Despite the global B2B payments market having grown into a multi-trillion-dollar economy, the operational reality of most corporate treasury functions is still complicated. The people responsible for managing cross-border payment flows today are, in many cases, still running operations across five to eight disconnected provider relationships, one for SWIFT wire transfers, one for ACH and domestic rails, a separate arrangement for FX execution, another for digital asset settlement, and at least one bank account (that could, at any given moment, be closed with limited notice and no formal obligation to explain why).
The financial burden of maintaining such a fragmented system is immense, with a recent Oxford study estimating that large enterprises lose an average of $98.5 million annually from a combination of payment friction and fraud exposure.
Similarly, as per EY, 65% of corporate treasurers do not have accurate 12-month cash flow forecasts at the moment. This is thanks to their workloads being managed via fragmented IT stacks, where cash positions require manual reconciliation across multiple data sources before a coherent picture can be assembled.
And, with demand for real-time settlement moving fast, many experts have argued that fragmented treasury infrastructure can no longer be the norm as it permeates multiple banking relationships, each with its own cut-off times, settlement schedules, and reporting formats.
Payment failure handling has added to this mix, with cross-border transactions experiencing interruption rates of 15–20% and re-execution sometimes taking business days rather than hours (something that is not feasible with treasuries managing liquidity across multiple markets in real time).
The Stablecoin Complexity Angle
Stablecoin settlements introduce yet another unique dimension to the fragmentation debate, as over the last couple of years, B2B stablecoin transaction volumes have grown to reach $10.9 trillion (as of Q4 2025). These figures rival Visa’s annual payment volume, and for enterprise treasury functions looking to incorporate this novel asset class into their existing rails, the overarching system needs to be upgraded.
OpenPayd’s infrastructure is one such solution, addressing all of the aforementioned bottlenecks through a single API that connects SEPA, Faster Payments, SWIFT, and local ACH systems alongside digital asset capabilities. In all of this, a virtual IBAN architecture handles transaction reconciliation automatically, and multi-currency accounts provide a live view of balances in a unified dashboard.
FX is processed through the same interface at transparent rates, removing the markup opacity that compounds costs in multi-provider arrangements. As a result, businesses running high-volume cross-border operations on this consolidated model (be it marketplaces, remittance platforms, payroll providers, digital asset exchanges) have reported overhead reductions of 20% to 50% compared to their previous setups.
On the regulatory front, OpenPayd’s coverage spans the UK FCA, Malta MFSA, and Canadian FINTRAC, while from a numbers standpoint, the platform has reported $180 billion in annualized transaction volume across more than 1,000 clients, including Kraken, Ripple, Bitfinex, OKX, and Wirex, at a reported 99.99% uptime.
Simply put, OpenPayd is actively helping businesses that are most acutely affected by fragmented payments and de-banking risks.
Infrastructure Consolidation In Real Life
As the real-time payments market scales to a valuation of $47.06 billion by the year’s end and B2B settlements also rise in parallel, the gap between a five-provider treasury stack and a single unified infrastructure can no longer continue to widen. Instead, new platforms need to emerge, particularly those that can handle FX at the point of execution rather than embedding a markup that surfaces after the fact.
Furthermore, they need to be able to provide real-time visibility across multi-currency positions without manual reconciliation and, perhaps most importantly, hold the regulatory authorizations required across relevant jurisdictions independently (rather than funnelling access through a banking sponsor whose willingness to serve the client can be withdrawn on relatively short notice).
