Onigiri Weekend Digest: Institutional Lens #43

🌐 Website | 💼 Linkedln | 📰 Past Editions

Happy weekend from Onigiri!

This week’s headlines capture two very different approaches to stablecoin competition. 

Recap on the two headliners this week:

SS #117 - Stablecoin FX Beats Interbank Rates 

shows that stablecoins are no longer merely competing on speed, availability or settlement hours. In several corridors, they are now delivering cross-border value at prices below traditional interbank benchmarks. Yet the data also reveals that the stablecoin itself is no longer the main determinant of cost. Provider selection, corridor liquidity and dynamic routing increasingly decide whether businesses capture or surrender the economic advantage. 

SS #118 - Velocity Raises $38M for Stablecoin Treasury

reflects the institutional response to that opportunity. Capital is moving toward infrastructure that integrates stablecoins into corporate treasury, banking, card and settlement workflows. The value proposition is shifting away from simply moving money faster and toward reducing prefunding, idle liquidity and operational fragmentation.

Together, the two stories suggest that stablecoin adoption is entering a new phase: the winning infrastructure will not merely provide access to stablecoins—it will continuously optimise how institutional capital is routed, funded and settled.

Enjoy the read!

You read and share. We listen and improve. Send us feedback at [email protected].

🍙 Onigiri Take

Stablecoin infrastructure is becoming more competitive at the base layer.

Issuance is expanding. Blockchain settlement costs are relatively transparent. Stablecoin liquidity is increasingly distributed across exchanges, market makers, payment providers and local conversion partners. As these components become commoditised, the greatest source of differentiation is moving upward into orchestration.

The Borderless.xyz data illustrates this transition clearly. Stablecoin cross-border payments reportedly priced below interbank FX rates throughout the second quarter, with the Parity Gap averaging negative 3.2 basis points and falling to negative 5.9 basis points in June. Delivering US$10,000 cost approximately US$27 and remained remarkably stable over five consecutive months.

However, those headline economics were not automatically available to every user.

Businesses that remained with a single provider rather than routing transactions to the best available price incurred an estimated US$2,330 of additional cost for every US$1 million transferred. On the Brazilian real corridor, the cheapest USDT provider changed 34 times over 88 days, and no provider maintained the leading position for even half the quarter.

This means institutional users cannot treat stablecoin liquidity as a static procurement decision. A provider that is competitive today may be materially less efficient tomorrow. Treasury infrastructure therefore needs to operate more like a smart order router than a conventional payment gateway.

Velocity’s US$38 million Series A reflects this opportunity. Its proposition is not simply that stablecoins settle faster. The more valuable claim is that stablecoin-enabled treasury infrastructure can reduce prefunding requirements and connect fragmented banking, card, processor and blockchain networks without forcing enterprises to replace their existing treasury systems.

That distinction matters.

For most large institutions, the cost of cross-border finance is not limited to the visible FX spread. It also includes trapped liquidity, correspondent banking balances, delayed reconciliation, fragmented account structures, counterparty exposure and the operational cost of maintaining multiple providers.

Stablecoins can reduce these costs—but only when supported by sufficient liquidity, compliant banking access, intelligent routing and dependable treasury controls.

The next phase of adoption will therefore be led by platforms that can answer four questions in real time:

1. Which asset should be used?

2. Which provider should execute the conversion?

3. Which rail should settle the transaction?

4. Where should liquidity be positioned before and after settlement?

The institutional stablecoin market is becoming less about choosing a coin and more about operating a programmable global treasury network.

🍙 Winners & Losers: Institutional Outlook

🍙 Under the Hood: The Routing Layer Becomes the New FX Desk

The most important lesson from this week’s data is that stablecoin payment economics are no longer determined primarily by blockchain fees.

The cost of delivering US$10,000 reportedly remained close to US$27 across the quarter. At that level, payment delivery itself is becoming increasingly standardised. What remains variable is the price at which liquidity can be sourced and converted across providers and local corridors.

This creates a new category of institutional cost: the Routing Tax.

The Routing Tax is the difference between the price an institution receives from its chosen provider and the best executable price available across the market. Unlike a conventional fee, it is often invisible. A corporate treasury may believe that its provider is competitive because the transaction settled successfully and the quoted spread appears reasonable. Yet across millions or billions of dollars of annual volume, small differences in routing performance can become material.

The Brazilian real corridor demonstrates why static provider relationships are insufficient. With the cheapest USDT provider changing 34 times in 88 days, no treasury team can reliably identify the best provider through periodic procurement reviews. Optimal execution requires continuous price discovery, automated allocation and real-time monitoring of settlement reliability.

This resembles the development of electronic trading markets. Once access to the underlying asset becomes widely available, value moves toward execution quality.

Stablecoin treasury providers will increasingly need to offer:

• Real-time quotes across multiple stablecoins and providers;

• Automatic selection based on total delivered cost rather than headline spread;

• Liquidity and counterparty limits;

• Corridor-specific failover arrangements;

• Pre- and post-trade compliance screening;

• Reconciliation across bank accounts, wallets and internal ledgers;

• Execution analytics measuring slippage and routing performance;

• Treasury forecasting to minimise idle balances and prefunding.

The contrast between Brazil and Africa also demonstrates that stablecoin efficiency is not universal.

Africa’s median spread reportedly widened by 166 basis points to 512.8 basis points, partly due to a Malawi corridor repricing by 5.8% in one day without a backup provider. This highlights the limits of the “global dollar rail” narrative. The blockchain may be global, but last-mile liquidity remains local.

Where several providers, banking partners and market makers compete, stablecoin pricing can rival or outperform traditional FX. Where a corridor depends on one provider or thin liquidity, the same infrastructure can reproduce—or amplify—the concentration risks of correspondent banking.

The persistent 99-basis-point discount of USDC to USDT in Peru, despite only a 0.4-basis-point difference at the network level, further reinforces this point. Stablecoin pricing is shaped by local demand, distribution relationships, inventory and off-ramp capacity—not only by the quality or reserve structure of the stablecoin.

Consequently, stablecoin selection will become increasingly corridor-specific. USDC may be preferred for institutional compliance and banking integrations in one market, while USDT may offer superior local liquidity in another. Other regulated or locally issued stablecoins may eventually become more efficient within domestic ecosystems.

The long-term winner may therefore not be one universal stablecoin. It may be the platform that can abstract asset selection entirely from the corporate user.

Velocity’s funding round fits into this structural shift.

Its strategy appears to position treasury management—not consumer payments—as the primary adoption wedge. This is logical because treasury departments experience the economic burden of fragmented liquidity most directly. A payment may take minutes or days, but the larger cost can come from the capital that must sit idle before the transaction is initiated.

Removing prefunding could materially improve corporate working-capital efficiency. However, this is operationally harder than simply enabling stablecoin transfers. A platform cannot eliminate prefunding merely through faster settlement. It requires confidence that liquidity will be available when needed, that counterparties will honour redemption and conversion obligations, and that local banking partners can complete the fiat leg reliably.

Velocity’s real test will therefore be whether its banking network and compliance capabilities can support dependable institutional execution at scale.

The company’s investor base—including Dragonfly, FirstMark, Capital One Ventures, QED Investors, Coinbase Ventures, Ripple and Wintermute Ventures—reflects the convergence of venture capital, banking, crypto liquidity and stablecoin infrastructure. Yet strategic backing alone does not establish a moat.

The defensible layer will be built through banking coverage, corridor liquidity, regulatory permissions, enterprise integrations, transaction data and operational reliability.

Connecting traditional rails with stablecoins is rapidly becoming table stakes. Consistently delivering the lowest total cost with institutional-grade controls is not.

🍙Stablecoin ≠ Crypto — It Is Becoming an Execution and Working-Capital Product

Stablecoins are often evaluated through the framework of crypto markets: issuance, market capitalisation, blockchain volume and exchange liquidity.

Those measures remain relevant, but they do not fully capture the institutional use case emerging from this week’s headlines.

For a corporate treasury, a stablecoin is not primarily an investment asset. It is a mechanism for managing timing, liquidity and settlement.

The corporate value proposition can be divided into three layers.

1. FX Execution

Stablecoins allow businesses to source and transfer dollar liquidity across a broader network of providers. When competition is sufficient and routing is optimised, the delivered price can outperform conventional interbank benchmarks.

However, stablecoins do not eliminate FX risk. They change where and how that risk is priced. The spread moves from bank-controlled correspondent networks into a distributed market of issuers, exchanges, market makers, payment platforms and local liquidity providers.

2. Settlement Efficiency

Traditional international transfers often require sequential messaging, reconciliation and correspondent account movements. Stablecoins can compress the settlement process by allowing value to move directly across blockchain networks.

This improves speed and transparency, but the advantage depends on the reliability of the fiat entry and exit points. A blockchain transfer completed in seconds provides limited benefit if local redemption takes days or lacks sufficient liquidity.

3. Working-Capital Optimisation

This may be the largest institutional opportunity.

Corporates frequently prefund accounts or maintain liquidity across multiple jurisdictions to ensure that payments can be completed on time. These balances create opportunity costs and complicate cash management.

A stablecoin treasury platform can potentially centralise liquidity, move capital on demand and reduce the need to hold idle balances across correspondent accounts.

In this framework, the stablecoin is not the product. It is one component within an execution system that includes liquidity management, banking connectivity, compliance, FX conversion and accounting.

This is why the next generation of stablecoin companies may resemble treasury-management software, FX execution platforms and transaction banks more than conventional crypto applications.

Their competitive metrics will also change.

The institutional adoption story is no longer simply that stablecoins are faster than banks. It is that stablecoin infrastructure can become a better operating system for global liquidity—provided that the routing and control layers are sufficiently mature.

🍙 Institutional Risks & Unknowns

1. Routing Savings May Be Difficult to Sustain: As more aggregators and treasury platforms enter the market, pricing advantages may narrow. Routing technology could become commoditised, shifting competitive differentiation toward banking access, enterprise distribution and balance-sheet capacity.

2. Reported Savings Depend on Executable Liquidity: A quoted price is not necessarily available at institutional size. Providers must demonstrate that favourable rates remain executable across larger transaction volumes without material slippage or settlement delays.

3. Frontier Corridors Remain Fragile: The Malawi repricing illustrates how quickly costs can rise when there is no backup provider. Stablecoin infrastructure does not automatically solve local liquidity scarcity, capital controls or limited banking competition.

4. Counterparty Risk Moves Rather Than Disappears: Reducing reliance on correspondent banks can introduce exposure to stablecoin issuers, exchanges, market makers, wallet providers, local off-ramps and treasury platforms. Institutions will need consolidated risk monitoring across the full transaction chain.

5. Prefunding May Be Reduced, Not Eliminated: Treasury platforms may still need to maintain liquidity buffers with banks, issuers or market makers. Investors and customers should distinguish between genuine capital efficiency and prefunding that has merely been transferred from the corporate to the infrastructure provider.

6. Compliance Could Become the Primary Bottleneck: Connecting stablecoin networks with traditional financial rails requires licensing, sanctions screening, transaction monitoring, travel-rule compliance, source-of-funds controls and jurisdiction-specific reporting. Compliance depth will determine which platforms can serve regulated institutions.

Onigiri Capital (onigiri.vc), a US$50 million blockchain-focused investment fund, launched by Saison Capital, the venture arm of Japan’s Credit Saison. Onigiri Capital is on a mission to chart the next chapter of finance and invest in seed and Series A blockchain startups in stablecoins, payments, RWAs, DeFi and financial infrastructure. The fund’s strategy emphasizes connecting startups to Asia’s growing digital asset markets.

If you'd like to discuss or contribute to the next Institutional Lens, contact us at [email protected]

Disclaimer: All the information presented in this publication and its affiliates is strictly for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or taken as financial, legal, investment, or any other form of advice.