Written by: Farmer Frank

In March 2026, Mastercard announced that it would acquire stablecoin payment company BVNK for up to $1.8 billion, with the transaction expected to be completed by the end of the year.

Looking at the financial data alone, this deal is not cheap. BVNK processed $30 billion in stablecoin payments in 2025, but its annual revenue was only $40 million. Based on this, the valuation is clearly difficult to explain using traditional revenue multiples.

Mastercard is clearly not after BVNK's current profits.

What it bought was BVNK's position in the next-generation payment network. As stablecoins begin to move from being trading tools within the Crypto market into the real-world cross-border payment, corporate settlement, and global fund transfer systems, the real scarcity will no longer be "who can issue a new stablecoin," but rather who can truly connect fiat currency accounts, payment institutions, merchant needs, and on-chain settlement channels.

Whoever controls this connecting bridge has a greater chance of controlling the "Strait of Hormuz" of the global payment system in advance during the migration from the old payment network to the new payment network.

1. Why BVNK, and why now?

To understand the significance of this acquisition, we must first understand what BVNK is actually doing.

Strictly speaking, BVNK is not a typical cryptocurrency company. Its core asset is not in issuing stablecoins or providing crypto products to retail investors, but in embedding on-chain settlement capabilities into real commercial payment networks.

In other words, it's more like a bridge, connecting the world of fiat currency payments on one end and the on-chain stablecoin system on the other.

This also determines that its customer profile consists of fintech companies, payment service providers (PSPs), and cross-border payment enterprises such as Worldpay, Deel, and Flywire. These companies have a large number of real global payment and collection needs and require faster and lower-cost fund transfers. However, they often do not have the ability to directly connect to the underlying stablecoin on-chain system. Whether it is the wallet system, on-chain routing, stablecoin reception and sending, or exchange process, compliance risk control and system integration, these are not the parts that most companies are willing to build and maintain themselves.

What BVNK does is encapsulate this layer of complexity, providing a complete solution centered around stablecoin payments and embedding these capabilities into enterprises' existing payment processes. In other words, it sells the interface capabilities that enable enterprises to use stablecoin tracks.

Source: BVNK

And this is exactly what Mastercard wants most.

When discussing stablecoin payments, many people tend to focus on superficial advantages such as "faster" and "cheaper." However, for Mastercard, Visa, banks, and cross-border payment networks, the real challenge brought by stablecoins is not just "the emergence of a faster and cheaper payment method," but rather the possibility of a migration within the payment networks themselves.

In the past, a large number of cross-border payments were actually processed through correspondent banking networks, which are essentially global money transfer networks composed of layers of bank account relationships, clearing channels and local financial institutions. The advantage of this system is that it is mature and has wide coverage, but the problems are that the path is long, there are many nodes, the arrival of funds is slow and the cost is high. In particular, each layer in the cross-border link has to extract its own revenue.

For traditional banks and payment institutions, this "slow and expensive" nature is precisely the source of profit, because as long as the process is complex enough, cross-border payments will naturally generate transaction fees, exchange rate spreads, capital occupation costs, clearing service fees, and a series of additional revenues related to corporate treasury management.

In other words, traditional cross-border payment systems have never earned just the "money from transfers," but rather the entire set of financial organization rights surrounding those transfers. This is the truly sensitive aspect of this competition. Once stablecoins begin to enter real-world commercial payment scenarios, the core value components of this old system will face a complete reshuffling.

The positions that were originally firmly held by banks, card organizations, and traditional payment networks need to be reconsidered: who will connect merchants and funds, who will organize cross-border clearing, and who will control the payment gateway and liquidity outlet?

From this perspective, the impact of stablecoins on card organizations is actually fatal. After all, the business model of Mastercard and similar companies is indeed built on their control over the connection between global merchants and card-issuing systems, and their crucial, indispensable role in cross-regional, cross-currency, and cross-institutional payment flows.

Therefore, Mastercard's acquisition of BVNK is essentially the acquisition of a "bridge" connecting the old world with the new track. It doesn't want immediate profits, but rather to control the most crucial "Strait of Hormuz" before stablecoin payments gradually become mainstream, completely eliminating the possibility of "bypassing card organizations".

This is why Mastercard itself admitted in an investor call that building similar blockchain financial capabilities would take "a considerable amount of time".

In other words, buying is faster than building.

Source: BVNK Blog

Ultimately, if viewed solely from the traditional M&A perspectives of revenue multiples, profit margins, and maturity, BVNK would find it difficult to justify such a price. However, if it is understood as a strategic move to secure a foothold in the future payment landscape, everything makes perfect sense.

In its latest official blog, BVNK explicitly stated that future collaboration between the two parties will include BVNK providing stablecoin capabilities for Mastercard's payment endpoints, enabling 24-hour stablecoin settlement for processors and acquiring institutions, and integrating stablecoin settlement capabilities into the Mastercard payment gateway. BVNK also stated that these synergies are expected to generate billions of dollars in new revenue.

II. The battle for "clearing and network control" among payment giants

Interestingly, Mastercard was not the first to participate in this land grab; in fact, it was arguably the last to act.

Even before this acquisition was finalized, in early October 2025, Coinbase had already begun acquisition negotiations with BVNK, with the transaction range set at $1.5 billion to $2.5 billion. According to multiple sources, Coinbase once had the upper hand in this bidding process and even signed an exclusivity agreement with BVNK.

However, the two sides ultimately announced the breakdown of negotiations that month, which paved the way for Mastercard's eventual entry into the fray.

Source: Fortune

An interesting comparison is that in October 2024, global payment giant Stripe acquired stablecoin API service provider Bridge for $1.1 billion, setting a record for the largest acquisition in the cryptocurrency field at the time; while a year and a half later, Mastercard paid $700 million more than Stripe, breaking that record.

Meanwhile, earlier this month, Visa and Bridge expanded their partnership, planning to extend stablecoin-linked cards to more than 100 countries.

These are all card organization giants, all acquiring stablecoin payment service providers. If viewed on a single map, it becomes clear that the acquisitions of Stripe and Mastercard, and the early launch of PYUSD by Visa and PayPal years ahead of schedule, represent not just isolated bets by a single company, but rather a synchronized strategic positioning effort across the entire payments industry.

Stablecoins have never just impacted the payment experience; they have also impacted the deeper profit and power structures within the traditional financial system. As a result , global payment giants have had to proactively try to connect on-chain accounts, stablecoin assets, and merchant payment terminals to bypass or prevent others from bypassing the card issuers and card organizations in the traditional payment chain.

This is why companies like Bridge and BVNK have suddenly become scarce. Their real value lies in being at a crucial intersection, connecting on-chain accounts with stablecoin assets on one side and merchants, businesses, payment service providers, and fiat currency settlement networks on the other.

In other words, the industry has long since moved beyond the initial stage of "who issues stablecoins" and entered the second half of the game: "who can truly organize stablecoins into a working network."

At the same time, the value of this "stablecoin network" is likely to be further amplified in the AI ​​era.

One long-underestimated trend is that the entities initiating payments in the future may not always be just people. They may increasingly come from agents, robots, and automated systems. Traditional card organizations are best at organizing payments around people's consumption, acquiring, card issuance, and bank card account systems. However, with the increasing prevalence of AI agents, the demand for small-amount, high-frequency, and automated settlements between machines may not be naturally suited to the card network architecture designed for the consumer finance era.

In contrast, on-chain payments and stablecoins are more suited to these new demands because stablecoins are inherently capable of operating around the clock, are programmable, support high-frequency micropayments, offer globally unified settlement, and do not require complex intermediary authorization. In other words, stablecoins may not only be competing for the existing cross-border payment market, but also for a much larger incremental payment market in the future.

Traditional giants are also increasing their investment in this emerging field. For example, Visa Crypto Labs has launched its first experimental product, Visa CLI, which allows AI agents to securely pay the required fees while writing code, enabling programmatic card payments without API keys.

Source: 𝕏

Ultimately, stablecoin payments are not a patch to the old system, but an attempt to redraw the map of the next generation of global payment networks.

Following this logic, what deserves continued observation in the future are not necessarily those single-point business roles that most resemble "stablecoin issuers," but rather those participants who are simultaneously at the intersection of trading, compliance, institutional liquidity, and payment network extension, and have a greater chance of growing into platform-type nodes in the stablecoin era. They may not be the hottest in the short term, but they are often closer to the core of long-term competition.

Behind this judgment lies a larger reality taking shape.

III. Two Solutions for the Same Map: New Ideas Beyond the Solutions

Objectively speaking, Mastercard's acquisition of BVNK has added another layer of understanding to the market: the value of stablecoins lies not only in the issuance end, but also in the connection end; not only in compliance status, but also in liquidity and the organizational capabilities of payment networks.

This is the fundamental reason why giants like Stripe and Mastercard continue to make acquisitions. What they really want to buy is not just a stablecoin technology capability, but the possibility of building a network around that capability. After all, only when on-chain accounts, stablecoin liquidity, merchant scenarios, fiat currency clearing, and regulatory compliance are truly integrated will stablecoin payments transform from a "new tool" into a "new network."

However, one thing is worth noting: the paths taken by giants like Mastercard and Stripe are essentially a shift from traditional finance. They acquire on-chain capabilities and then leverage existing distribution networks to drive the scaling of stablecoins. While this path is clear, it requires breaking free from a heavy historical burden and redefining their relationship with the blockchain.

This also means that, in addition to starting from the old world and actively migrating towards stablecoins, there is another solution that is in the same direction but starts from a different point.

Yes, those compliant platforms that grew from the very beginning in the native soil of the blockchain, in reverse "spreading TradFi from stablecoins". They don't need to "change tracks" because they are already on the track.

Taking Hong Kong, one of the regions with the fastest progress in global crypto regulation, as an example, over the years, several licensed and compliant platforms such as OSL and HashKey have emerged. Compared to traditional payment platforms that treat stablecoins as a new business, these natively compliant platforms that have grown from digital assets and on-chain liquidity systems are naturally closer to the truly important aspects of the stablecoin era: trading, custody, liquidity, compliant access, and the ability to extend to payment scenarios.

As Hong Kong's stablecoin regulatory pace continues to advance, some licensed platforms have already begun to put this potential capability into practice. For example, OSL clearly shifted its focus to stablecoin payment and settlement infrastructure last year; in January of this year, it completed the acquisition of global Web3 payment service provider Banxa; and in February, it launched USDGO, an enterprise-grade USD stablecoin that complies with US federal regulations and can be legally distributed in Hong Kong, focusing on scenarios such as cross-border e-commerce, bulk commodity trading, and interactive entertainment.

This is a typical implementation path combining "TradFi + Digital Finance". Enterprises use USDGO for cross-border settlements. By adding OSL BizPay's one-stop stablecoin payment and settlement capabilities, which enables free exchange and circulation between fiat currency and stablecoin, and its licensed and compliant network in multiple markets, the entire chain can potentially complete fiat currency entry, on-chain stablecoin settlement, account management and fund collection, treasury optimization, and fiat currency exit without relying on the traditional SWIFT system, while simultaneously meeting compliance, regulatory, and audit traceability requirements.

This forms an interesting contrast with Stripe's acquisition of Bridge and Mastercard's acquisition of BVNK: both are heading towards the goal of "on-chain accounts + stablecoins + global payment network". One path starts from the existing ecosystem and actively changes tracks; the other path is that the track already exists and waits for more traffic, scenarios and regulatory conditions to mature before it naturally expands.

The two solutions each have their own logic and their own time window.

Source: OSL

This is precisely why the upcoming announcement of the first round of stablecoin issuer license approvals in Hong Kong, almost simultaneously with Mastercard's acquisition of BVNK, is so intriguing.

The long-term value of stablecoins to the global financial system ultimately depends on how many real, functioning networks allow funds to flow faster, cheaper, and more reliably, enabling businesses and individuals to actually use them.

Therefore, what is truly worth observing in the next stage is which players can further transform "entry points" into "traffic," "traffic" into "networks," and then "networks" into new global payment infrastructure.

In conclusion

Ultimately, Mastercard spent $1.8 billion not to buy a business, but a position.

Looking at this judgment within a larger context makes it clearer that the global payment network is irreversibly moving towards stablecoins. Although the pace and paths may differ, ultimately, they are all competing on the same thing:

Who can truly connect on-chain accounts, liquidity, payment scenarios, and compliance frameworks into a unified network?

This is precisely the question that deserves our continued attention in the next stage, especially when stablecoins are no longer just on-chain substitutes for the US dollar, but begin to penetrate the traditional financial system.

The real change may have only just begun.