How exchanges are transforming markets with the use of stablecoins. Insights from PBW

At the Paris Blockchain Week, the panel “Bridging Markets: The Role of Exchange and Stablecoin” focused on an increasingly crucial topic for the crypto industry: the role of stablecoins in the evolution of exchanges and in the dialogue between traditional markets and digital assets.

From the discussion among operators from exchanges, banking, market infrastructures, and payments, a rather clear line emerges: stablecoins are no longer viewed merely as a crypto product, but as an operational element increasingly close to financial infrastructure. At the same time, however, the panel also highlighted all the remaining limitations: regulatory fragmentation, integration complexity, imperfect user experience, and standards that are not yet mature.

Stablecoins Are No Longer a Side Topic on Exchanges

The panel’s opening immediately set the stage: discussing the bridge between digital assets and traditional finance, according to the speakers, inevitably means talking about stablecoins.

From the transcript, three main directions emerge. The first is their use as a operational base for centralized exchanges. Giovanni Cunti, CEO Europe of GATE, describes stablecoins as an essential component for the operation of an exchange: without this layer, the platform’s functionality would be significantly more limited.

The second aspect concerns the business and corporate side. Ivan Zhiznevsky, founder and CEO of 3S Money, provides a concrete perspective from the payments world: according to the panel, a significant portion of corporate clients is already aware of the stablecoin product or actively uses it. The two most clearly cited use cases are: settlements with counterparts in emerging markets or with strong currency controls and cross-border payments, including salaries and freelancers.

The third direction is more strategic: according to Amy Oldenburg of Morgan Stanley and Stephanie Hurry of Boerse Stuttgart Digital, the discussion is shifting from the simple question of “which stablecoin to use” to a broader plan, namely which settlement rails and standards to build to efficiently keep value within digital tracks.

Stablecoin as Infrastructure or as a Product?

This is one of the most interesting points that emerged from the panel. The response, essentially, was not unanimous, but the general consensus is that stablecoins are taking on a structural role.

For exchanges, the point seems already settled: they are a part of the infrastructure. Cunti states it directly, explaining that in the context of a centralized exchange, stablecoins have now become an operational cornerstone.

On the corporate side, Zhiznevsky emphasizes that the demand comes from users and businesses. In other words, the stablecoin is not just back-end technology: it is also a tool that the end user begins to treat as “another currency” in their operational flow.

Stephanie Hurry, however, introduces an important distinction: stablecoins, on their own, do not exhaust the concept of infrastructure. According to her speech, infrastructure is also composed of rails, processes, interoperability, and standards. In this perspective, the stablecoin is a crucial part of the system, but it does not equate to the entire system.

Real Use Cases: Payments, Settlement, Collateral

The panel steered clear of abstraction and focused on concrete use cases.

The first is that of payments. Here, 3S Money provided the clearest example, linking the adoption of stablecoins to real needs for international value transfer, especially where traditional money encounters friction.

The second is the settlement. The debate reveals that the speed and operational continuity of stablecoins are perceived as a key advantage, especially for those working in environments requiring near-continuous availability.

The third is the collateral. The speakers highlighted the topic of lending and the use of stablecoins as a monetary base or collateral in more financial applications. Here, however, the tone remains cautious: interest is strong, but operational and regulatory complexity is rapidly increasing.

Why User Experience is Still an Issue

One of the most insightful points of the panel concerns the gap between the potential of the technology and the actual user experience.

Amy Oldenburg notes that, outside the crypto-native niche, the experience often remains cumbersome: multiple wallets, stablecoins issued on different chains, and the need to manage somewhat unintuitive technical steps. The point, therefore, is not just the theoretical efficiency of settlement, but the ability to offer a truly simple and predictable experience.

Zhiznevsky translates this concept into a very clear formula: in financial services, predictability matters, meaning knowing what happens when you press a button. In this sense, the challenge for the sector is not only to expand services but to make them understandable and reliable for users and businesses.

Exchanges Are No Longer Just Trading Venues

Another strong message from the panel concerns the transformation of the exchanges themselves. According to Giovanni Cunti, ten years ago the role was much more straightforward: a platform primarily used for trading. Today, that is no longer enough.

The transcript reveals an evolution towards a broader model, almost like a full-service provider or Web3 operator, capable of including trading, collateral, settlement, 24/7 services, and other integrated functions.

This expansion, however, brings with it a crucial question: what to build in-house and what to outsource?

The speakers’ response converges on a precise criterion: the most sensitive functions in terms of risk, custody, and compliance tend to remain internal. Everything that is less critical can be entrusted to partners. However, even when choosing a partner, the panelists explain, it is still necessary to establish a robust level of control.

Regulation: More Credibility, but Also More Fragmentation

On the regulatory front, the panel expressed a very clear position: regulation has given the sector more credibility, but it has not yet solved the main issue, which is fragmentation.

Giovanni Cunti highlights that in Europe, with MiCA, operators have found themselves working within a precise framework, but not always aligned with that of other jurisdictions. The most openly cited case is that of USDT, described as the dominant stablecoin globally but not treated the same way within the European framework for regulated operators.

Ivan Zhiznevsky adds that this divergence may have pushed some activities outside the European perimeter. Amy Oldenburg, from the perspective of a large global organization, notes that for those operating across multiple markets, numerous frictions remain between different regulatory levels.

Stephanie Hurry adds another layer: even within Europe, the dialogue with national authorities may not be uniform. In summary, the panel does not dispute the value of regulation, but points out that the lack of harmonization remains a tangible hindrance.

AI, Agents, and New Operational Models

In the final part, the panel also addresses the topic of AI, with a more pragmatic than promotional approach.

For Giovanni Cunti, AI primarily appears as an enabler. For 3S Money, however, its use is already very close to operational compliance: onboarding, KYC, KYB, screening, and control processes. Zhiznevsky insists that a significant portion of roles in transactional banking is linked to risk and compliance, and that automation can enhance efficiency and consistency.

Morgan Stanley maintains a more cautious stance: the potential is there, but compliance and risk management are areas where there is no room for error. At this stage, therefore, the adoption of AI agents is presented more as a field to be carefully developed rather than as a fully mature solution.

What This Panel Truly Leaves Behind

The most significant insight from the Paris Blockchain Week is that the role of exchanges is evolving alongside the role of stablecoins.

Stablecoins are no longer presented solely as a tool for trading or as a transitional asset. In the panel, they take the form of an operational layer that encompasses payments, settlement, collateral, treasury, and the distribution of digital financial services.

Simultaneously, exchanges no longer describe themselves merely as markets, but as increasingly complex infrastructures or service platforms. The focus is not just on expanding the offering, but on doing so while maintaining reliability, control, and regulatory compliance.

The final message from the panel is clear: the boundary between crypto-native and traditional finance is narrowing, but the convergence is not yet complete. The market is moving, demand is present, and use cases exist. What is still lacking is a sufficiently robust standardization to turn this transition into a true operational norm.

7. FAQ stablecoin exchange

What emerged from the panel on stablecoins at the Paris Blockchain Week? The panel revealed that stablecoins are increasingly being seen as an operational tool for payments, settlement, and integration between traditional and crypto markets.

Have stablecoins been defined as financial infrastructure? Yes, several speakers have described them as a central part of the infrastructure, especially for exchanges and payments. Another position that emerged is that the complete infrastructure also includes rails, processes, and interoperability standards.

What use cases for stablecoins were mentioned in the panel? The most clearly mentioned use cases are cross-border payments, settlements with clients and suppliers, international payroll, settlement, and uses related to collateral.

How are exchanges changing according to the speakers? According to the panel, exchanges are no longer just trading platforms. They are evolving into broader models, with integrated services that include settlement, collateral, continuous operational support, and other functions.

What was the main regulatory issue highlighted? The panel highlighted the regulatory fragmentation between Europe, the United States, and other jurisdictions. It was also noted that the lack of harmonization can create friction for users and operators.