FX Tracker

Why This Matters

The humanitarian sector could unlock millions in additional purchasing power by adopting stablecoin treasury rails. In an era of collapsing funding, every dollar counts.

Our perspective

MarketImpact advises humanitarian organisations on digital treasury infrastructure including stablecoin payment rails. Thomas Byrnes, our founder, sits on the Aid Payment Council and has published two frameworks on this topic. We built this tracker because the sector needs transparent, real-time data on FX purchasing power — and because our advisory work has shown that the gap is both larger and more addressable than most organisations realise. The data speaks for itself; our interpretation of it is clearly our own.

The Funding Crisis

Humanitarian funding is in freefall. The numbers tell a stark story:

88%

US funding cut from 2022 peak

16 of 20

top donors cut funding in 2024

$2B

US pledge to OCHA (Dec 2025)

In December 2025, the United States pledged $2 billion to OCHA — an 88% reduction from its 2022 peak. Sixteen of the top twenty humanitarian donors cut funding in 2024. The multilateral system is under sustained political and financial pressure.

In this environment, the question is not whether humanitarian organisations can afford to examine every available efficiency. It is whether they can afford not to. When budgets are shrinking, losing purchasing power to exchange rate gaps is no longer a tolerable inefficiency — it directly reduces the number of people who receive assistance.

Source: Byrnes, T. (2026) Treasury Rails: Stablecoin Infrastructure for Humanitarian Operations. MarketImpact Digital Solutions Ltd.

What the Purchasing Power Gap Means

The UN sets operational exchange rates (UNORE) for converting aid funding to local currency. All humanitarian funds — staff salaries, local procurement, office costs, partner sub-grants — must be converted at these rates. When UNORE lags behind market rates, the same dollar buys less local currency, reducing the purchasing power of the entire operation.

Example: A $150,000 gap per $1M converted means:

• For every $1 million converted at the UN rate, the operation receives $150,000 less in local currency purchasing power than the market rate would provide
• A $10M country programme loses $1.5 million in purchasing power annually
• That gap pays for staff, supplies, transport, and direct assistance that never reaches affected populations

This tracker measures these gaps in real time by comparing the UN rate against stablecoin market rates — the closest proxy for what people actually pay to exchange dollars in-country. The gap is not a judgement of UN treasury policy; it is a factual measurement of the purchasing power difference.

Evidence from the Field

Sudan: 34% more purchasing power

In Sudan, the collapse of the formal banking system combined with sanctions exposure and extreme liquidity shortages left partners and vendors unable to receive international transfers. NRC piloted stablecoin treasury rails through a licensed payment provider (as documented in Byrnes, 2026, Treasury Rails), enabling transfers to local partners who off-ramped into Sudanese pounds through vetted intermediaries at real market FX rates.

34%

more frontline liquidity

99%

faster settlement

24%

lower transaction costs

Source: NRC Sudan Pilot (2023–2025) via Byrnes (2026), Treasury Rails.

Myanmar: 105% more purchasing power

Following the 2024 earthquake, international NGOs faced severe barriers moving funds into Myanmar. Correspondent banks introduced multi-week delays and rejected transfers. A UK-based foundation piloted transfers through a licensed stablecoin payment provider (as documented in Byrnes, 2026, Treasury Rails), on-ramping domestically and off-ramping into Myanmar kyat through a major mobile money provider.

105%

more purchasing power

10,000+

households reached

80%+

lower transaction costs

Source: Coala Pay Myanmar Pilot (2024–2025) via Byrnes (2026), Treasury Rails.

Afghanistan: Direct stablecoin delivery

Afghanistan's financial system was left fragile after the Taliban takeover. International correspondent banks pulled out, domestic banks faced liquidity crises, and capital controls tightened. A licensed electronic money institution (as documented in Byrnes, 2025, Stablecoins Framework) addressed this by issuing a stablecoin pegged directly to the Afghan afghani — one digital token always equaling one afghani, redeemable for cash through a network of local agents.

1:1

guaranteed cash-out at par

Instant

settlement (vs weeks)

Source: HesabPay Afghanistan (2023–2025) via Byrnes (2025), Stablecoins Framework.

Stablecoins: Not New Aid, Stronger Rails

Stablecoins are digital tokens pegged 1:1 to a fiat currency like the US dollar. They are not a new form of aid — they are infrastructure that can make existing cash and voucher assistance faster, cheaper, and more resilient.

Regulated (USDC)

USD Coin, issued by Circle under an EU E-Money Institution licence (MiCA). Legally recognised as e-money with enforceable 1:1 redemption rights. Backed by cash and short-term US Treasuries held in segregated accounts. This is the primary comparison rate used in our tracker.

Unregulated (USDT)

Tether is the most widely traded stablecoin globally and often the most liquid USD-equivalent asset in restricted or de-risked markets. It lacks the regulatory protections of MiCA-compliant tokens but has deeper market penetration. Used as fallback where USDC data is unavailable.

The EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), effective since June 2024, provides the legal foundation. Under MiCA, E-Money Tokens like USDC are legally recognised as electronic money with enforceable redemption rights at par value. For humanitarian organisations, this transforms stablecoins from "crypto-like assets" into donor-ready instruments.

The US followed with the GENIUS Act in July 2025, establishing the first federal framework for fiat-backed stablecoins — requiring 1:1 backing with US dollar assets and legally enforceable par-value redemption.

Source: Byrnes, T. (2025) How to Use Stablecoins in Humanitarian Aid: A Practical Framework. MarketImpact Digital Solutions Ltd.

Two Ways Stablecoins Address the Gap

1. Treasury Rails: Moving Money Behind the Scenes

NGOs can on-ramp in their HQ jurisdiction, transfer stablecoins to country offices or local partners, and off-ramp into local currency through vetted providers — bypassing blocked correspondent banking channels entirely. This preserves donor value, reduces settlement times from weeks to hours, and ensures continuity of programming when formal financial systems fail.

Key efficiency:

The value comes not from "faster international transfers" but from avoiding the international banking leg altogether. On-ramp at HQ, connect directly to local liquidity networks.

2. Direct to Beneficiaries: Digital Cash Delivery

A regulated stablecoin is transferred directly into a beneficiary's wallet. If it can be redeemed at par value and spent without restriction, it functions as cash under ECHO's framework. If restrictions are applied (specific merchants, spending categories), it functions as a voucher. The classification follows use, not technology.

The Liquidity & Redemption Test:

Can the assistance be converted into local currency at full face value? Can it be spent freely anywhere? If yes to both → it's cash. If either is restricted → it's a voucher.

What This Tracker Shows

The FX Transparency Tracker measures the purchasing power gap in real time across 33 crisis-affected countries. For each country, we compare:

UN vs Forex

The gap between the UN operational rate and the international mid-market forex rate. Shows how far the UN rate has drifted from the widely quoted market rate.

UN vs Stablecoin

The gap between the UN rate and what people actually pay to exchange dollars in-country, measured via USDC (regulated) or USDT (unregulated) peer-to-peer rates. This is our primary metric because it captures the real in-country exchange rate, especially in de-risked or sanctions-affected markets where the international forex rate is disconnected from reality.

Both gaps are expressed as a dollar amount per $1 million converted — making the scale of the purchasing power gap immediately tangible for treasury teams and programme managers.

View Dashboard → Read Methodology

Potential Efficiency Gain by Country

Assumptions & Limitations

This table shows the theoretical maximum gain if all tracked humanitarian funding were converted via USDC stablecoin rails instead of at UNORE rates. In practice:

• Not all funding converts at UNORE — agencies negotiate bilateral rates with local banks and use various conversion mechanisms.
• P2P stablecoin rates are asking prices, not guaranteed transaction rates at institutional volumes.
• These figures use 2025 OCHA FTS funding levels; 2026 funding is still being reported.
• At an estimated 30–50% of funding actually converting at or near UNORE, the addressable gap is approximately $395M–$659M — still substantial.

We present the full theoretical figure for transparency. Challenge it — the methodology is open and the data is live.

Applying today's live exchange rate gaps to 2025 OCHA funding levels, using USDC treasury rails could unlock a theoretical maximum of $1318M in additional purchasing power across tracked countries. These figures represent the upper bound of how much more local currency humanitarian operations could receive by converting via regulated stablecoin rails instead of the UN operational rate.

Country	Funding (2025)	Gap / $1M (live)	Potential Gain
Occupied Palestinian Territory	$4.4B	$91,095	$401.5M
Syria	$2.6B	$78,024	$199.3M
DRC	$798M	$159,065	$126.9M
Ethiopia	$724M	$155,101	$112.3M
Sudan	$1.8B	$61,506	$108.3M
Yemen	$1.4B	$42,123	$57.8M
Venezuela	$145M	$340,198	$49.2M
Chad	$573M	$67,965	$39.0M
Mozambique	$220M	$168,201	$37.0M
Haiti	$304M	$89,058	$27.1M
Ukraine	$1.9B	$13,843	$26.2M
Nigeria	$323M	$62,936	$20.3M
Bangladesh	$534M	$37,702	$20.1M
Iraq	$100M	$153,770	$15.3M
Lebanon	$673M	$19,173	$12.9M
Myanmar	$518M	$23,812	$12.3M
Egypt	$132M	$82,859	$11.0M
Central African Republic	$155M	$67,965	$10.5M
Cameroon	$115M	$67,965	$7.8M
Burkina Faso	$339M	$14,068	$4.8M
Pakistan	$192M	$22,619	$4.3M
Jordan	$223M	$17,690	$3.9M
Niger	$252M	$14,068	$3.6M
Mali	$241M	$14,068	$3.4M
Guatemala	$43M	$47,169	$2.0M
Honduras	$28M	$45,782	$1.3M
Total			$1318M

Funding data: OCHA FTS (2025 received). FX gap: live UN Rate vs USDC market rate. Theoretical maximum = (gap per $1M × 2025 total funding). Countries without OCHA funding data are excluded. See assumptions box above for methodology limitations.