By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel is divided on the impact of Visa and Mastercard's stablecoin integration. While some see it as a defensive move to maintain market share, others argue that regulatory risks and execution challenges may erode their moats and margins.
Risk: Regulatory-mandated openness could erode Visa/Mastercard moats and collapse pricing power, as flagged by ChatGPT.
Opportunity: Visa and Mastercard's existing merchant relationships could facilitate stablecoin adoption, as argued by Gemini.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
During the first three months of 2026, Visa (NYSE: V) and Mastercard (NYSE: MA) combined to process a mind-boggling $7.1 trillion in total payment volume. And between them, there are 8.4 billion cards that are in use around the globe. These businesses dominate the payments landscape, making them critical to how commerce is done.
Having this formidable position doesn't mean they are resting on their laurels. In fact, these companies are leaning into innovation trends. And in the world of payments, stablecoins are the latest development, grabbing all the attention. After all, there is $303 billion in value in dollar-linked stablecoins, according to data from CoinGecko.
Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now, when you join Stock Advisor. See the stocks »
Instead of fighting this cryptocurrency, Visa and Mastercard reportedly want to run their own stablecoins. Here's what it means for investors in these financial stocks.
Stablecoins promise to let holders transfer value nearly instantly and at low fees, leveraging the advantages of blockchain technology. For merchants, this is a winning solution, as money that would otherwise go toward accepting expensive card payments can flow straight to the bottom line, boosting profits. If widely adopted, stablecoins can undermine the lucrative business models of Visa and Mastercard.
The previously mentioned market of $303 billion in dollar-linked stablecoins is dominated by two major players. Tether (61% of the market) and USDC (25%) have a virtual duopoly. With a figure this big that has ballooned in recent years, Visa and Mastercard aren't ignoring the potential threat.
CoinDesk reported on June 3 that the two credit card giants, along with payment platform Stripe, are in talks to launch a joint stablecoin platform. Popular crypto brokerage and exchange Coinbase might also participate. The monster growth of USDT and USDC might have prompted this move.
The companies involved aren't new to these waters. Stripe closed its acquisition of Bridge, a stablecoin infrastructure enterprise, in February 2025 for $1.1 billion. In March this year, Mastercard announced it was buying BVNK, another stablecoin infrastructure provider, for $1.8 billion. As of late April, Visa was operating a stablecoin settlement pilot program across nine blockchains.
With stablecoins, Visa and Mastercard have identified an area that might be able to take payment volume away from them. So, they aim to build something that enables them to capture and control a larger share of the market, which could support their revenue and profit growth.
USDT and USDC are used in various settings. This includes digital asset trading, remittances, or within decentralized finance protocols. These two dominate the stablecoin market. However, boosting adoption in everyday transactional settings is the challenging part.
Here's where Visa and Mastercard have the clear edge. It's impossible to overstate just how powerful their network effects are. These platforms are entrenched at the foundational layer of the broader payments landscape. They connect consumers, merchants, and financial institutions, a distribution advantage that stablecoins simply do not have.
The Genius Act, which was signed into law in July 2025, provides a clear regulatory framework for dollar-backed stablecoins. Visa and Mastercard now have the confidence to operate with more intention within this nascent area of financial services.
Therefore, it seems much easier for Visa and Mastercard to successfully launch their own stablecoin platforms than for USDT and USDC to increase their usage and adoption. The former businesses have the upper hand as established incumbents.
Convenience and security are provided by Visa and Mastercard. But perhaps nothing matters more to stakeholders than trust, an overlooked but essential aspect of payments. Do consumers, merchants, and banks trust stablecoins? Time will tell.
Shareholders in Visa and Mastercard should view their reported stablecoin projects as encouraging developments. These businesses aren't ignoring ongoing innovation. They are leaning in and trying to figure out how to play, a strategy they have deployed historically that has worked out well. For example, both companies have been leveraging artificial intelligence for decades to fight fraud.
These payment networks don't need to worry about cryptocurrency disruption just yet. But investors should still pay attention to any other stablecoin-related updates from Visa and Mastercard going forward, particularly as they relate to execution and adoption.
Before you buy stock in Visa, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Visa wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $415,040! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,256,076!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 920% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 207% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of June 19, 2026. *
Neil Patel has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Mastercard and Visa. The Motley Fool recommends Coinbase Global. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Any upside from a Visa/MA stablecoin venture depends on regulatory clarity and mass adoption, otherwise it risks being a low-impact, long-horizon initiative."
The article frames Visa and Mastercard as poised to win by owning stablecoin rails, but the bear case hinges on two big unknowns: regulatory clarity and the real-world adoption of stablecoins at mass scale. Even with Stripe and Coinbase rumored involvement, the path to meaningful revenue hinges on reserves, custody, compliance costs, and whether merchants embrace on-chain settlement over traditional rails. A settlement/rail play could lift balance-sheet efficiency more than card-network margins, and a long runway before measurable profits means the upside is optionality rather than an immediate boost. CBDCs and crypto volatility also threaten a crowded, slower-than-expected adoption curve.
Regulators could clamp down on stablecoins with stringent reserve/disclosure rules, making the cost of building and maintaining rails expensive and time-consuming. Even if allowed, the moat might erode quickly as CBDCs and other rails compete, leaving little near-term earnings upside for V/MA.
"Visa and Mastercard are trading potential long-term disruption for short-term control, but the transition risks cannibalizing their high-margin interchange fee structures."
This move is a classic defensive moat-widening strategy. By integrating stablecoin settlement, Visa and Mastercard are attempting to commoditize the underlying blockchain rails while maintaining their position as the trusted intermediary layer. If they successfully capture stablecoin volume, they effectively neutralize the 'disintermediation' threat posed by crypto-native payment protocols. However, the regulatory burden of 'running' a stablecoin—specifically regarding KYC/AML compliance and reserve management—is a massive operational pivot. Investors should watch the take-rate (fees earned per transaction); if stablecoin settlement is priced lower than traditional card rails to compete with crypto-native alternatives, we could see margin compression in their core processing segments even as volume grows.
The move could backfire by inviting intense regulatory scrutiny into their core business models, as the 'Genius Act' may eventually force them to open their proprietary networks to competitors, eroding their current oligopolistic pricing power.
"Visa and Mastercard launching a stablecoin doesn't create new economics for them unless they cannibalize their own high-margin card fees, which they won't do at scale."
The article frames this as Visa/Mastercard pivoting defensively, but the real story is messier. Yes, they have distribution advantages—8.4B cards, $7.1T Q1 volume. But the article conflates 'launching a stablecoin' with 'capturing stablecoin volume.' Two problems: (1) A Visa/MC stablecoin still settles through their existing rails, extracting no new economics unless they fundamentally change their fee structure—unlikely given shareholder pressure. (2) USDT/USDC's 86% dominance exists precisely because they're *neutral infrastructure*, not branded by payment oligopolists. Merchants and traders actively chose them over Visa-branded alternatives. The Genius Act (July 2025) provides regulatory clarity, but that benefits all players equally. Network effects cut both ways: entrenched incumbents move slowly, and crypto users actively resist centralized gatekeepers.
If Visa/MC successfully integrate stablecoins into their existing merchant acquiring infrastructure—offering merchants a lower-fee settlement option—they could capture meaningful volume that would otherwise go to Tether/USDC, protecting their moat and opening a new revenue stream.
"Network effects provide an edge but stablecoin entry risks eroding core interchange revenue if blockchain adoption accelerates beyond pilots."
Visa and Mastercard's reported stablecoin platform talks with Stripe and Coinbase represent a defensive hedge against the $303B market's growth, leveraging their 8.4B cards and $7.1T Q1 2026 volume. Yet the piece glosses over margin pressure if blockchain settlement displaces high-fee card rails, plus execution gaps in a space where USDT/USDC already dominate trading and DeFi. Acquisitions like Mastercard's $1.8B BVNK deal and Visa's nine-chain pilot signal intent, but converting network effects into transactional stablecoin volume faces adoption friction and potential fee compression not addressed.
Their entrenched distribution could let them capture stablecoin flows faster than crypto natives, neutralizing disruption and supporting revenue without cannibalizing cards.
"Regulatory openness mandated by the Genius Act could erode Visa/Mastercard moats faster than any volume-driven upside."
Gemini, your margin-contraction worry is real, but it understates a bigger risk: regulatory-mandated openness could erode Visa/Mastercard moats even as stablecoin rails grow. If the Genius Act pressures interoperability and reserve-disclosure, pricing power may collapse faster than new volume can compensate, forcing margins down across traditional processing and rails. The “neutralized disruption” thesis rests on hope, not durability—guard against assumed asymmetry in regulatory outcomes.
"Visa and Mastercard's primary advantage is their existing, ubiquitous integration at the point of sale, which overrides the merchant preference for neutral crypto-native rails."
Claude, you hit the critical friction point: merchant preference for neutral infrastructure. However, you ignore the 'on-ramp' reality. Merchants don't choose rails based on ideology; they choose based on settlement speed and cost-to-accept. If V/MA leverage their existing merchant acquiring relationships to bundle stablecoin settlement into standard POS terminals, they bypass the need for merchants to 'choose' crypto-native rails. The moat isn't the technology; it's the existing, deeply integrated hardware and software stack at the point of sale.
"Existing POS dominance is a moat only if V/MA can retrofit stablecoin settlement faster than crypto-native competitors can build it—a bet on legacy speed that history rarely rewards."
Gemini's POS-bundling argument is tactically sound but ignores a critical asymmetry: V/MA's existing merchant stack is *optimized for card rails*, not blockchain settlement. Retrofitting KYC/AML, custody, and on-chain finality into legacy acquiring infrastructure is a 18-24 month operational rewrite, not a checkbox feature. Meanwhile, crypto-native competitors (Stripe/Coinbase) move faster on greenfield infrastructure. Distribution advantage evaporates if execution lags adoption.
"V/MA compliance scale may shorten timelines but custody costs risk erasing margin benefits before volume materializes."
Claude's retrofit timeline underplays how Visa and Mastercard's global compliance teams already manage KYC/AML at card scale, potentially compressing the 18-24 month window once Genius Act rules land. The real gap is whether their legacy acquiring stack can absorb on-chain custody without ballooning operational spend that offsets any settlement-fee gains. Crypto natives still hold the speed edge on greenfield builds.
The panel is divided on the impact of Visa and Mastercard's stablecoin integration. While some see it as a defensive move to maintain market share, others argue that regulatory risks and execution challenges may erode their moats and margins.
Visa and Mastercard's existing merchant relationships could facilitate stablecoin adoption, as argued by Gemini.
Regulatory-mandated openness could erode Visa/Mastercard moats and collapse pricing power, as flagged by ChatGPT.