Firms Hit Hardest By Payment Fees Aren’t Using Stablecoins At All
Businesses in Indonesia and Vietnam lose the most to cross-border payment fees in a survey of 150 Asian firms, yet not one of them uses stablecoins, the tool often pitched as the fix.
Key Takeaways
- 87% of Indonesian firms lose at least 3% of their foreign earnings to fees and currency costs, against 43% in Singapore
- No respondent in Indonesia or Vietnam uses stablecoins today, while the Philippines leads at 20%
- 87% of all firms hit at least one banking or payment disruption in the past year
- 94% said a backup payment option would be valuable
The survey by payments company Morph and research firm Studio by Informa TechTarget covered operators and payment decision-makers in Singapore, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam.
Fees Eat Into Every Dollar
Across all five markets, 65% of firms said they lose at least 3% of their international earnings to platform deductions, bank charges, payment fees and currency exchange. Another 7% put the loss at 6% or more, and 78% said their payments pass through at least three middlemen.
Indonesia was hit hardest. There, 93% named high fees and currency markups as a pain point, and one in five said at least 6% of their foreign earnings disappears, Morph operations director Renna Ba told Fathom News.
The survey did not collect company revenue, so it cannot give a typical yearly loss. Ba put it in simple terms: a 3% cut costs $3,000 for every $100,000 earned abroad, and a 6% cut costs $6,000.
“It is working capital that could otherwise be used to pay people, invest in growth, or provide a buffer when the next payment is delayed,” Ba told Fathom.
More Pain, Less Crypto
The markets that lose the most to fees are the ones furthest from using stablecoins.
| Market | Lose 3%+ to fees | Use stablecoins now | Using, building or weighing them |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 87% | 0% | 35% |
| Vietnam | 81% | 0% | 51% |
| Philippines | 60% | 20% | 67% |
| Hong Kong | 52% | 14% | 52% |
| Singapore | 43% | 17% | 77% |
Ba said local rules explain much of the gap. In Indonesia, the rupiah is mandatory for domestic payments and virtual currencies are not allowed as a means of payment. Vietnam’s crypto rules are still new, tightly controlled and built around its own currency, the dong.
“Stablecoins will not win merely because the existing system is painful,” Ba told Fathom.
A Backup, Not A Breakup
Banking trouble was common. Some 87% of firms faced at least one banking or payment disruption in the past 12 months, 84% saw unexpected payment delays and 52% had international wires blocked or held up by compliance checks or middleman banks.
Still, firms are not walking away from banks. Some 94% said a second payment route would be valuable as a backup.
“Businesses are not necessarily looking to abandon banks. What they want is an alternative so that one delayed route does not bring essential payments to a halt,” Ba told Fathom.
Ba said the survey covers only the past 12 months, so it cannot show whether blocked wires are becoming more common, or tie them to banks pulling back from smaller markets.
Also Read: Nigeria Central Bank Sets Stablecoin Rules, Bars Interest
Rules Decide Who Trusts Stablecoins
Among 126 firms asked what would build their confidence in stablecoins, 96% said regulatory compliance would have a very high impact. Instant conversion into local currency followed at 74%, and a reliable one-to-one match with local money at 71%.
Ba said Hong Kong is furthest ahead on rules, with a stablecoin licensing regime in force and its first licenses granted, while Singapore is still bringing its framework in through legislation. Singapore firms showed the strongest pipeline, with 77% using, building or weighing stablecoins, while the Philippines led actual use at 20%.
Read Next: Western Union Hands Solana A Back Door Into Mexico As Hong Kong Lists A 2nd SOL ETF
About The Survey
Morph, which sells a stablecoin payments service, ran the survey with Studio by Informa TechTarget among 150 respondents, about 30 in each market. The survey did not record company size or revenue, and results are based on what respondents reported, so country figures should be read as a guide rather than exact measures.
