kenya is the most likely. According to the exchange's senior legal counsel, Edline Murungi, the East African nation's recent regulatory efforts have made it among the most appealing on the continent. The proposed Virtual Asset Service Providers Bill draws a distinction between speculative 'crypto' tokens and stable assets, laying out separate policies for each category. If it passes, the bill will be the most progressive in Africa, Murungi told Bloomberg in a separate interview.
'Those use cases are going to really change the industry. And if other countries follow suit, then Kenya is going to be a hub for a lot of digital-asset activities,' she stated.
In addition to the upcoming friendly laws, stablecoin adoption in Kenya is also among the highest in Africa. A report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in January revealed that a large number of Kenyan firms now pay their foreign suppliers in stablecoins owing to a dollar shortage and high costs on mainstream channels.
While most African countries still lack comprehensive 'crypto' regulations, CEO Maurice believes the region is still the best place to launch digital asset products due to its fintech-friendly frameworks.
'There's no better place to be [launching] a company in stablecoins than the African continent where you have more regulators that have licensing available, there's more engagement with regulators…[Africa's] had more friendly trends over the past two and a half years than you did in any other single continent in the world,' Maurice stated while speaking at a recent event in New York.
For Visa, the Yellow Card partnership is the latest in its quest to position itself as a stablecoin mainstay. It first settled a stablecoin transaction on its rails in 2023, and since then, it claims to have settled $225 million in similar transactions, a small fraction of the $28 trillion that flowed through stablecoins last year.
Visa's stablecoin ventures are as much about innovation as they are about protecting its position. Industry experts have expressed concerns that stablecoins could eat into the market share that the company and Mastercard (NASDAQ: MA) have enjoyed for decades.
Africa's digital wallets to record 13% CAGR, hit $59B by 2029
Away from stablecoins, a new report has revealed that Africa's prepaid card and digital wallet market will continue growing aggressively over the next four years to hit $59 billion by 2029.
The report revealed that over the past four years, the sector has recorded an 18.8% compound annual growth rate (CAGR), and is expected to end this year at $36.1 billion. Source: Research and Markets
Digital wallets and prepaid cards have benefited from a rise in the adoption of digital solutions and concerted efforts to promote financial inclusion. This has rapidly lowered the number of unbanked and underbanked people, with some countries like Kenya and Egypt achieving a financial inclusion rate exceeding 75%.
African countries continue to lead in mobile money banking. To capitalize on it, digital wallet providers have integrated their solutions into mobile money platforms, further fueling adoption.
'As the market evolves, companies that adapt to regulatory requirements, invest in security enhancements, and offer innovative solutions will be best positioned for long-term success,' the report noted.
Watch: Boosting financial inclusion in Africa with BSV blockchain
title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen="">
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
The global south needs more than tinkering at a conference: debt forgiveness is the only fair way
It is 2025, and the architecture of economic power remains grossly tilted against the nations of the global south. Nowhere is this imbalance more acute – and more enduring – than in the debilitating impact of sovereign debt. From the vast countries of Africa to the scattered but strategically vital small island developing states (Sids) of the Caribbean and the Pacific, debt has become a modern form of bondage – the chains that restrict growth, sovereignty and the basic human dignity of nations struggling to define their own path to development. The statistics tell an alarming story. By the start of 2024 developing countries' public debt reached approximately $29tn (£21.2tn), rising from 16% of global debt in 2010 to nearly 30%. This escalation was fuelled by a convergence of a global pandemic and rising costs internationally. Today, average borrowing costs in Africa are almost 10 times higher than for the US. Why? International credit rating agencies will point at risk in Africa but this is perception, and a myth, not reality. Africa has consistently been the least risky continent for returns on the dollar when compared worldwide. But nevertheless, the impact is profoundly immoral as global south countries face prioritising debt servicing over essentials. One-third of these fragile countries have to allocate more to servicing interest – as much as 14% of domestic revenue – than to healthcare, education or climate resilience. For decades, these countries have been trapped in a cycle of borrowing to survive and repaying to remain 'credible' in the eyes of the international financial order. But the terms of this credibility have always been set elsewhere – primarily in western capitals, behind the closed doors of international financial institutions. These institutions, under the guise of technical neutrality, have in fact driven economic ideologies that have crippled the same countries they claim to help. As a young economics student in the 1980s, it was made clear to me that the true path was Thatcherism and Reaganomics, elevated to near-religious orthodoxy, both rooted in neoliberalism. Developing countries were told to liberalise, privatise and deregulate. Structural adjustment programmes (SAPs), driven by IMF and World Bank conditionalities, imposed austerity measures that gutted public services and sacrificed the welfare of millions on the altar of fiscal discipline. Healthcare systems collapsed. Schools were closed. Public sector wages were frozen and trade unions deemed to be evil. And yet, we were told to believe this was 'development'. In truth, this was not development but dependency. During the 1980s and 1990s, in Jamaica, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago, these policies led not to prosperity but to deepening poverty, growing inequality and social unrest. In the Caribbean alone, SAPs contributed to lost decades of growth, political upheaval, and widespread disillusionment with the promise of independence. More than a few governments were ousted as a result of electoral backlash against IMF-imposed hardship. Foreign aid – so often touted as a benevolent solution – has played a double-edged role. Far from empowering states, it has often eroded their autonomy. Much of the aid has come with heavy strings attached: contracts that must go to western contractors; conditions that require the opening of markets before local industries are ready; and monitoring mechanisms that diminish sovereign decision-making. No wonder so many African leaders prefer the Chinese offers of lending. The result has been a facade of support, what the great activists Frantz Fanon or Kwame Ture, might have called a 'pitiful mimicry' of development – where countries are forced to pursue western-centric models of skyscrapers, luxury seafront resorts denying locals access to their beaches, and white elephant vanity projects destroying the environment, while their people continue to lack access to clean water, reliable electricity, or functioning hospitals. Development, at its core, should be about expanding the freedoms and capabilities of people. It should mean children can attend school without hunger. That mothers can give birth in safe conditions. That farmers can bring their goods to market on decent roads. That communities can trade, access clean water, and benefit from the natural resources of their lands without being poisoned by extraction. But the dominant model of development, dictated by external creditors and investors, has misconstrued these priorities. In its place, we see the proliferation of unsustainable debt-financed projects, many of which serve elite interests or foreign investors rather than local communities. Loans from the IMF and World Bank have frequently funded projects that do little to enhance long-term national resilience or productivity. And these loans, compounded by high interest rates and currency volatility, are serviced partially – through austerity and further borrowing – but rarely repaid. This is by design. Debt, in this system, is not a tool for development but a mechanism of control. Across the global south, the story is much the same. Multinational corporations, often operating with generous tax concessions and little oversight, engage in resource extraction that depletes environments and communities. They argue that their share of profits is justified by their investment in infrastructure and innovation. Yet these same companies contribute disproportionately to environmental degradation – through oil spills, deforestation, over-mining and pollution – without being fairly taxed or held accountable. One-sided trade agreements perpetuate this imbalance. The rules of global commerce, whether in mining, agriculture or tourism, are rigged in favour of the north. Risk assessments by international credit rating agencies, often influenced by outdated or racist perceptions, and opaque and biased criteria, further discourage equitable investment in the south. These assessments have more to do with where a country is located than with its actual economic potential or fiscal responsibility. Meanwhile, the brain drain continues. The brightest young minds of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific are drawn to wealthier countries in search of opportunity denied at home, leaving behind hollowed-out institutions and leadership vacuums. Local education systems produce excellence, only for it to be exported. The voices of our nations are also muted on the global stage. Despite holding the majority of the world's population, the global south holds a minority of voting power in institutions such as the UN. Decisions that affect our future are made without our meaningful participation but with token theatre. The UN holds its future of development financing conference in Seville, Spain, next week, it should be a moment for honest discussion on how the world can come together to support sustainable development, but already the US and the UK have blocked action on tackling the unfair burden of debt. When disasters strike – whether hurricanes, earthquakes, or the slow violence of the climate crisis – the burden of recovery falls overwhelmingly on us. The loss and damage fund, formally established at Cop27 in 2022 and only put into operation in 2024, has been long championed by vulnerable nations but still remains underfunded and under-prioritised. Yet for many Sids, the climate emergency is not a future threat – it is a catastrophe now. Shorelines are disappearing. Coral reefs are dying. Agriculture is failing. Lives are being lost. It is long past time for a reckoning. The economic architecture that dominates global development discourse has failed. It has failed the poor. It has failed the planet. And it has failed the very ideals of justice and solidarity upon which the post-second world war international system was supposedly built. We need more than tinkering at the margins. We need more than an extravagant conference in Seville can deliver. We need debt forgiveness – not as a charity, but as a historical rectification. We need concessional financing with reduced interest rates and transparent, fair assessments of investment risk. We need climate reparations through robust, predictable and progressive loss and damage funds. In times of force majeure, we need aid that empowers, not aid that entraps. Most of all, we need the freedom to define development on our own terms – rooted in equity, sustainability and sovereignty. Until these structural injustices are addressed, the global south may remain poor not because of a lack of potential or ambition, but because the rules of the game were never written for our success.
Reuters
9 hours ago
- Reuters
IMF disburses about $448 million to Tanzania under two arrangements
June 27 (Reuters) - The International Monetary Fund has approved an immediate disbursement of approximately $448.4 million (SDR 326.47 million) to Tanzania under the Extended Credit Facility and Resilience and Sustainability Facility arrangements, the IMF said on Friday.
Finextra
11 hours ago
- Finextra
UK tribunals rules Visa and Mastercard fees breach competition law
The UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal has ruled that Visa and Mastercard's multilateral interchange fees charged to retailers breach European competition law. 0 This content has been selected, created and edited by the Finextra editorial team based upon its relevance and interest to our community. The unanimous ruling on linked lawsuits brought by merchants, marks the latest stage in a years-long dispute over card fees retailers pay to the two US payments giants. David Scott, global managing partner, Scott+Scott, which represented the claimants, told Reuters the ruling was "a significant win for all merchants who have been paying excessive interchange fees to Visa and Mastercard". Both firm's intend to appeal. A Mastercard spokesperson told Reuters: "Mastercard strongly disagrees with today's decision, which is deeply flawed, and will seek permission to appeal."
