Cutting Through The Stablecoin Noise—What Credit Unions Actually Need To Know Now

By Ray Birch

DOVER, Del.—By any measure, stablecoins have quickly become one of the most talked-about—and least understood—topics in credit union boardrooms. The pressure to “do something” is building, fueled by headlines, fintech momentum and a growing fear of being left behind.

But according to InvestiFi CEO Kian Sarreshteh, that urgency may be misplaced.

“There’s a lot of FOMO right now,” Sarreshteh said. “If I don’t adopt a stablecoin solution this year, I’m going to be left behind. I would argue pretty strongly that’s very far from the truth.”

Instead of rushing to sign up for a Stablecoin pilot, Sarreshteh said credit unions should begin with a more fundamental question: what problem are you actually trying to solve? While stablecoins are often discussed as a potential challenger to traditional payment rails dominated by Visa and Mastercard, he believes that kind of mass-market disruption remains years away—especially in the U.S., where consumers already have fast, convenient options such as Venmo, Zelle and Cash App.

“Unless there’s a very real reason for Americans to switch their payment behavior, they’re probably not going to do it,” he said, pointing to entrenched incentives like rewards cards. “I love earning airline miles every time I swipe my card. If I pay with a stablecoin, I’m not earning those.”

Cross-Border Payments

Where stablecoins may make more immediate sense is in narrower, high-friction use cases—most notably cross-border payments. Today, sending money internationally can take days and cost $35 to $50 per transaction, Sarreshteh noted. Stablecoins, by contrast, can settle in near real time and at a fraction of the cost.

“Expediting that three-to-five-day wire down to a matter of seconds adds a ton of value to members,” he said.

But even that use case isn’t universal. Many credit unions simply don’t have enough cross-border volume to justify the investment—at least not yet,  Sarreshteh said.

“If you don’t have the need to do that, then I would argue there’s not a reason to rush,” he said, emphasizing that the broader ecosystem—from infrastructure to regulation—is still evolving rapidly.

That uncertainty is also shaping how institutions think about alternatives like tokenized deposits, which some view as more balance sheet friendly. Sarreshteh cautioned that while tokenized deposits can be easier to account for, they come with limitations—particularly around scale and interoperability.

“If you’re trying to allow your members to send and receive them broadly, it’s not going to work out well,” he said, pointing to earlier bank-led networks that struggled outside closed ecosystems.

One of the core distinctions, he explained, is that tokenized deposit networks typically require participants to be within the same institution or ecosystem. Past efforts—such as proprietary bank networks—have demonstrated that limitation, where transactions could move efficiently within a closed loop but faced barriers once money needed to move beyond it.

By contrast, stablecoins are designed to operate across networks, allowing transfers between institutions without requiring shared infrastructure, provided users meet standard compliance requirements such as KYC or KYB.

That difference has important implications for credit unions, Sarreshteh explained, which generally lack the scale of the largest banks to build and sustain proprietary networks.

“For your average credit union, you don’t have that sort of scale,” Sarreshteh said, noting that interoperability is where stablecoins may ultimately offer more flexibility.

Bridge The Gap

InvestiFi’s approach aims to bridge that gap without forcing credit unions into an all-or-nothing bet. The company is developing an “auto-conversion” model in which stablecoins received by members are automatically converted into traditional, insured deposits—and converted back when sent. The goal is to preserve the benefits of stablecoin speed and cost while maintaining deposit relationships on the balance sheet, Sarreshteh said.

“The tagline that resonates is that all stablecoins at rest sit in an insured deposit account,” Sarreshteh said, describing a structure designed to address one of the biggest concerns among credit unions: how to retain deposits while enabling new forms of digital value transfer.

The model also reflects a broader strategic question facing the industry: whether stablecoins should be treated primarily as a payments capability, an investment feature, or some combination of both. Sarreshteh said InvestiFi views stablecoins as fundamentally a payments product, which is why the company is working to embed functionality directly into online and mobile banking interfaces—rather than treating it as a separate, niche offering.

At the same time, he pointed to emerging overlap between payments and digital investing platforms, where stablecoins are increasingly being used as a bridge between traditional accounts and crypto ecosystems. For example, members holding digital assets on platforms like Coinbase or Robinhood may want to move funds back into their credit union accounts quickly and at low cost—something stablecoin rails can facilitate in ways traditional ACH or wire transfers cannot.

Kian Sarreshteh

Near Term Use

That creates another potential near-term use case: account funding. By integrating stablecoins into digital account opening or funding processes, credit unions could enable near-instant transfers from external wallets into deposit accounts, reducing friction for members who already operate in digital asset environments.

Even so, Sarreshteh reminded that not every credit union needs to move now. The infrastructure is still being built. Large financial institutions and fintechs are experimenting with their own stablecoin models. Regulatory frameworks continue to evolve—with a Senate vote on the CLARITY Act set for Thursday. And consumer behavior—arguably the most critical factor—has yet to shift in a meaningful way.

“There’s so much happening in this space, so much infrastructure being built,” he said. “Until the dust settles, it’s really difficult to make informed decisions on how you should roll out a stablecoin solution today.”

For credit unions trying to chart a path forward, the next steps are less about deployment and more about discovery, suggested Sarreshteh. That may include engaging consultants to evaluate strategic options, holding structured conversations with vendors offering different approaches, and, most importantly, analyzing internal data to identify whether meaningful use cases already exist.

Looking at wire activity, cross-border transactions or member demographics can provide early signals as to whether stablecoins could deliver measurable value. From there, institutions can begin mapping potential pilots or partnerships—without committing to full-scale rollouts prematurely, Sarreshteh said.

“Be honest with yourself about what use cases make sense,” Sarreshteh said. “If you don’t have cross-border use cases that are material, then maybe stablecoins don’t make sense near term.”