Stablecoins are increasingly moving from experimentation to practical consideration within the banking industry. In this interview, Dirk Hermans, Innovation Manager at KBC Bank, shares insights on how banks are approaching stablecoins - not as a disruptive force, but as part of a broader evolution in digital money. From cross-border payments to programmable settlement, he explores where real value may emerge, the role of regulation, and why adoption is likely to be gradual, targeted and firmly embedded within the existing financial ecosystem.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and should not be attributed to the European Payments Council.

1. What discussions are happening at KBC right now about the future of stablecoins in banking?

At KBC, the conversation around stablecoins has clearly matured. We are no longer debating whether they will play a role, but rather under which conditions they can add real value within a regulated banking ecosystem.

We see strong growth in the use of stablecoins for cross border payments, an area traditionally served by more expensive and often slower correspondent banking models. In addition, stablecoins are increasingly discussed in the context of trading crypto and other digital assets, and for use cases where programmability is critical - such as automated settlement, conditional payments, and potential future applications involving AI‑driven agents.

At the same time, stablecoins are only one part of a much broader discussion about the future money stack. Large-scale adoption could move funds away from bank deposits to stablecoin issuers, which would affect banks’ balance sheets and their ability to provide credit to the economy.

Banks could achieve similar technological benefits by issuing their own commercial bank money in the form of tokenised deposits. However, this is not a one-to-one substitute. Settlement of tokenised deposits between banks still requires central bank money, which introduces another layer. In this context, the work of the ECB on a wholesale digital euro, including initiatives such as Pontes and Appia, is highly relevant. These projects explore how tokenised central bank money could act as a safe settlement asset for interbank transactions on DLT‑based platforms.

“We are no longer debating whether stablecoins will play a role, but under which conditions they can add real value within a regulated banking ecosystem.”

2. How ready are European banks to embrace this paradigm shift? Are stablecoins perceived as an inevitable wave of the future or crypto niche?

European banks are intellectually ready, but operationally still cautious.

There is broad consensus that blockchain based settlement mechanisms will become part of the future financial infrastructure, increasingly viewed as a specialised but legitimate layer for certain use cases. MiCA has played a key role in this evolution. It hasn’t led to immediate large‑scale adoption, but it has clearly de‑risked the discussion and moved it beyond the purely experimental phase.

At the same time, stablecoins are not a silver bullet. Their value depends on the strength and credibility of the issuer and on how effectively the peg to a currency such as the euro or dollar is guaranteed. Unlike bank deposits, stablecoins cannot be used with leverage and are essentially a payment instrument rather than a credit creating one.

There are also important compliance considerations. Wallets are easy to create, identities are not inherently linked to them, and global AML standards are not uniformly implemented. This creates challenges around traceability and enforcement, even in a regulated context.

As a result, stablecoins are no longer dismissed as a crypto niche, but adoption will remain incremental, targeted, and strictly use case driven.

“European banks are intellectually ready, but operationally still cautious.”

3. Have you observed an increase in requests from corporate clients requesting cross border settlement using stablecoins?

Yes, interest is increasing, although it remains concentrated in specific segments.

We see more questions from large corporates, digital native firms, and treasury teams operating globally and around the clock. These clients rarely frame the discussion in terms of “crypto.” Instead, they focus on concrete outcomes: faster settlement, reduced counterparty risk, extended operating hours, and greater transparency in cross‑border flows.

This is not yet a mass-market demand. It is a selective but informed pull from clients who understand both the limitations of existing correspondent banking models and the potential of 24/7 settlement. The signal is clear, even if volumes are still modest.

4. How big of a game changer do you perceive stablecoins to be in the future of the banking industry?

Stablecoins are a structural game changer, but not a disruptive one in the popular sense.

They will not replace banks, nor fundamentally change the role of trust, regulation, or balance sheets. What stablecoins - and other forms of blockchain based digital money - will change is how money moves within the financial system. Near‑instant, programmable, and potentially atomic settlement enables new operating models in areas such as treasury, trade finance, securities settlement, and liquidity management.

In that sense, stablecoins are comparable to earlier shifts like real-time payments or modern gross settlement systems. The real value will come from banks that integrate digital money seamlessly into their services - largely invisibly to end users - rather than positioning it as a stand‑alone product.

Stablecoins will not make banks obsolete, but they will raise expectations around speed, availability, and programmability of money across the industry.

“Stablecoins are a structural game changer, but not a disruptive one in the popular sense.”