According to the latest data published by Fortune, Fireblocks has already recorded a record of 212 billion dollars in stablecoin transactions in July 2025.
During the analysis of the statement and the technical verification of the provided integrations, our editorial team examined the API specifications and routing workflows available for banking partners and PSPs, finding a setup oriented towards the standardization of flows.
Industry analysts consulted note that a neutral network like this can significantly reduce the integration work for banks and fintech, accelerating go-to-market times.
These observations are based on preliminary audits of technical documents and interviews with corporate treasury operators collected in September 2025.
What’s new and who’s participating
The network is already operational with over 40 participants, including Circle, Bridge (startup acquired by Stripe), Yellow Card, and Zerohash. According to Fireblocks, the coverage extends to more than 100 countries, with the company valued at approximately 8 billion dollars and volumes of stablecoin experiencing strong growth in the current market scenarios.
- Participants: 40+ entities including issuers, PSPs, exchanges, and fintech
- Coverage: 100+ markets served through partners and local licenses
- Reported volumes: 212 billion dollars in stablecoins processed in July 2025
How it works (in practice)
The network connects wallets, bank accounts, and operating licenses, allowing transfers and conversions between different issuers. It should be noted that the infrastructure provides APIs, custody, and automated routing to reduce complexity and operational risk.
- Integration via API/SDK for sending, receiving, and reconciliation
- Multi-stablecoin and multi-chain support with native interoperability
- Key management and custody with security controls and segregation
- Integrated compliance tools (KYC/AML, travel rule) and standard workflows
Impact on Time and Costs
The shared setup aims to reduce development expenses, limit manual errors, and shorten settlement times compared to traditional channels. In fact, the standardization of steps reduces friction and improves cost predictability.
- Settlement times: from a few seconds to a few minutes depending on the network (see documentation Ethereum docs and Solana docs)
- On-chain fee: from fractions of a cent to a few dollars per transaction, variable due to congestion and chain (e.g., Etherscan Gas Tracker)
- Operating costs: reduced thanks to the automation of routing, reconciliation, and reporting
Why It Interests Companies
For businesses with branches and suppliers in multiple countries, the network offers more accessible liquidity, reduces crediting times, and simplifies access to reliable banking partners in complex markets. In this context, native on-chain traceability and standard processes facilitate audits and controls.
- Cross-border B2B payments with reduced delays
- Treasury: positioning and conversion between stablecoins to optimize cash flow
- Local on/off-ramps through partners with licenses and domestic accounts
Ready-to-use products and use cases
The network allows for the rapid deployment of real-time treasury solutions, B2B payment portals, and tools for intra-group transfers. That said, companies avoid building proprietary stacks and rely on a shared infrastructure with scalability and governance.
- Supplier payments and invoice advances
- Intercompany transfers and FX management between stablecoins
- Marketplace revenue and payout to merchants
Architecture and Controls
- API for multi-issuer routing and priority rules
- Custody with granular policies (multi-approver, limits, segregation)
- Transaction monitoring, sanctions screening, travel rule where applicable
- Log and audit trail for traceability and reconciliation
Regulatory Context: What Changes Between the EU, USA, and Emerging Markets
The landscape is heterogeneous and can influence integration, reporting, and risk management. Yet, some technical and procedural convergences are emerging among the various jurisdictions.
- European Union: MiCA (Reg. EU 2023/1114) introduces rules for token issuers and service providers – official text in the EU Gazette eur-lex.europa.eu.
- United States: fragmented approach, with a focus on AML/CFT requirements (e.g., FinCEN). The guidelines are updated on the FinCEN website.
- Africa and other emerging markets: evolving regulations and pilot frameworks; currency policies and capital controls weigh in, with reference to FATF standards on virtual assets and VASP.
In this context, Fireblocks claims to leverage partner licenses to provide local banking access, without waiving KYC/AML requirements and onshore compliance.
Risks and Open Issues
- Issuer risk and depeg: the stability of the token depends on the quality of the reserves and the transparency of the reports.
- Dependence on on/off-ramps: potential local banking blockages can slow down the flows.
- Operational concentration: a centralized infrastructure reduces complexity but increases the systemic risk profile.
- Interoperability: differences between chains and finality rules can create technical frictions.
Numbers, verifications, and independent sources
The data on participants, coverage, and volumes come from the official release of September 4, 2025 (PR Newswire). To contextualize network-level performance and fees, refer to the technical sources below. For the regulatory framework, refer to official texts and guidelines from authorities.
- Fireblocks Announcement: PR Newswire
- Network times/throughput: Ethereum docs · Solana docs
- On-chain fee: Etherscan Gas Tracker
- EU Regulation: MiCA (EU text)
- AML/CFT USA: FinCEN
- International standards: FATF – Guidance VASP
Conclusions
The Fireblocks network aims to industrialize stablecoin payments between companies and institutions, combining operational speed, compliance controls, and local partnerships. The drive is clear: to standardize processes and reduce the “integration cost” in cross-border flows. It remains important to monitor the quality of issuers’ reserves, regulatory developments, and the management of technical concentration risk.
