Regulated payments • Stablecoins • OTC & off-ramp • FIBD Disbursements Collections • Art Crypto R&D • likesanime & tcg • Opinion are my own • 🇨🇦🇭🇰🇯🇵
Hong Kong
Joined May 2009
- Tweets216K
- Following9.3K
- Followers20.7K
- Likes168K
Pinned Tweet
A stablecoin payment can succeed onchain and still fail in the real world 🧵 (1/3)
Everyone loves showing how $1 million in USDC can move across borders in seconds
But here's a biggest issue here: 👇
What happens if the stablecoins arrive, but the receiving bank rejects the payment?
Or the local liquidity provider runs out of currency? Or the supplier needs the money on a Sunday, but the domestic banking system isn't processing payments?
This is why stablecoins are much more interesting than just fast blockchain transfers
Traditionally, international payments may travel through multiple correspondent banks, each introducing potential delays, fees, FX spreads, and operational checks.
Stablecoins can replace parts of that settlement process with digital dollars that move 24/7.
But they don't automatically solve the entire payment
The sender still needs to fund the transaction
Someone must provide the FX conversion, manage local liquidity, perform compliance checks, deliver the money into the correct bank account, and reconcile everything afterward.
And here's the important distinction:
Blockchain settlement is not the same as a completed commercial payment
A successful transaction hash proves that value moved on a blockchain. It doesn't prove that the supplier received usable funds in their bank account.
I've been working with credit cards, banks, payment networks, and financial institutions on real payment use cases.
The more I work on institutional payment infrastructure, the more I realize that the interesting problems aren't about how fast USDC moves.
They're about everything required to make that movement commercially useful 👇🧵 (1/3)
🤖 Made with AI
Hot take:
The biggest stablecoin opportunity might not be issuance
It might be the OFF RAMP!!
Anyone can move dollars onchain
The hard part is moving $5M, $20M, $100M+ back into regulated banking rails, across borders, with compliance, settlement certainty and automation.
That is where the real infrastructure moat is
Stablecoins and tokenized deposits are making money programmable. Now someone still needs to connect that money back to the real world.
My DMs are open if any whales or institutions want to explore regulated off ramp rails for automated payments, big blocks or moving capital cross border.
EricF retweeted
Stablecoins can move millions in seconds. But sometimes, traditional fiat is still cheaper. 🤔
Sounds counterintuitive, right?
We often hear that stablecoins are faster, cheaper, and more efficient for cross-border payments. But faster settlement doesn't always mean lower costs or more money reaching the recipient.
Recent industry research comparing 27,000+ FX quotes found that stablecoins frequently beat retail fintech pricing, but the advantage becomes much smaller against institutional FX desks.
And that's before considering liquidity, conversion spreads, banking fees, payout delays, and compliance costs.
💡 The real question isn't how fast the money moves. It's how much usable money arrives, when, and at what total cost.
I've put together two infographics exploring the research and how treasury teams can compare stablecoin and traditional fiat payment routes fairly.
Take a close look at both infographics. There are some surprising findings hidden in the numbers.
What's ONE thing you found interesting, surprising, or even disagree with?
Drop it in the comments. I'd love to hear different perspectives from people working in payments, banking, and treasury
🤖 Made with AI
Moving $10 million in stablecoins can be easier than proving where the money came from
That's something I wish I understood earlier in my career. I once raise around $2 million for my web3 startup that ultimately didn't work out.
Later, I moved into venture capital, reviewing pitch decks, evaluating business models, and listening to founders explain how money would move across markets.
Back then, I often saw licences, KYC, and regulatory requirements as obstacles between a good idea and execution.
Today, I see them very differently.
At @coinsxyz_, working out of Cyberport in Hong Kong, I sit between business development, payment solutions, and financial compliant.
The commercial conversation is straightforward:
A client wants to launch collections in a new market this quarter.
New corridor
New volume
New revenue
Naturally, I want to make that happen
But the compliance conversation asks a different set of questions:
→ Who is actually sending the money?
→ Which legal entity receives and holds the funds?
→ Where does the fiat-to-stablecoin conversion happen?
→ Which regulated institution is responsible at each stage?
→ Who is the ultimate beneficiary, and what does the receiving bank actually see?
Across six markets, you can end up with six very different answers.
The commercial journey may look simple:
NDA → KYB → Sandbox → API Integration → Production
But getting production access doesn't automatically mean the fund flow is compliant
And this is where deals get interesting.
The most expensive mistake isn't losing a deal because compliance said no,
it's winning a deal that should never have gone live!!
Consider iGaming
A licensed operator can process substantial payment volumes across multiple jurisdictions. But having a gaming licence doesn't automatically make every payment corridor, settlement arrangement, or source of funds acceptable.
The wrong structure can expose payment providers and their banking partners to regulatory enforcement, frozen funds, financial crime investigations, and reputational damage.
And none of that risk appears in the original pricing proposal. I've learned that moving stablecoins across borders is often the easy part.
Structuring a payment flow that banks, compliance teams, regulators, and clients can all stand behind?
That's the real work
Earlier in my career, I thought compliance was the paperwork slowing down revenue
Now I understand that good compliance architecture is what allows revenue to scale and survive. The commercial answer and the compliance answer are rarely the same sentence.
My job is to make sure they can exist in the same deal
Stablecoins can move millions in seconds. But sometimes, traditional fiat is still cheaper. 🤔
Sounds counterintuitive, right?
We often hear that stablecoins are faster, cheaper, and more efficient for cross-border payments. But faster settlement doesn't always mean lower costs or more money reaching the recipient.
Recent industry research comparing 27,000+ FX quotes found that stablecoins frequently beat retail fintech pricing, but the advantage becomes much smaller against institutional FX desks.
And that's before considering liquidity, conversion spreads, banking fees, payout delays, and compliance costs.
💡 The real question isn't how fast the money moves. It's how much usable money arrives, when, and at what total cost.
I've put together two infographics exploring the research and how treasury teams can compare stablecoin and traditional fiat payment routes fairly.
Take a close look at both infographics. There are some surprising findings hidden in the numbers.
What's ONE thing you found interesting, surprising, or even disagree with?
Drop it in the comments. I'd love to hear different perspectives from people working in payments, banking, and treasury
🤖 Made with AI
Moving $10 million in stablecoins can be easier than proving where the money came from
That's something I wish I understood earlier in my career. I once raise around $2 million for my web3 startup that ultimately didn't work out.
Later, I moved into venture capital, reviewing pitch decks, evaluating business models, and listening to founders explain how money would move across markets.
Back then, I often saw licences, KYC, and regulatory requirements as obstacles between a good idea and execution.
Today, I see them very differently.
At @coinsxyz_, working out of Cyberport in Hong Kong, I sit between business development, payment solutions, and financial compliant.
The commercial conversation is straightforward:
A client wants to launch collections in a new market this quarter.
New corridor
New volume
New revenue
Naturally, I want to make that happen
But the compliance conversation asks a different set of questions:
→ Who is actually sending the money?
→ Which legal entity receives and holds the funds?
→ Where does the fiat-to-stablecoin conversion happen?
→ Which regulated institution is responsible at each stage?
→ Who is the ultimate beneficiary, and what does the receiving bank actually see?
Across six markets, you can end up with six very different answers.
The commercial journey may look simple:
NDA → KYB → Sandbox → API Integration → Production
But getting production access doesn't automatically mean the fund flow is compliant
And this is where deals get interesting.
The most expensive mistake isn't losing a deal because compliance said no,
it's winning a deal that should never have gone live!!
Consider iGaming
A licensed operator can process substantial payment volumes across multiple jurisdictions. But having a gaming licence doesn't automatically make every payment corridor, settlement arrangement, or source of funds acceptable.
The wrong structure can expose payment providers and their banking partners to regulatory enforcement, frozen funds, financial crime investigations, and reputational damage.
And none of that risk appears in the original pricing proposal. I've learned that moving stablecoins across borders is often the easy part.
Structuring a payment flow that banks, compliance teams, regulators, and clients can all stand behind?
That's the real work
Earlier in my career, I thought compliance was the paperwork slowing down revenue
Now I understand that good compliance architecture is what allows revenue to scale and survive. The commercial answer and the compliance answer are rarely the same sentence.
My job is to make sure they can exist in the same deal
Vote destroy please 👇
I beg u
It's your choice.
55%destroy
45%reveal
124,378 votes • 5 daysReaders added context they thought people might want to know
Earlier this year an official One Piece video had Author Eiichiro Oda write down the secret of the One Piece, it was then buried at the bottom of the sea. This Twitter account has nothing to do with that, and is just banking off the situation to promote their crypto.
youtube.com/watch?v=O9M1UM…
x.com/degenTrader888…
Moving $10 million in stablecoins can be easier than proving where the money came from
That's something I wish I understood earlier in my career. I once raise around $2 million for my web3 startup that ultimately didn't work out.
Later, I moved into venture capital, reviewing pitch decks, evaluating business models, and listening to founders explain how money would move across markets.
Back then, I often saw licences, KYC, and regulatory requirements as obstacles between a good idea and execution.
Today, I see them very differently.
At @coinsxyz_, working out of Cyberport in Hong Kong, I sit between business development, payment solutions, and financial compliant.
The commercial conversation is straightforward:
A client wants to launch collections in a new market this quarter.
New corridor
New volume
New revenue
Naturally, I want to make that happen
But the compliance conversation asks a different set of questions:
→ Who is actually sending the money?
→ Which legal entity receives and holds the funds?
→ Where does the fiat-to-stablecoin conversion happen?
→ Which regulated institution is responsible at each stage?
→ Who is the ultimate beneficiary, and what does the receiving bank actually see?
Across six markets, you can end up with six very different answers.
The commercial journey may look simple:
NDA → KYB → Sandbox → API Integration → Production
But getting production access doesn't automatically mean the fund flow is compliant
And this is where deals get interesting.
The most expensive mistake isn't losing a deal because compliance said no,
it's winning a deal that should never have gone live!!
Consider iGaming
A licensed operator can process substantial payment volumes across multiple jurisdictions. But having a gaming licence doesn't automatically make every payment corridor, settlement arrangement, or source of funds acceptable.
The wrong structure can expose payment providers and their banking partners to regulatory enforcement, frozen funds, financial crime investigations, and reputational damage.
And none of that risk appears in the original pricing proposal. I've learned that moving stablecoins across borders is often the easy part.
Structuring a payment flow that banks, compliance teams, regulators, and clients can all stand behind?
That's the real work
Earlier in my career, I thought compliance was the paperwork slowing down revenue
Now I understand that good compliance architecture is what allows revenue to scale and survive. The commercial answer and the compliance answer are rarely the same sentence.
My job is to make sure they can exist in the same deal
🤖 Made with AI
A stablecoin payment can succeed onchain and still fail in the real world 🧵 (1/3)
Everyone loves showing how $1 million in USDC can move across borders in seconds
But here's a biggest issue here: 👇
What happens if the stablecoins arrive, but the receiving bank rejects the payment?
Or the local liquidity provider runs out of currency? Or the supplier needs the money on a Sunday, but the domestic banking system isn't processing payments?
This is why stablecoins are much more interesting than just fast blockchain transfers
Traditionally, international payments may travel through multiple correspondent banks, each introducing potential delays, fees, FX spreads, and operational checks.
Stablecoins can replace parts of that settlement process with digital dollars that move 24/7.
But they don't automatically solve the entire payment
The sender still needs to fund the transaction
Someone must provide the FX conversion, manage local liquidity, perform compliance checks, deliver the money into the correct bank account, and reconcile everything afterward.
And here's the important distinction:
Blockchain settlement is not the same as a completed commercial payment
A successful transaction hash proves that value moved on a blockchain. It doesn't prove that the supplier received usable funds in their bank account.
I've been working with credit cards, banks, payment networks, and financial institutions on real payment use cases.
The more I work on institutional payment infrastructure, the more I realize that the interesting problems aren't about how fast USDC moves.
They're about everything required to make that movement commercially useful 👇🧵 (1/3)
the top 5 countries that are growing the fastest like Taiwan and Krygyzstan, that I have invested my time and energy in the last 5 years, let's hope it pays off 😳😊😁
The Weeknd just debuted an unreleased song called “Hong Kong” ft. Faye Wong on opening night in the city…3 days ago and it sampled her classic “Monsoon” (季候風).
I wasn’t ready. That one brought tears to my eyes. 😭
很多人都在問：哪種穩定幣會勝出香港市場？
更值得問的是：誰可以使用？又有誰真正在用？
截至2026年10月27日：
• 香港有兩家金管局持牌發行人：Anchorpoint Financial與滙豐。
• 只有受金管局規管的穩定幣，才可向零售投資者提供。其他穩定幣僅限專業投資者，並須經獲准渠道提供。
• 滙豐RedCoin已登陸PayMe；HKDAP則已出現在企業付款、貿易融資及代幣化票據等場景。
• 六個使用案例，涵蓋商戶支付、企業賬單及代幣化金融。
但千萬不要把「覆蓋範圍」當成「實際採用」：
PayMe逾330萬名用戶及超過10萬家商戶，代表潛在覆蓋，並不等於RedCoin的支付交易量。
初始代幣供應量≠實際消費額
合作公告≠實際使用
持有代幣≠獲准向他人銷售該代幣
香港穩定幣市場仍處於早期，但發牌制度、准入規則與初步商業流程，已開始同時落地。
這正是「加密貨幣新聞」與「新興支付市場」的分別。
