TL;DR: Samsung’s planned USDC remittance feature is due to begin rolling out to eligible US Galaxy users in the final week of October.
Solana’s next payments test will happen on an interface ordinary smartphone owners already recognise. Samsung and the Solana Foundation announced that Samsung Wallet would add cross-border USDC transfers, with availability scheduled to begin during the final week of October 2026.
The feature is intended for Samsung Wallet on 82 million US Galaxy devices, according to the announcement. Users would see a familiar wallet experience, with fiat on- and off-ramps handling conversion to and from local money. Solana would provide underlying blockchain infrastructure rather than requiring every customer to understand network fees or token addresses.
That headline device figure is potential reach, not a count of active stablecoin users or completed remittances. Availability can depend on the rollout, region and supporting payment services. With the launch window now arriving, the useful questions shift to completion rates, fees, payout speed and whether customers can resolve failed transfers.
For SOL observers, the development supports a real-world application narrative, but it is not proof of a corresponding increase in token demand. A successful payments product is measured by repeat transfers and satisfactory consumer outcomes. This rollout finally offers a setting in which those measures could become visible.
More from NewsBTC: Cryptocurrency news · Ethereum coverage · Crypto research and categories
Bitcoin Magazine
Coinbase Institutional Co-CEO: Bitcoin’s “Second Wave” of Institutional Capital has Arrived
Seven of the largest banks in the world are now running on Coinbase infrastructure, and Brett Tejpaul, Co-CEO of Coinbase Institutional, says they’re having a “Kodak moment.” He joins Grace Remington and Sean Hagan to explain why the driver has shifted from Bitcoin ETFs to stablecoin payments now that money can move from a Citi account to USDC, across the blockchain in a second, and into a corporate account on the other side. He also gives a candid read on Bitcoin: the macro setup is great, the performance has been disappointing, and institutions aren’t yet treating it as anything but a tech trade.
Chapters:
0:00 Seven of the World’s Largest Banks Are Using Coinbase Infrastructure
1:19 From ETFs to Payments: Citi, USDC and Instant Bank-to-Blockchain Transfers
2:44 $400 Million an Hour in Stablecoins and the Banks’ “Kodak Moment”
4:38 Stablecoins Are a “Speck of Dust”: Payment Providers First, Then Banks
6:10 Agentic Commerce Arriving at the Same Time as the Big Players
6:49 Is Bitcoin Still a Leveraged Tech Trade? “Disappointing” Performance, Great Setup
8:44 Connecting U.S. Funds to Deribit’s 85% Options Market Share
11:06 The Second Wave: Net-New Entrants and Coinbase’s “Amazon to AWS” Pivot
12:57 Activating the Whole U.S. Through Coinbase Infrastructure
13:56 Quantum, 90% ETF Custody Share and “Safe Forever”
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this show are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of BTC Inc., Bitcoin Magazine, or any affiliated entities. This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice. Nothing contained in this show constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or financial instruments. Viewers should consult their own advisors before making financial or business decisions.
This post Coinbase Institutional Co-CEO: Bitcoin’s “Second Wave” of Institutional Capital has Arrived first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.
Circle’s October 22 update on Match describes a service for connecting institutional USDC flows. A consequential detail sits in its funding documentation: money prepared for a mint-side order remains separate from the ordinary Circle Mint wallet.
TL;DRThe company’s explanation connects the service to institutions with opposing liquidity needs. For a participant, the practical distinction is between making funds available for execution and actually completing the intended transaction.
Circle’s funding documentation explains an important asymmetry. A redeemer reserves USDC already held in a standard Mint wallet. On the minting side, a settled dollar wire becomes restricted Match-only USDC. That balance cannot simply be sent to a blockchain address.
If a mint-side order fills, the institution receives normal USDC in its Mint wallet. If it wants to leave with an unused restricted balance, the documented route is redemption back to dollars by wire. Canceling an order therefore does not necessarily create immediately deployable on-chain money.
For a treasury desk, the implication is an opportunity-cost calculation. Capital committed to an auction cannot simultaneously meet another payment. The relevant comparison includes the expected rebate, the chance of execution and the operational value of retaining unrestricted liquidity.
This is a different problem from the payment-volume growth discussed in NewsBTC’s stablecoin activity coverage. A widely used token can still involve distinct funding constraints at individual service providers.
A successful implementation needs to reconcile what was ordered, what filled, what remained reserved and what eventually settled. An interface balance can be convenient for monitoring without being a substitute for the underlying transaction records.
The order API exposes execution information and links between rolled orders. Those records let a desk distinguish one instruction that waited through several auctions from several independent completed transactions.
That distinction matters when calculating results. Counting submitted volume would exaggerate activity if the same amount repeatedly rolls forward. Comparing the quoted fee with the realized fee alone would also ignore time spent waiting and any required fallback.
Other institutional designs, including USDC-based derivatives clearing, likewise depend on how balances become available at the moment an obligation falls due.
Payment screening remains a separate control. The checks described in Mastercard’s stablecoin-security initiative concern the transfer’s legitimacy, whereas matching concerns liquidity and execution.
Match can make opposing institutional flows economically useful to one another. The operational test is whether that benefit survives the full journey from prefunding through matching to usable money at the destination.
Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
The European Banking Authority has designated USDC as the EU’s first significant e-money token under MiCA, setting up an additional layer of supervision for Circle’s euro-area issuing entity.
TL;DR: The classification was announced on October 14. From November 12, the EBA takes direct responsibility for specified prudential areas of USDC supervision, while French regulators retain other oversight functions.
Circle Internet Financial Europe SAS issues the token within the bloc. The EBA said 45 e-money tokens had been notified under MiCA and that USDC was the first to cross the threshold for significant classification. It is a milestone in the operation of Europe’s crypto rulebook rather than a new stablecoin launch.
The supervisory division is more nuanced than one agency taking over everything. The EBA will assume responsibilities covering own funds, reserves, liquidity and recovery or redemption planning. France’s ACPR will continue overseeing matters including governance, outsourcing and the suitability of key personnel.
That matters because stablecoin risk is not confined to whether a dollar token tracks its peg on a quiet trading day. Redemption pressure, the liquidity of backing assets and operational failures can become important when demand for withdrawals surges. Significant-token designation puts extra scrutiny on those areas.
For European banks and payment companies evaluating USDC, a clearer line of supervision may help with due diligence. It does not remove market, custody or operational risk, and it should not be taken as a guarantee of redemption under every conceivable scenario. MiCA is meant to establish a framework for managing such risks, not make them disappear.
Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
A new payments dataset offers a useful correction to the idea that stablecoin growth must be measured by how many tokens are in circulation. The stock of digital dollars has barely moved this year, but the amount being used for payments has climbed sharply.
TL;DR: Allium estimates $482 billion in identifiable stablecoin payments through September 2026, up 45% from the comparable period. Stablecoin supply grew only 0.4% to roughly $305 billion.
The analytics firm’s October 15 research counted about 1.04 billion payment transactions across the first nine months, a 71% rise. That means the increase is not simply a handful of larger transfers distorting the total. More transactions are taking place, and the average payment has become smaller.
The figures are filtered to reflect payment activity rather than every on-chain movement. That matters when raw stablecoin transfer totals can be dominated by exchange arbitrage, transfers between a company’s own wallets or automated trading. The $482 billion estimate is not intended to represent all stablecoin transactions.
Payment companies have been connecting familiar card and banking systems to blockchain rails, reducing the need for businesses or customers to interact with crypto-specific tools. Allium’s report suggests this infrastructure is beginning to change usage patterns, even with supply essentially flat.
There are limits to what the numbers prove. Volume is not profit, nor does an active token necessarily reflect durable consumer adoption. But a market where existing coins turn over more often is different from one dependent on continuous new issuance. For payment providers, that distinction is becoming increasingly important.
Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
Login