The on-chain game of the payment giants: The battle for the $40 trillion settlement layer

The payments industry may seem “old,” but it has always been the earliest and most easily restructured link within the financial system through technology.

While the market is still debating whether “cryptocurrency is an asset,” two major payment giants—Visa and Mastercard—have already reached a consensus on a more fundamental engineering issue: Is there a more efficient settlement layer that can be embedded into the existing payment system, rather than starting from scratch?

The answer is stablecoins.

Recently, Visa announced the opening of USDC settlement to banks in the United States via Solana; previously, Mastercard partnered with Ripple to test RLUSD-based transaction settlement on XRPL.

This is not just a short-term pilot but a clear signal that the global payment infrastructure is beginning to migrate toward a new generation of settlement layers.

Visa: Making Stablecoins a “Settlement Plugin”

Visa’s actions appear cutting-edge, but its logic remains highly restrained.

It did not choose to build a closed blockchain system but instead directly integrated the Solana network and USDC stablecoin into its settlement backend as an available option within the existing clearing process.

• Core Data: In the U.S., institutions like Cross River Bank have already begun using USDC on Solana for settlement. Visa disclosed that its annualized settlement volume has exceeded $3.5 billion.
• Seamless Experience: For consumers, there is no change in the card usage experience.

For banks, this change is highly intuitive: the original reliance on T+1/T+2 settlement during business days is compressed into continuous 24/7 settlement, significantly reducing funds in transit time and liquidity occupation.

It is worth noting that Visa does not frame this capability as a “paradigm shift” or “disruptive innovation.” It repeatedly emphasizes standardization and productization—viewing stablecoin settlement as a deployable, replicable foundational capability.

This also explains why Visa recently launched a stablecoin consulting service: its goal is not to push banks toward “cryptocurrency adoption” but to help them understand and access next-generation settlement tools.

In this system, stablecoins are not standalone financial products but more like fundamental modules embedded within the payment network.

Mastercard: Building a “Compliance Connection Layer”

Unlike Visa’s “direct connection to public chains,” Mastercard has chosen a more complex “alliances and collaborations” approach.

• Multi-chain Cooperation: It has not bet on a single pathway but is working with Ripple (XRPL), Gemini, and Middle Eastern institutions.
• Compliance Puzzle: It prefers to build a “pluggable compliance connection layer.”

Mastercard’s self-positioning is very clear: it does not aim to be an extension of a particular public chain but places itself at the interface between the traditional financial system and on-chain settlement networks.

The core advantage of this architecture is flexibility—regardless of which stablecoins or technological paths become mainstream in the future, Mastercard can quickly connect and adapt. This model is especially suitable for cross-border payments, B2B settlements, and RWA (Real-World Assets) scenarios with complex structures and high compliance requirements.

The Battle for Settlement Layers Points to a $40 Trillion Reallocation

While the paths differ, Visa and Mastercard are highly aligned on a key judgment.

Their real concern is not just the growth of a single stablecoin but whether future settlement activities will detach from existing payment networks and complete a closed loop on a new technological layer.

Once fund flows can be settled peer-to-peer on-chain, the intermediary value of traditional clearing networks will be reevaluated. This is precisely why both organizations must intervene early and clarify their positions.

The statement in Visa’s latest report that “stablecoins could reshape the $40 trillion global credit market” is not just a scale narrative but a structural judgment: once settlement tools become programmable, the underlying logic of credit issuance, risk control, and fund management will also be adjusted.

Who controls the settlement layer will be closer to defining the rules of next-generation capital flow.

This is a revolution happening outside the public eye.

It is not a carnival for users but a technological migration occurring behind the scenes: quiet, gradual, but once completed, almost irreversible.

As the world’s largest payment network begins to treat on-chain settlement as a fundamental capability, blockchain is no longer an external variable to the financial system but is becoming part of its internal engineering.

Payments still look the same, but the underlying settlement logic is entering a new technological stage.