Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Stablecoins are structurally disadvantaged in open-loop retail payments: faster settlement comes with weaker consumer protection, higher user burden, and fragmented acceptance.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 13:07 UTC pith:YCWAYS55

load-bearing objection Useful SoK with a genuinely organizing framework, but the 'structural disadvantage' verdict overreaches on the paper's own evidence of re-intermediation. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.00196 v1 pith:YCWAYS55 submitted 2026-01-01 q-fin.GN

SoK: Stablecoins in Retail Payments

Yuquan Li , Yuexin Xiang , Qin Wang , Tsz Hon Yuen , Andreas Deppeler , Jiangshan Yu This is my paper
classification q-fin.GN
keywords stablecoinsretail paymentscard networksinterchange feesconsumer protectionpayment architectureCLEAR frameworksettlement finality
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper asks whether blockchain-based stablecoin settlement can substitute for card networks in everyday retail payments. It builds the CLEAR framework—Cost, Legality, Experience, Architecture, Reach—to compare both systems on a unified set of requirements. Its central finding is an inversion of the pricing and risk-allocation structure: stablecoins compress rail-level fees and enable 24/7 programmable settlement, but they strip away the interchange-financed subsidies, standardized liability rules, and chargeback recourse that make cards mass-market instruments. As a result, stablecoins exhibit a conditional advantage in closed-loop environments, cross-border corridors, and high-friction contexts, yet remain structurally disadvantaged at the open-loop point of sale. If correct, the paper implies stablecoins will complement rather than replace card networks in general-purpose retail, with convergence requiring re-intermediation, fee abstraction, and shared standards.

Core claim

Stablecoin payment arrangements externalize transaction fees, error prevention, and dispute resolution to users, intermediaries, and courts, inverting the pricing and risk-allocation structure that lets card networks subsidize the payer side through interchange. While stablecoin settlement is faster, cheaper at the rail level, continuous, and programmable, it lacks the mass-market safety wrapper: no statutory consumer recourse, no native chargebacks, fragmented acceptance across heterogeneous ledgers, and a heavier cognitive and operational burden at the point of interaction. The CLEAR framework's comparative assessment therefore finds stablecoins advantaged in closed-loop environments, cros

What carries the argument

The CLEAR framework (Cost, Legality, Experience, Architecture, Reach) is the paper's central analytical instrument, used to compare both systems on a unified set of retail-payment requirements. Its analytical motor is the inversion-of-pricing-structure argument: drawing on two-sided market theory, the paper casts interchange fees as the mechanism that lets card networks subsidize consumers and thereby solve the two-sided adoption problem, and observes that stablecoin rails remove interchange without replacing that subsidy, shifting costs to consumers via gas fees, wallet management, and off-ramping. A second load-bearing device is the alignment of the two five-phase transaction lifecycles, w

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on the premise that interchange-financed consumer-side subsidies are necessary for mass-market retail payment adoption; if stablecoin adoption could scale without such payer-side subsidies, or if new intermediary layers could internalize frictions without an interchange-like transfer, the structural-disadvantage verdict would weaken considerably.

What would settle it

Observe whether any stablecoin payment arrangement gains significant open-loop retail market share in a mature payment market without fee abstraction or an interchange-like cross-subsidy; alternatively, measure at representative merchants whether the all-in cost of accepting stablecoins (rail fees plus crypto-fiat conversion, reconciliation, and self-insurance against fraud and error) falls below the all-in cost of cards in open-loop settings. Either outcome at scale would falsify the paper's central verdict.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Stablecoins will not displace card networks in general-purpose open-loop retail; policy and design efforts should target complementarity rather than substitution.
  • Retail parity requires selective re-intermediation: fee abstraction (e.g., account-abstraction paymasters), governed intervention mechanisms, and shared interoperability standards analogous to ISO 8583 and EMV.
  • Stablecoin advantages concentrate in closed loops, cross-border remittance and B2B corridors, and high-inflation or weakly banked economies; issuer-centric regulation leaves transfer-risk gaps.
  • The legality gap is structural: on-chain technical finality is not legal finality, and without scheme-level dispute resolution, consumers and merchants bear error and fraud risk.
  • CBDCs, not stablecoins, are positioned as large-scale retail settlement anchors supplying legal finality and uniform consumer protection, with stablecoins providing higher-layer programmability and composability.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the interchange-subsidy premise holds, a stablecoin ecosystem seeking open-loop mass adoption must invent a revenue source that funds payer-side subsidization or demonstrably scale without it; hiding gas fees via paymasters only changes who pays, not the absence of the subsidy mechanism.
  • The framework suggests a testable total-cost-of-ownership comparison at a representative merchant: rail fees plus conversion, reconciliation, and self-insurance against fraud and user error would show whether the stablecoin cost advantage survives outside closed loops.
  • Applying CLEAR to markets where the incumbent baseline is a real-time payment system (PIX, FedNow, SEPA Instant) rather than a card network would test whether the structural-disadvantage verdict is specific to the card model or generalizes across retail rails.
  • Excluding algorithmic stablecoins leaves open the question of whether programmability without reserve custody could alter the legality and experience trade-offs; extending the framework to that class is a natural next step.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This SoK compares stablecoin-based payment arrangements with incumbent open-loop card networks (Visa, Mastercard, etc.) using a unified analytical framework. The authors first map the two systems' participants and transaction lifecycles, then introduce a five-dimensional CLEAR framework (Cost, Legality, Experience, Architecture, Reach) to synthesize scattered academic, regulatory, and industry evidence. They argue that stablecoins offer efficient, continuous, and programmable settlement but 'externalize' transaction fees, error prevention, and dispute resolution to users, intermediaries, and courts, resulting in weaker consumer protection, higher cognitive burden, and fragmented acceptance. Their central verdict is that stablecoins have a conditional comparative advantage in closed-loop environments, cross-border corridors, and high-friction settings, but remain 'structurally disadvantaged' as open-loop retail payment instruments. The paper explicitly says that selective re-intermediation and shared standards could close some of the gap, and it concludes that absent such convergence, stablecoins are more likely to complement than replace card networks.

Significance. If the paper's central comparative claim is accepted, it substantially reframes the stablecoin-vs-card debate: lower settlement cost and 24/7 finality do not by themselves make stablecoins a viable general-purpose retail rail because the mass-market card model relies on payer-side subsidies, standardized recourse, and coordinated governance. The paper's strengths are its explicit lifecycle mapping (Table I, Figs. 3 and 5), the CLEAR framework as an organizing device, and a genuinely interdisciplinary synthesis of payments economics, security, law, and user-behavior evidence. It does not offer formal proofs or parameter-free derivations, but as a SoK the contribution is the systematic comparison and the clearly stated conditional conclusion. The main weakness, discussed below, is that the 'structural' language in the abstract and level findings is not consistently supported by the paper's own account of re-intermediation pathways.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §II-C; §IV-B; §V] The central claim that stablecoin arrangements 'externalize transaction fees, error prevention, and dispute resolution' and therefore 'remain structurally disadvantaged' (Abstract) is in tension with the paper's own account of re-intermediation. §II-C defines intermediaries as first-class participants and notes that custodial wallets perform compliance checks and internal ledgering; §IV-B (Pathways to Partial Convergence) describes ERC-4337 paymasters absorbing gas fees, Worldpay/Nuvei absorbing costs, PayPal PYUSD retaining fraud controls, Visa layering compliance screening, and MiCA freeze mechanisms. If these measures can abstract frictions at the point of interaction and provide recourse, then externalization is a contingent design feature of unmediated arrangements, not a property of the settlement layer. The Conclusion partially acknowledges this by saying 'absent such convergence,
  2. [§III-A; §IV-B] The cost analysis treats the interchange-financed payer-side subsidy modeled by Rochet and Tirole [120] as the mechanism required for mass-market retail adoption. This is an economic assumption, not a derived result. The paper does not show why alternatives—flat-fee merchant processing, wallet-level loyalty funded by issuer treasuries, surcharging, or account abstraction paymasters—cannot recreate the coordination equilibrium. Indeed, §IV-B itself says paymasters and PSPs can internalize costs and that this 'mirrors card economics.' If a stablecoin arrangement is operated by a large PSP able to subsidize the payer through treasury transfers, the claimed 'inversion' disappears. The Cost Level Finding should be rephrased as a current-state comparison or justified with a model showing why the alternatives are insufficient.
  3. [§IV-A; §I; refs [189], [10]] Key quantitative figures supporting the 'niche use' narrative come from non-peer-reviewed industry sources with unclear methodology. The '5–10% of stablecoin transaction volume… ~$1.3 trillion' real-economy figure is attributed to a BCG white paper [189], and the '$8.9 trillion' half-year on-chain settlement volume in the Introduction comes from a vendor blog [10]. These numbers depend on contested definitions of 'real economy' activity and are not independently audited. For a systematization of knowledge, the manuscript should either validate these against multiple independent sources or flag them explicitly as vendor estimates; presenting them as uncontroversial evidence in the introduction and discussion overstates confidence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table I] The 'Authorization/Validation' row aligns card authorization with stablecoin validation, but card authorization is an economic and contractual decision by the issuer, while stablecoin validation is only technical admissibility. The text makes this distinction, but the table heading obscures it and may mislead readers comparing the columns.
  2. [§III-E] The opening of the Reach section contains a sentence that appears to be left over from the Architecture section: 'These architectural differences manifest along two closely related dimensions: network topology and operational resilience, and the underlying security model...' This duplicates the structure of §III-D and should be rewritten.
  3. [§II-B / §II-C] The 'Intermediary' category in the stablecoin model is underspecified. It lumps exchanges, custodial wallets, payment processors, and fiat on/off-ramps into a single role, but these have very different liability, compliance, and recourse properties. Given the centrality of intermediaries to the externalization claim, a finer taxonomy would strengthen the analysis.
  4. [§I] The exclusion of algorithmic stablecoins is one sentence. A short justification for why this does not bias the comparison (beyond the UST collapse) would improve the paper, since algorithmic designs are part of the stablecoin design space in prior SoKs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper is a qualitative SoK synthesis whose central comparison rests on independently cited evidence, not on fitted parameters or author-unique definitions.

full rationale

This is a Systematization of Knowledge (SoK) paper, not a derivation with equations or fitted parameters. The CLEAR framework (Cost, Legality, Experience, Architecture, Reach) is presented as an organizing lens, and the paper's conclusions are drawn from a broad set of external sources: card scheme rulebooks (e.g., Visa Core Rules), regulatory texts (PSD2, MiCA, GENIUS Act), empirical surveys (e.g., Polasik et al., Sangari and Mashatan), and economic theory (Rochet and Tirole). The central claim that stablecoin arrangements externalize fees, error prevention, and dispute resolution is supported by describing the stablecoin transaction lifecycle and comparing it to the card lifecycle; it is not obtained by defining the outcome into the categories. The few self-citations by the present authors (e.g., [11] for Web3 framing, [97] for USDC/USDT, [145] for a Bitcoin address dataset, [158] for user security perceptions, [179] for smart-contract vulnerabilities) support peripheral, independently checkable points and are not load-bearing for the main comparison. Section IV-B even acknowledges existing re-intermediation mechanisms (ERC-4337 paymasters, Worldpay/Nuvei, PayPal PYUSD), so the 'structural disadvantage' verdict is an interpretive judgment over current arrangements, not a tautological consequence. The paper also advertises its own evidentiary limits, such as the lack of audited cross-rail performance statistics; that is a data-quality concern, not circularity. No step reduces, by construction or self-citation, to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's argument is non-mathematical and rests on domain theories (two-sided markets, technology acceptance), regulatory interpretations, and third-party market data. No free parameters are fitted and no new physical entities are introduced. The most load-bearing axiom is the interchange-subsidy premise: it converts a contingent feature of card economics into the benchmark that stablecoins must replicate.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Two-sided market theory as developed by Rochet and Tirole applies to both card and stablecoin systems, and interchange-financed consumer-side subsidies are the reference mechanism for solving adoption coordination.
    Used in Section III-A to frame cost allocation as an 'inversion'; if this theory does not transfer to stablecoin arrangements, the structural-disadvantage conclusion weakens.
  • domain assumption The consumer-protection package of card schemes (chargebacks, statutory liability caps, PSD2/Reg E) is the appropriate benchmark for evaluating retail payment legality.
    Section III-B evaluates stablecoin legality against this card benchmark; if transaction-level reversibility is not necessary for a sound retail payment system, the legality gap shrinks.
  • domain assumption Technology acceptance models (TAM/UTAUT) and their trust/perceived-security constructs explain payment-method adoption.
    Section III-C relies on TAM/UTAUT literature to argue consumer resistance is structural and perceptual; the predictive validity of these models is assumed.
  • domain assumption Blockchain consensus provides technical finality that is distinct from, and not equivalent to, legal settlement finality.
    Section III-B2 separates probabilistic/economic finality from legal finality under the Settlement Finality Directive; this distinction underlies the legality finding.
  • domain assumption The scope restriction to asset-backed stablecoins is sufficient to make claims about 'stablecoins' in retail payments.
    Section I explicitly excludes algorithmic stablecoins; the conclusion therefore does not cover the full design space of stablecoins.
  • domain assumption Third-party market statistics (DefiLlama, Rise, Chainalysis, BCG) are sufficiently accurate for the quantitative claims.
    Market cap, settlement volume, and real-economy activity estimates in Sections I and IV are taken from vendor/inudstry sources without independent verification.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 30384 in / 13788 out tokens · 141139 ms · 2026-08-03T13:07:08.427277+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Stablecoins have emerged as a rapidly growing digital payment instrument, raising the question of whether blockchain-based settlement can function as a substitute for incumbent card networks in retail payments. This Systematization of Knowledge (SoK) provides a systematic comparison between stablecoin payment arrangements and card networks by situating both within a unified analytical framework. We first map their respective payment infrastructures, participant roles, and transaction lifecycles, highlighting fundamental differences in how authorization, settlement, and recourse are organized. Building on this mapping, we introduce the CLEAR framework, which evaluates retail payment systems across five dimensions: cost, legality, experience, architecture, and reach. Our analysis shows that stablecoins deliver efficient, continuous, and programmable settlement, often compressing rail-level merchant fees and enabling 24/7 value transfer. However, these advantages are accompanied by an inversion of the traditional pricing and risk-allocation structure. Card networks internalize consumer-side frictions through subsidies, standardized liability rules, and post-transaction recourse, thereby supporting mass-market adoption. Stablecoin arrangements, by contrast, externalize transaction fees, error prevention, and dispute resolution to users, intermediaries, and courts, resulting in weaker consumer protection, higher cognitive burden at the point of interaction, and fragmented acceptance. Accordingly, stablecoins exhibit a conditional comparative advantage in closed-loop environments, cross-border corridors, and high-friction payment contexts, but remain structurally disadvantaged as open-loop retail payment instruments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.00196 by Andreas Deppeler, Jiangshan Yu, Qin Wang, Tsz Hon Yuen, Yuexin Xiang, Yuquan Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Global stablecoin market capitalization with major depeg, regulatory, and infrastructure events highlighted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Card network model Transaction Lifecycle. The card network lifecycle can be decomposed into five sequential phases as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Lifecycle of card network model onds [76], [77]. An approved authorization results in a temporary hold on the cardholder’s account, creating a conditional payment obligation under scheme rules [76]. At this stage, no interbank transfer of liquidity occurs; authorization is informational and contractual in nature, distinct from clearing and settlement, which occur sub￾sequently [27], [52]. 3) Clearing. Clea… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stablecoin model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Lifecycle of stablecoin model D. Structural Comparison of Card and Stablecoin Systems This section compares card networks and stablecoin pay￾ment systems at the model and lifecycle levels, clarifying how payment functions are organized and executed across participants. Model Level Comparison. At the model level, card networks and stablecoin systems differ fundamentally in how coor￾dination, authority, and … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. SoK: Blockchain Agent-to-Agent Payments

    q-fin.GN 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    The first systematization of blockchain-based agent-to-agent payments organizes designs into discovery, authorization, execution, and accounting stages while identifying trust and security gaps.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

211 extracted references · 9 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The role of central bank money in payment systems,

    Bank for International Settlements, “The role of central bank money in payment systems,” Tech. Rep., 2003. [Online]. Available: https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d55.pdf

    2003

  2. [2]

    Hasan, T

    I. Hasan, T. De Renzis, and H. Schmiedel,Retail payments and economic growth. Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers, 2012, no. 19/2012

    2012

  3. [3]

    The payment system: Payments, securities and derivatives, and the role of the eurosystem,

    European Central Bank, “The payment system: Payments, securities and derivatives, and the role of the eurosystem,” 2010, accessed: Oct. 10, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/ pdf/other/paymentsystem201009en.pdf

    2010

  4. [4]

    Retail payments and the real economy,

    I. Hasan, T. De Renzis, and H. Schmiedel, “Retail payments and the real economy,” 2013

    2013

  5. [5]

    Global development trends in payment card industry,

    A. Lagator, “Global development trends in payment card industry,” National Bank of Serbia, Tech. Rep., 2021

    2021

  6. [6]

    Fast payments - enhancing the speed and availability of retail payments,

    Bank for International Settlements, “Fast payments - enhancing the speed and availability of retail payments,” 2016, accessed: Oct. 10,

    2016

  7. [7]

    Report on a digital euro,

    European Central Bank, “Report on a digital euro,” 2020, accessed: Oct. 10, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/ pdf/other/Report on a digital euro∼4d7268b458.en.pdf

    2020

  8. [8]

    The impact of the revised payment services directive on the market for payment initiation services

    U. B. L. Yawe and U. I. Mukisa, “The impact of the revised payment services directive on the market for payment initiation services.” Journal of Payments Strategy & Systems, vol. 14, no. 1, 2020

    2020

  9. [9]

    Total stablecoin market capitalization,

    DefiLlama, “Total stablecoin market capitalization,” 2025, accessed: Nov. 23, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://defillama.com/stablecoins

    2025

  10. [10]

    25 stablecoin statistics from 2025 (so far),

    Rise, “25 stablecoin statistics from 2025 (so far),” 2025, accessed: Nov. 19, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.riseworks.io/blog/ stablecoin-statistics-from-2025

    2025

  11. [11]

    Exploring web3 from the view of blockchain,

    Q. Wang, R. Li, Q. Wang, S. Chen, M. Ryan, and T. Hard- jono, “Exploring web3 from the view of blockchain,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.08821, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Okx pay singapore: Scan-to-pay with stablecoins at grabpay merchants,

    OKX, “Okx pay singapore: Scan-to-pay with stablecoins at grabpay merchants,” accessed: Nov. 27, 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //www.okx.com/en-au/learn/okx-pay-singapore

    2025

  13. [13]

    Okx singapore launches stablecoin payments at grabpay merchants,

    The Business Times (Singapore), “Okx singapore launches stablecoin payments at grabpay merchants,” accessed: Nov. 27, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/wealth/crypto-alternative-assets/ okx-singapore-launches-stablecoin-payments-grabpay-merchants

    2025

  14. [14]

    Xsgd launches on coinbase,

    Channel NewsAsia, “Xsgd launches on coinbase,” accessed: Oct. 10,

  15. [15]

    Enabling cross-chain transactions: A decentralized cryptocurrency exchange protocol,

    H. Tian, K. Xue, X. Luo, S. Li, J. Xu, J. Liu, J. Zhao, and D. S. Wei, “Enabling cross-chain transactions: A decentralized cryptocurrency exchange protocol,”IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 16, pp. 3928–3941, 2021

    2021

  16. [16]

    Available: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/business/ stablecoin-xsgd-singapore-launch-coinbase-crypto-okx-pay-5379656

    [Online]. Available: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/business/ stablecoin-xsgd-singapore-launch-coinbase-crypto-okx-pay-5379656

  17. [17]

    Sok: Decentralized finance (defi),

    S. Werner, D. Perez, L. Gudgeon, A. Klages-Mundt, D. Harz, and W. Knottenbelt, “Sok: Decentralized finance (defi),” inProceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, 2022, pp. 30–46

    2022

  18. [18]

    Buy crypto, sell privacy: Investigating the cryptocurrency exchange evonax,

    A. Brechlin, J. Sch ¨afer, and F. Armknecht, “Buy crypto, sell privacy: Investigating the cryptocurrency exchange evonax,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency. IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–7

    2024

  19. [19]

    Regulation (eu) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto- assets (mica),

    European Union, “Regulation (eu) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto- assets (mica),” 2023, accessed Oct. 11, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1114/oj

    2023

  20. [20]

    Sok: Decentralized finance (defi) attacks,

    L. Zhou, X. Xiong, J. Ernstberger, S. Chaliasos, Z. Wang, Y . Wang, K. Qin, R. Wattenhofer, D. Song, and A. Gervais, “Sok: Decentralized finance (defi) attacks,” in2023 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE, 2023, pp. 2444–2461

    2023

  21. [21]

    Blockchain and payment systems: What are the benefits and costs?

    G. Neyer and B. Geva, “Blockchain and payment systems: What are the benefits and costs?”Journal of Payments Strategy & Systems, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 215–225, 2017

    2017

  22. [22]

    Guiding and establishing national innovation for u.s. stablecoins act (genius act),

    “Guiding and establishing national innovation for u.s. stablecoins act (genius act),” 2025, accessed: Nov. 19, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1582/text

    2025

  23. [23]

    An evaluation of cryptocur- rency payment channel networks and their privacy implications,

    E. Erdin, S. Mercan, and K. Akkaya, “An evaluation of cryptocur- rency payment channel networks and their privacy implications,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.02659, 2021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Exploring the use of crypto-assets for payments,

    E. Koutrouli and P. Manousopoulos, “Exploring the use of crypto-assets for payments,”FinTech, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 15, 2025

    2025

  25. [25]

    The dark side of licensing cryptocurrency exchanges as payment institutions,

    H. Nabilou, “The dark side of licensing cryptocurrency exchanges as payment institutions,”Law and Financial Markets Review, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 39–47, 2020

    2020

  26. [26]

    What drives the adoption of crypto-payments by online retailers?

    N. Jonker, “What drives the adoption of crypto-payments by online retailers?”Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, vol. 35, p. 100848, 2019

    2019

  27. [27]

    Payment systems worldwide: A snapshot—summary outcomes of the fourth global payment systems survey,

    World Bank, “Payment systems worldwide: A snapshot—summary outcomes of the fourth global payment systems survey,” World Bank, Tech. Rep., 2018. [Online]. Available: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099011624132054588/ pdf/P1787031cca90801019d011a41f21efe348.pdf

    arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    A taxonomy for decentralized fi- nance,

    T. Puschmann and M. Huang-Sui, “A taxonomy for decentralized fi- nance,”International Review of Financial Analysis, vol. 92, p. 103083, 2024

    2024

  29. [29]

    Sok: A classification framework for stablecoin designs,

    A. Moin, K. Sekniqi, and E. G. Sirer, “Sok: A classification framework for stablecoin designs,” inFinancial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, 2020, pp. 174–197

    2020

  30. [30]

    Stablecoins: Risks, potential and regulation,

    D. Arner, R. Auer, and J. Frost, “Stablecoins: Risks, potential and regulation,” 2020, accessed: Nov. 19, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.bis.org/publ/work905.htm

    2020

  31. [31]

    Sok: Stablecoin designs, risks, and the stablecoin lego,

    S. Ling, Y . Du, Y . Zhou, L. Wu, C. Wang, X. Jia, and H. Yan, “Sok: Stablecoin designs, risks, and the stablecoin lego,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.17622, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Sok: A structured analysis of economic and technical stablecoin-related research,

    A. Mahrous, M. Caprolu, and R. Di Pietro, “Sok: A structured analysis of economic and technical stablecoin-related research,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency. IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–17

    2025

  33. [33]

    Emv card payments–an update,

    M. Ward, “Emv card payments–an update,”Information Security Tech- nical Report, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 89–92, 2006

    2006

  34. [34]

    Why pay? an introduction to payments economics,

    C. M. Kahn and W. Roberds, “Why pay? an introduction to payments economics,”Journal of Financial Intermediation, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2009

    2009

  35. [35]

    Iso 8583:2023 — financial-transaction-card-originated messages: Interchange message specifications,

    International Organization for Standardization, “Iso 8583:2023 — financial-transaction-card-originated messages: Interchange message specifications,” 2023, accessed: Nov. 27, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/79451.html

    2023

  36. [36]

    D. L. Stearns,Electronic value exchange: Origins of the VISA elec- tronic payment system. Springer, 2011

    2011

  37. [37]

    Shortening the settlement cycle: Why europe should not wait too long to introduce t+1,

    A. Thomadakis, “Shortening the settlement cycle: Why europe should not wait too long to introduce t+1,”Journal of Securities Operations & Custody, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 350–354, 2022

    2022

  38. [38]

    D. S. Evans and R. Schmalensee,Paying with plastic: the digital revolution in buying and borrowing. Mit Press, 2004

    2004

  39. [39]

    SEPA Instant Credit Transfer

    European Payments Council. SEPA Instant Credit Transfer. Accessed: 18 Dec 2025. [Online]. Avail- able: https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/what-we-do/sepa- instant-credit-transfer

    2025

  40. [40]

    Navigating settlement efficiency in a world of csdr and t+1

    J. Benito, “Navigating settlement efficiency in a world of csdr and t+1.” Journal of Securities Operations & Custody, vol. 17, no. 3, 2025

    2025

  41. [41]

    FedNow Service

    Federal Reserve Financial Services. FedNow Service. Accessed: 18 Dec 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.frbservices.org/financial- services/fednow

    2025

  42. [42]

    Banco Central do Brasil. Pix. Accessed: 18 Dec 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.bcb.gov.br/en/financialstability/pix en

    2025

  43. [43]

    Innovations in electronic payment acceptance: Enabling better access for micro and small merchants,

    World Bank Group, “Innovations in electronic payment acceptance: Enabling better access for micro and small merchants,” The World Bank, Washington, DC, Tech. Rep., 2022

    2022

  44. [44]

    Central bank digital currency: Key features and implications,

    Bank for International Settlements, “Central bank digital currency: Key features and implications,” 2021, accessed: Nov. 19, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d201.pdf

    2021

  45. [45]

    A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform,

    V . Buterin, “A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform,” 2014, accessed: Oct. 11, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper

    2014

  46. [46]

    A peer-to-peer electronic cash system,

    S. Nakamoto and A. Bitcoin, “A peer-to-peer electronic cash system,” Bitcoin.–URL: https://bitcoin. org/bitcoin. pdf, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 15, 2008

    2008

  47. [47]

    Ethereum based smart contracts for trade and finance,

    R. Garg, “Ethereum based smart contracts for trade and finance,” International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering, vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 619–629, 2022

    2022

  48. [48]

    An overview on smart contracts: Challenges, advances and platforms,

    Z. Zheng, S. Xie, H.-N. Dai, W. Chen, X. Chen, J. Weng, and M. Imran, “An overview on smart contracts: Challenges, advances and platforms,” Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 105, pp. 475–491, 2020

    2020

  49. [49]

    Tether transparency: Usdt reserves,

    Tether, “Tether transparency: Usdt reserves,” 2025, accessed: Dec. 4,

    2025

  50. [50]

    Is cryptocurrency money? three empirical studies analyzing medium of exchange, store of value and unit of account,

    J. Mattke, C. Maier, and L. Reis, “Is cryptocurrency money? three empirical studies analyzing medium of exchange, store of value and unit of account,” inProceedings of the 2020 Computers and People Research Conference, 2020, pp. 26–35

    2020

  51. [51]

    Impact of interchange fees on a non- saturated multi-agent payment card market,

    B. Alexandrova-Kabadjova, “Impact of interchange fees on a non- saturated multi-agent payment card market,”Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management: International Journal, vol. 16, no. 1-2, pp. 33–48, 2009

    2009

  52. [52]

    Available: https://tether.to/en/transparency/?tab=usdt

    [Online]. Available: https://tether.to/en/transparency/?tab=usdt

  53. [53]

    Circle transparency and reserves reporting,

    Circle, “Circle transparency and reserves reporting,” 2025, accessed: Dec. 4, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.circle.com/transparency

    2025

  54. [54]

    10.1 payments overview,

    D. HUMPHREY , “10.1 payments overview,”The Oxford Handbook of Banking, p. 285, 2019

    2019

  55. [55]

    A glossary of terms used in payments and settlement systems,

    Bank for International Settlements, “A glossary of terms used in payments and settlement systems,” 2016, accessed: Nov. 19, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d00b.htm

    2016

  56. [56]

    Developments in the laws governing electronic payments made through gift cards, debit and prepaid cards, credit cards, and direct deposits of federal benefits,

    S. J. Hughes and S. T. Middlebrook, “Developments in the laws governing electronic payments made through gift cards, debit and prepaid cards, credit cards, and direct deposits of federal benefits,” Bus. Law., vol. 66, p. 159, 2010

    2010

  57. [57]

    Payments and markets glossary

    European Central Bank. Payments and markets glossary. Accessed: 19 Dec, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/services/ glossary/html/act7c.en.html

    2025

  58. [58]

    An empirical analysis of payment card usage,

    M. Rysman, “An empirical analysis of payment card usage,”The Journal of Industrial Economics, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 1–36, 2007

    2007

  59. [59]

    Local power, global reach: The rise and impact of domestic payment networks in the financial landscape,

    A. F. Aysan, O. Ozturk, and N. H. Selim, “Local power, global reach: The rise and impact of domestic payment networks in the financial landscape,”Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 143–162, 2025

    2025

  60. [60]

    SEPA Direct Debit

    European Payments Council. SEPA Direct Debit. Accessed: 18 Dec

  61. [61]

    Faster Payment System

    Pay.UK. Faster Payment System. Accessed: 18 Dec 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.wearepay.uk/what-we-do/payment- systems/faster-payment-system/

    2025

  62. [62]

    Direct debits

    Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Direct debits. MoneySmart (Australian Government). Accessed: 19 Dec, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://moneysmart.gov.au/banking/direct-debits

    2025

  63. [63]

    Gift cards: a review and research agenda,

    D. Horne and N. Bendle, “Gift cards: a review and research agenda,” The international review of retail, distribution and consumer research, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 154–170, 2016

    2016

  64. [64]

    Available: https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/ what-we-do/sepa-direct-debit

    [Online]. Available: https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/ what-we-do/sepa-direct-debit

  65. [65]

    Direct Debit

    Bacs. Direct Debit. Accessed: 18 Dec 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.bacs.co.uk/bacs-schemes/direct-debit

    2025

  66. [66]

    Evolution of prepaid service towards a real-time payment system,

    M. Lilge, “Evolution of prepaid service towards a real-time payment system,” inIEEE Intelligent Network 2001 Workshop. IN 2001 Con- ference Record (Cat. No. 01TH8566). IEEE, 2001, pp. 195–198

    2001

  67. [67]

    The merchant,

    A. Giardina, “The merchant,”The Romans, pp. 245–271, 1993

    1993

  68. [68]

    Interchange fees and payment card networks: Economics, industry developments, and policy issues,

    R. A. Prager, M. D. Manuszak, E. K. Kiser, and R. Borzekowski, “Interchange fees and payment card networks: Economics, industry developments, and policy issues,” 2009

    2009

  69. [69]

    Theory of credit card networks: A survey of the literature,

    S. Chakravorti, “Theory of credit card networks: A survey of the literature,”Review of network Economics, vol. 2, no. 2, 2003

    2003

  70. [70]

    Digital transformation in payments,

    C. Scardovi, “Digital transformation in payments,” inDigital Transfor- mation in Financial Services. Springer, 2017, pp. 65–84

    2017

  71. [71]

    Interchange fee rate, merchant discount rate, and retail price in a credit card network: A game-theoretic analysis,

    H. Guo, M. Leng, and Y . Wang, “Interchange fee rate, merchant discount rate, and retail price in a credit card network: A game-theoretic analysis,”Naval Research Logistics (NRL), vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 525–551, 2012

    2012

  72. [72]

    Worldpay

    Worldpay. Worldpay. Accessed: 18 Dec 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.worldpay.com/en-GB

    2025

  73. [73]

    Stripe Australia

    Stripe. Stripe Australia. Accessed: 18 Dec 2025. [Online]. Available: https://stripe.com/au

    2025

  74. [74]

    Adyen Australia

    Adyen. Adyen Australia. Accessed: 18 Dec 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.adyen.com/en AU

    2025

  75. [75]

    How payment transaction processing works,

    I. Stripe, “How payment transaction processing works,” 2023, accessed: 21 Dec, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://stripe.com/au/ resources/more/how-payment-transaction-processing-works

    2023

  76. [76]

    UnionPay International

    UnionPay International. UnionPay International. Accessed: 18 Dec

  77. [77]

    Available: https://www.unionpayintl.com/en/

    [Online]. Available: https://www.unionpayintl.com/en/

  78. [78]

    Backgrounder on Interchange and Scheme Fees

    Reserve Bank of Australia. Backgrounder on Interchange and Scheme Fees. Accessed: 18 Dec 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.rba.gov.au/payments-and-infrastructure/review-of-retail- payments-regulation/backgrounders/backgrounder-on-interchange- and-scheme-fees.html

    2025

  79. [79]

    Points of Interaction — Verifone Cen- tral

    Verifone. Points of Interaction — Verifone Cen- tral. Accessed: 18 Dec 2025. [Online]. Avail- able: https://verifone.cloud/docs/verifone-central/verifone-central/ manage-your-account/administration/points-interaction

    2025

  80. [80]

    Stablecoins: Market developments, risks and regulation,

    C. Dark, E. Rogerson, N. Rowbotham, and P. Wallis, “Stablecoins: Market developments, risks and regulation,”Bulletin, Dec 2022. [On- line]. Available: https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2022/ dec/pdf/stablecoins-market-developments-risks-and-regulation.pdf

    2022

Showing first 80 references.