Solutions & Pathways
Which payment pathway works for each country? This page maps stablecoin infrastructure options to live exchange rate data, helping treasury teams identify where alternative rails can unlock the most value.
Payment Pathway Options
1. Stablecoin Treasury Rails
On-ramp at HQ, transfer USDC/USDT, off-ramp locally through vetted providers. Bypasses blocked correspondent banking channels entirely.
Best for: De-risked markets where correspondent banking is blocked
e.g. Sudan, Myanmar, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iran
2. Hybrid: Stablecoin + Mobile Money
Stablecoin transfer with mobile money off-ramp (KBZPay, M-Pesa). Combines stablecoin efficiency with local mobile money infrastructure for last-mile delivery.
Best for: Markets with strong mobile money infrastructure
e.g. Palestine, Iraq, South Sudan, Venezuela, Haiti
3. Direct Stablecoin to Beneficiary
Licensed EMI issues local-currency stablecoin directly to beneficiaries. Token is redeemable for cash through a network of local agents at par value.
Best for: Markets with stablecoin agent networks
e.g. Afghanistan (HesabPay)
Provider Directory
Coala Pay
Active pilotHesabPay
ActiveCircle (USDC)
Regulated (MiCA)Tether (USDT)
UnregulatedBinance P2P
ActiveBybit P2P
ActiveCountry Pathway Mapping
Live spread data mapped to recommended payment pathways. Sorted by gap size descending. Potential gain estimates use 2025 OCHA funding levels multiplied by the live FX gap.
Total potential annual gain across all countries
$1318M
| Country | Gap / $1M | Banking | Recommended Pathway | Providers | Potential Gain |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Venezuela | $340,198 | Restricted | Hybrid: Stablecoin + Mobile Money | — | $49.2M |
 Mozambique | $168,201 | Connected | Consider stablecoin rails | — | $37.0M |
 DRC | $159,065 | Connected | Consider stablecoin rails | — | $126.9M |
 Ethiopia | $155,101 | Connected | Consider stablecoin rails | — | $112.3M |
 Iraq | $153,770 | Restricted | Hybrid: Stablecoin + Mobile Money | — | $15.3M |
 Occupied Palestinian Territory | $91,095 | Restricted | Hybrid: Stablecoin + Mobile Money | — | $401.5M |
 Haiti | $89,058 | Restricted | Hybrid: Stablecoin + Mobile Money | — | $27.1M |
 Egypt | $82,859 | Connected | Standard banking (monitor gap) | — | $11.0M |
 Syria | $78,024 | De-risked | Stablecoin Treasury Rails | — | $199.3M |
 Cameroon | $67,965 | Connected | Standard banking (monitor gap) | — | $7.8M |
 Central African Republic | $67,965 | Connected | Standard banking (monitor gap) | — | $10.5M |
 Chad | $67,965 | Connected | Standard banking (monitor gap) | — | $39.0M |
 Nigeria | $62,936 | Connected | Standard banking (monitor gap) | — | $20.3M |
 Sudan | $61,506 | De-risked | Stablecoin Treasury Rails | Coala Pay | $108.3M |
 Guatemala | $47,169 | Connected | Standard banking (monitor gap) | — | $2.0M |
 Honduras | $45,782 | Connected | Standard banking (monitor gap) | — | $1.3M |
 Yemen | $42,123 | De-risked | Stablecoin Treasury Rails | — | $57.8M |
 Bangladesh | $37,702 | Connected | Standard banking (monitor gap) | — | $20.1M |
 Myanmar | $23,812 | De-risked | Stablecoin Treasury Rails | Coala Pay | $12.3M |
 Pakistan | $22,619 | Connected | Standard banking (monitor gap) | — | $4.3M |
 Lebanon | $19,173 | Connected | Standard banking (monitor gap) | — | $12.9M |
 Jordan | $17,690 | Connected | Standard banking (monitor gap) | — | $3.9M |
 Burkina Faso | $14,068 | Connected | Standard banking (monitor gap) | — | $4.8M |
 Mali | $14,068 | Connected | Standard banking (monitor gap) | — | $3.4M |
 Niger | $14,068 | Connected | Standard banking (monitor gap) | — | $3.6M |
 Ukraine | $13,843 | Connected | Standard banking (monitor gap) | — | $26.2M |
 Colombia | -$2,507 | Connected | Standard banking (monitor gap) | — | — |
 Kenya | -$427 | Connected | Standard banking (monitor gap) | — | — |
Funding data: OCHA FTS (2025 received). FX gap: live UN Rate vs USDC market rate. Estimate = (gap per $1M × 2025 total funding). Banking status categorisation based on correspondent banking access and sanctions exposure. Figures are indicative — actual gains depend on the proportion of funding converted at UN rates and 2026 funding volumes may differ.
Implementation Readiness
Moving from analysis to implementation requires a structured approach. The following checklist outlines the key steps for treasury teams evaluating stablecoin payment rails.
Treasury Approval & Compliance Review
Secure internal sign-off from treasury, legal, and compliance teams. Map regulatory requirements for on-ramp and off-ramp jurisdictions.
Stablecoin Wallet Infrastructure
Choose between custodial (e.g. Circle Account, Fireblocks) and non-custodial wallet solutions. Consider multi-sig requirements, key management, and disaster recovery.
Off-ramp Partner Selection & Due Diligence
Identify and vet local off-ramp providers per country. Assess licensing status, liquidity depth, AML/KYC controls, and settlement speed.
ERP Integration for Reconciliation
Integrate stablecoin transactions into existing ERP and accounting systems. Ensure audit trails, automated reconciliation, and real-time reporting.
Donor Reporting Framework
Establish transparent reporting mechanisms for donor compliance. Map stablecoin transactions to ECHO CVA categories and existing reporting templates.
Further Reading
Treasury Rails: Stablecoin Infrastructure for Humanitarian Operations in an Era of Funding Collapse
Byrnes, T. (2026) · MarketImpact Digital Solutions Ltd
Implementation guide for humanitarian treasurers. Covers on-ramp selection, off-ramp networks, wallet strategy, ERP integration, and risk controls. Includes case studies from Sudan, Myanmar, and Afghanistan.
How to Use Stablecoins in Humanitarian Aid: A Practical Framework
Byrnes, T. (2025) · MarketImpact Digital Solutions Ltd
Maps MiCA's legal definitions onto ECHO's Cash and Voucher Assistance framework. Introduces the Liquidity & Redemption Test for classifying stablecoin-based assistance as cash or voucher.
Questions or feedback? info@marketimpact.org