Cross-border payments in 2026: Friction and reform

16 February 2026
by Payments Intelligence

Insight summary

Overview: Cross-border payments remain slow, costly, and complex due to structural dependence on correspondent banking, fragmented standards, FX and liquidity constraints, and rising compliance burdens, despite advances in technology.
Why it matters: These inefficiencies inflate costs, delay settlements, and reduce transparency, limiting the effectiveness of global trade, remittances, and financial inclusion.
Who’s affected: Banks, fintechs, businesses engaged in international trade, migrant workers sending remittances, and consumers making cross-border payments all bear higher costs and greater uncertainty.

Introduction

Cross-border payments underpin global trade, investment, and remittance flows, yet they continue to be constrained by structural inefficiencies and regulatory complexity. Despite coordinated international efforts and rapid technological innovation, progress on speed, cost, transparency, and accessibility has been uneven. A growing mix of solutions, including stablecoins, account-to-account links, and software platforms, is reshaping the market, but no single model has emerged as dominant. Instead, the sector is evolving through parallel systems that address different use cases and risk profiles.

TPA member insights

“Cross-border payments remain burdened by high time and value costs, driven by fragmented correspondent banking networks and limited interoperability. FX volatility and liquidity constraints add further friction, often slowing settlement and inflating operational expense. Compliance obligations, particularly sanctions screening and AML, continue to intensify, demanding sophisticated monitoring and raising the bar for international partners. Finding partners with robust controls, scalable technology and proven compliance frameworks is essential to delivering faster, safer and more predictable global payment flows.

“Individually, the issues in cross-border payments present a significant challenge, particularly for banks burdened with intricate legacy systems. Collectively, they become an insurmountable obstacle. To remain competitive, banks urgently need a solution that enables them to both consolidate and centralize these existing systems and simultaneously implement the necessary changes.”

“In the long run, infrastructure shapes markets. Disruption is rewiring cross-border payments. Global single shared platforms, blockchain infrastructure, stablecoins and new players like Mastercard Move and Visa Direct are transforming how money moves. This is a paradigm shift. What was once fragmented and opaque is now orchestrated end to end. With embedded compliance, real-time visibility and pre-funded certainty, institutions gain control while users gain confidence. This is the new cross-border: streamlined and built for global scale.”

“Cross-border payments are entering a phase where capital management and payment execution are coordinated within a single programmable flow. PayFi is emerging as a payments-first financial layer that embeds liquidity, compliance and execution into each transaction, enabling institutions to move beyond fragmented treasury structures and prefunded corridor balances. By aligning funding and settlement in real time, this model improves cash visibility, reduces trapped capital and simplifies global liquidity management.”

“The gap between 24/7 digital commerce and limited fiat operating hours remains a structural challenge. While we’re seeing promising momentum in the industry, we are used to spearheading real-time coverage in markets with non-existent or fragmented real-time models. Networks built on direct‑to‑local connections and global reach can support near-instant cross-border payments, giving institutions a way to operate on a 24/7 basis regardless of local cut‑off times.”

“Cross‑border payments are shifting rapidly as interoperability initiatives, regulated stablecoin models, and real‑time A2A connections gain traction. While G20 progress is mixed, software‑driven FX, liquidity, and compliance optimisation is meaningfully reducing friction without replacing correspondent banking. Institutions that prioritise scalable, interoperable solutions and regulatory alignment will be best positioned to lead the next phase of global payments modernisation.”

“Cross-border payments remain complex because transactions pass through multiple banks, jurisdictions and regulatory systems, introducing fees, delays and reduced visibility. Correspondent banking chains, data errors, FX sourcing, liquidity requirements and compliance checks add friction. SMEs are disproportionately affected due to fewer banking relationships and tighter cash flow. Corridor thinning raises costs and reduces access. Open banking improves domestic efficiency but lacks consistent cross-border coverage. Crypto rails enable faster, 24/7 transfers without correspondent chains, but neither fully resolves all challenges, underscoring the need for coordinated improvements aligned with G20 and FSB objectives.”

Industry impact at a glance

Fintech Providers

Fintechs are expanding rapidly through A2A networks, software platforms, and digital assets, but must manage regulatory uncertainty and liquidity risk to scale.

International Businesses

Cross-border traders and multinational firms continue to absorb high FX costs, settlement delays, and operational friction that weaken cash flow efficiency.

Banks

Banks face rising compliance costs, declining correspondent profitability, and sustained pressure to modernise legacy infrastructure while preserving regulatory trust.

Consumers

Individuals using cross-border payments, particularly remittance senders, benefit from new digital channels but still encounter inconsistent pricing, access, and reliability.

Progress, policy, and persistent friction

Despite significant progress in payments technology, cross-border payments still face long-standing issues regarding cost, speed, transparency, and accessibility. The G20’s roadmap for enhancing cross-border payments has struggled to translate ambitious global targets into measurable improvement, highlighting the gap between policy intent and operational reality.

The $195 trillion that crossed borders in 2024 encountered these issues. Fortunately, for the $320 trillion in cross-border payments forecast for 2032, solutions are emerging.

Stablecoins, account-to-account (A2A) payments, and software-based solutions each promise faster, cheaper, and more transparent transfers, but they do so through fundamentally different models of money movement, with each offering different benefits and limitations.

Structural inefficiencies continue to shape cross-border payments, creating persistent challenges around cost, speed, transparency, and access. A range of new technologies is now emerging in response, from instant payment links and upgraded correspondent networks to regulated stablecoins and API-driven platforms, each addressing different parts of the problem.

These challenges are deeply embedded in the current international financial system, but they are no longer insurmountable. Advances in infrastructure and software are steadily narrowing the gap between domestic and international payments, making faster, cheaper, and more predictable transfers possible. Rather than converging on a single dominant model, the market is evolving through a mix of complementary solutions, with different technologies proving more effective for different use cases.

G20 Roadmap for Enhancing Cross-border Payments

The G20 published the Enhancing Cross-border Payments report in 2020 with the goal of making cross-border payments cheaper, faster, more inclusive and more transparent. The report presented a roadmap, developed by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and the Bank for International Settlements Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI), to address key challenges and set “ambitious but achievable goals.”

Overview of the G20 targets measured by a set of key performance indicators

Area	Payment segment	Target (by end-2027, for remittance costs by end-2030)
Cost	Retail remittances	Global average no more than 1%, no corridors with costs higher than 3%. Global average no more than 3% for USD 200 remittance, no corridors with costs higher than 5%.
Speed	All payment segments	75% of transactions to be credited to the recipient within one hour upon initiation and the rest within one business day
Transparency	All payment segments	All payment service providers to provide a minimum defined list of information
Access	Wholesale	Minimum of one option per payment corridor for sending/receiving wholesale cross-border payments
	Retail	All end users have at least one option for sending or receiving cross-border electronic payments
	Remittances	More than 90% have access to electronic remittances.

Source: FSB (2021)

In 2021, the FSB published quantitative targets to be achieved by the end of 2027. A 2025 report from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) stated it is unlikely any of these targets will be achieved on time and that “improvements in outcomes for end users have so far been modest.” When measured against the four challenge areas, the distance becomes apparent:

Speed: Around 35% of retail and 55% of wholesale/remittance payments are credited within one hour, versus a 75% target
Cost: Retail and remittance costs have fallen slightly, but global averages remain above the 1% (retail) and 3% (remittance) targets
Transparency: Some improvement, but still insufficient and uneven across regions
Accessibility: Broad in many regions, but still below the universal and >90% inclusion thresholds set for end-users and remittance users, respectively.

Future targets could be better defined and measurable.

Operationally, they should pertain to specific actions and system capabilities that institutions can implement, and regulators can verify, rather than high-level outcome statements that are difficult to attribute to or measure.

From a data perspective, targets should be more granular, providing corridor-level targets that allow specific jurisdictions to assume responsibility, rather than broad, global averages.

Challenges in cross-border payments

Cost, speed, transparency, and access are long-standing challenges in cross-border payments, as outlined by the FSB report. However, there are more specific issues that span these broad categories.

Correspondent banking economics and de-risking

Correspondent banking remains the backbone of most cross-border transactions. However, its economics make it challenging: maintaining bilateral relationships across hundreds of corridors is capital-intensive, operationally complex, and increasingly unprofitable for many banks, particularly in lower-volume or higher-risk regions.

Over the past decade, regulatory pressure and rising compliance costs have accelerated a trend of “de-risking”, with banks withdrawing from certain markets and terminating correspondent relationships. This has reduced competition and increased reliance on a smaller number of global clearing banks, concentrating risk and driving up costs for end users.

The correspondent banking model perpetuates many of the fundamental issues outlined by the G20 report. Solutions seek to either completely subvert the correspondent banking system, as in the case of stablecoins and some A2A payments, or reduce dependence on long chains, as in the case of software solutions.

Interoperability

Interoperability remains one of the most persistent challenges in cross-border payments, despite renewed momentum behind global standards such as ISO 20022. Many welcome ISO 20022 as a step towards more consistent messaging and risk management frameworks across jurisdictions. Standardisation has long been viewed as essential to reducing friction in cross-border transactions, particularly in areas such as compliance, reconciliation, and fraud detection.

However, standards alone do not ensure interoperability: ISO 20022 has existed for more than two decades, yet adoption has historically been slow and uneven.

Data quality and the actual implementation of standards present another issue. Even where standards are shared, poor or incomplete data entering the payment message undermines their effectiveness. Additionally, interoperability fails if receiving institutions cannot extract, properly interpret, and apply that data within their own compliance and operational systems. This extends the challenge beyond technical specifications to ensuring that all participants in a payment chain contribute reliable, usable information and are equipped to act on it.

The industry must plan for a future in which multiple payment technologies and infrastructures coexist, comprising bank transfers, instant payment schemes, and emerging digital assets such as stablecoins. This is more likely than a single dominant standard to prevail.

FX and liquidity management as structural bottlenecks

Many of the cost and speed challenges in cross-border payments stem not from messaging technology but from foreign exchange conversion and liquidity management. Traditional models rely on nostro and vostro accounts held in multiple currencies across jurisdictions, tying up capital and exposing institutions to FX volatility and intraday liquidity risk.

Delays frequently occur when liquidity is unavailable in a given corridor or when FX pricing must be recalculated mid-transaction. Smaller institutions, in particular, struggle to maintain sufficient balances across all corridors, leading to reliance on intermediaries and increased settlement risk. These dynamics directly undermine the G20 objectives of faster and cheaper payments, even where technical standards such as ISO 20022 are in place.

Emerging models seek to address this through prefunding, netting arrangements, and on-demand liquidity mechanisms. Software platforms increasingly manage liquidity centrally and execute FX conversions internally, while stablecoins offer the prospect of atomic settlement without traditional correspondent balances. However, these approaches shift rather than eliminate risk, creating new dependencies on market liquidity, token issuers, or platform operators.

Key Stats 📊

(Hover over the titles)

$195tn → $320tn (2024–2032)

Global cross-border payments hit $195 trillion in 2024 and forecast to reach $320 trillion by 2032, highlighting the growing scale and importance of international money movement.

Only 35% and 55% settle within one hour

Just 35% of retail payments and 55% of wholesale and remittance payments reach beneficiaries within one hour, falling well short of the G20’s 75% speed target.

Costs remain above 1% and 3% targets

Average cross-border payment fees continue to exceed the G20 benchmarks of 1% for retail and 3% for remittances, limiting affordability for consumers and businesses.

$11.4tn in stablecoin volume (2025)

Stablecoin transactions reached $11.4 trillion in 2025, although only around $390 billion reflected real payment activity, with the rest driven by trading and automated transfers.

$300bn+ stablecoin market cap

The stablecoin market has grown from $5.3 billion in 2020 to over $300 billion today, underlining its rapid expansion and rising relevance to cross-border payments.

Compliance, sanctions screening, and operational friction

Compliance remains one of the most significant sources of delay and opacity in cross-border payments. Sanctions screening, anti-money laundering checks, and know-your-customer requirements are applied repeatedly across multiple institutions in a single payment chain, often using inconsistent data formats and risk thresholds.

False positives and incomplete information frequently trigger manual “repairs”, removing payments from automated processing and adding hours or days to settlement times. These processes are costly, labour-intensive, and opaque to end users, contributing to uncertainty around delivery times and final fees. The challenge is compounded by legal and regulatory barriers to sharing fraud and financial crime data across borders, limiting collective defence against illicit activity.

While new technologies promise greater transparency and traceability, they also face the same compliance constraints as traditional systems. Stablecoins and A2A links must integrate sanctions screening and transaction monitoring at scale, while software-based platforms must harmonise compliance processes across jurisdictions.

Security and resilience

It is difficult to quantify the extent of fraud within a single jurisdiction, and even more so globally. There is a lack of cross-jurisdictional approaches to addressing fraud, including insufficient measures for recovering funds. This is compounded by the interconnectedness of the media by which fraud is enabled: telecommunications services, social media platforms, and payment services.

Security entails not only direct risks for cross-border payments firms but also additional compliance burdens. Regulations such as the EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) and new UK and US standards require firms to withstand severe disruption and cyber risk. Adopting AI-driven fraud detection, ongoing monitoring, and rapid response practices should be standard for all players. This presents an issue for cross-border payments operators: collaboration is needed across all relevant sectors to prevent, detect, and respond to fraud effectively but legal uncertainty deters sharing fraud or financial crime-related information and data, especially across borders.

Along with technological and regulatory levers, there are lower-cost, lower-friction levers to pull. For example, the FSB Taskforce on Legal, Regulatory and Supervisory matters (LRS Taskforce), developing a common language related to fraud and good practices.

Stablecoins

Stablecoins replace the correspondent banking chains with blockchain networks. This enables transactions to settle within minutes or seconds on certain networks, regardless of geographic location or banking hours. Transaction fees on public blockchain networks are typically low and predictable, and settlement does not require the use of prefunded nostro accounts in destination jurisdictions.

By removing multiple intermediaries and enabling near-instant settlement, stablecoins address one of the most persistent causes of delay and heightened fees in traditional cross-border payments.

When processed over public blockchains, stablecoins also enhance transparency. Public ledgers allow participants to track transfers in real time and verify settlement independently. This reduces uncertainty around payment status, timing, and reconciliation.

Accessibility is less straightforward. Regulatory uncertainty, limited integration with domestic banking systems, and operational complexity for end users can pose barriers to use. At the same time, markets dealing with high inflation – Argentina, Türkiye, Venezuela – have seen significant stablecoin adoption, suggesting sufficient motivation can drive adoption despite accessibility issues.

The state of the stablecoin industry

Stablecoin use is soaring. Transaction volume increased by more than 90% year-on-year in 2025, with $11.41 trillion processed via stablecoin, according to data from Allium. Total transaction values are inflated by trading, internal shuffling of funds, and automated blockchain activity, but analysis by McKinsey and Artemis Analytics found the volume of actual stablecoin payments made in 2025 was about $390 billion, roughly 0.02 percent of global payments volumes and more than double 2024.

More unequivocal is the increase in supply. Stablecoins now have a combined market capitalisation of more than $300 billion, a marked increase from the $5.3 billion at the start of 2020. Unique wallet addresses increased from 350 million in 2023 to over 500 million as of Q3 2025, according to The Payment Association’s cross-border payments whitepaper. The same report found stablecoin supply forecasts range from $1.9 trillion (base case) to $4 trillion (aggressive scenario) by 2030.

As with any nascent technology, regulatory uncertainty, limited integration with domestic banking systems, and operational complexity for end users make accessibility an issue. Additionally, conversion between stablecoins and fiat currency still requires intermediaries such as exchanges or payment providers, introducing cost, compliance checks, and potential delays.

The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), the US’ GENIUS Act, and proposed UK cryptoasset regulations all seek to impose reserve requirements, licensing regimes, and consumer protections to improve trust and legal certainty. However, inconsistent regulatory treatment presents a barrier to stablecoin application for cross-border payments.

Company	Report date	Source	Status
Amazon	June 2025	“…people familiar with the matter.” – WSJ	Rumoured
Bank of America	July 2025	“We have done a lot of work.” “But we will be there just like we were there when we moved from checks to Zelle…” “…we will partner with some of the stablecoin we already have partnerships with some of them…” —Brian Moynihan, CEO, on the Q2 2025 BofA earnings call	Confirmed it is considering involvement
Citigroup	July 2025	“We are looking at the issuance of a Citi stablecoin, but probably most importantly, is the tokenised deposit space, where we’re very active” “This is a good opportunity for us.” – Jane Fraser, CEO of Citigroup	Exploring issuance
Consortium: Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, Banco Santander, BNP Paribas, Citigroup, MUFG Bank, TD Bank Group, and UBS	October 2025	“…exploring the issuance of a 1:1 reserve-backed form of digital money that provides a stable payment asset available on public blockchains, focused on G7 currencies.” BNP Paribas press release	Confirmed it is considering involvement “The group is in contact with regulators and supervisors in each relevant market”
Consortium: ING, Banca Sella, KBC, Danske Bank, DekaBank, UniCredit, SEB, CaixaBank and Raiffeisen Bank International	September 2025	Collaborating to “launch a MiCAR-compliant euro-denominated stablecoin.” – ING website	Confirmed intention to launch a stablecoin
Consortium: MUFG Bank, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp., Mizuho Bank	Memorandum of understanding in April 2025; Nikkei Asia report in October 2025	“Three major Japanese banks…will jointly issue a stablecoin” – Nikkei Asia	Confirmed interest via MOU from SMBC Secondary source (Nikkei Asia) expects joint issuance
The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC)	June 2025	“…we are monitoring policy developments in the U.S. Congress and regulatory agencies, and will continue to assess our options, including the potential of issuing a DTCC stablecoin…” Statement given to The Information	Confirmed it is considering involvement
Expedia Group	June 2025	“…people familiar with the matter.” – WSJ	Rumoured
Fidelity Investments	March 2025	Fifth Third is “very bullish” on using stablecoins as a payment rail Ben Hoffman, chief strategy officer and head of consumer product at Fifth Third Bank, in an interview with The Financial Brand	Confirmed it is considering involvement – either operating a stablecoin or working with existing issuers
Klarna	November 2025	Launched its own stablecoin (KlarnaUSD) on Tempo, an independent blockchain started by Stripe and Paradigm purpose-built for payments, per its press release	Has issued its own coin
Revolut	September 2025	Launched Open Issuance, which helps businesses launch and manage their own stablecoins, per its press release Enabled subscription payments via stablecoin, allowing customers to use their cryptowallet to pay for subscriptions, which settle directly in fiat, per its blog	Has launched products/ functionality to support stablecoin payments
U.S. Bank (U.S. Bancorp)	November 2025	Created a ‘Digital Assets and Money Movement organisation to accelerate development of and grow revenue from emerging digital products and services such as stablecoin issuance, cryptocurrency custody, asset tokenisation and digital money movement.’ – US Bank Press Release Testing its own stablecoin on Stellar blockchain – Stellar.org	Confirmed testing
Visa	December 2025	Launched USDC settlement in the United States, allowing issuer and acquirer partners to settle with Visa in Circle’s USDC, per its press release	Enabled USDC settlement in the US
Walmart	June 2025	“…people familiar with the matter.” – WSJ	Rumoured
Western Union	October 2025	“…announced its plan to launch U.S. Dollar Payment Token (USDPT), its new stablecoin…” “Western Union anticipates that USDPT will be available in the first half of 2026.” – Western Union Press Release	Confirmed plans to issue its own coin (USDPT)

Account-to-account payments

Account-to-account payments (A2A) largely pertain to domestic payment rails, but cross-border functionality is increasingly common. By linking domestic fast-payment networks, they address many of the issues with cross-border payments identified in the G20 report. In addition to near-instant transfers and low costs, clearer fee structures and real-time payment confirmation improve transparency. As they’re built on existing bank accounts and regulated financial infrastructure, they score well on accessibility as well. Analysis by Juniper Research forecasts the number of cross-border A2A transactions will increase by 1.8 billion over the next year with 100 of millions of active users across Brazil, India, and South East Asia. The potential is great, but issues remain. For example, A2A payments lack formal, automated chargeback mechanisms, resulting in slow, manual, bank-to-bank resolution processes, although services such as Mastercard A2A Protect and Visa A2A are introducing standardised frameworks to address this. Corridor coverage and interoperability constrain the scope of A2A cross-border payments. There are several case studies:

SWIFT Global Payments Innovation (GPI)

Scope: More than 200 countries and territories via participating banks worldwide. SWIFT GPI offers real-time, end-to-end tracking for interbank payments, covers 150 of the 180 global currencies, and is used by major global banks like Citi, HSBC, Lloyds, and JP Morgan across more than 3,200 country corridors, according to a 2023 report from SWIFT. Though it still relies on correspondent banking, SWIFT claims nearly 60% of SWIFT GPI payments are credited to end beneficiaries within 30 minutes and almost 100% within 24 hours.

Bank for International Settlements’ (BIS) Project Nexus

Scope: India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand (with the potential for further expansion).

An experimental project by the BIS Innovation Hub in 2021, Project Nexus aims to connect the Instant Payment Systems (IPS) of different countries to enable cross-border payments from Sender to Recipient within 60 seconds (in most cases). BIS is working with the central banks of India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand, which have established a managing entity, the Nexus Scheme Organisation (NSO), to oversee the live implementation. The European Central Bank (ECB) announced that the Eurosystem intends to join Nexus as a special observer as part of exploratory work on linking its TARGET Instant Payment Settlement to other fast payment systems.

Pix

Scope: Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Portugal, and the US

Created by the Central Bank of Brazil, Pix is Brazil’s real-time payments network and moves more money than cards or cash, allowing consumers to pay by scanning a QR code. The system has since expanded across several Latin American (LATAM) countries, the US, and Portugal. Pix Roaming (pioneered by companies such as PagBrasil) allows international users to pay Brazilian merchants via Pix QR codes or keys directly from their home banking/wallet apps. Brazilians can also use Pix to pay merchants in other countries, with real-time conversion and settlement.

UPI-PayNow link

Scope: India and Singapore

Operational since July 2025, the India-Singapore UPI-PayNow link enables real-time cross-border remittances, merchant payments, and travel spends. The project began in 2022, but full rollout was delayed by technical challenges and the need to onboard participating banks on both sides.

The UPI-PayNow linkage enables instant, real-time transfers using only a mobile number or UPI ID, without requiring registration on the other country’s payment platform. The link is expected to halve transaction costs, enhance digital connectivity, and support small businesses and families reliant on international transfers. Definitive performance statistics are yet to be made available.

PromptPay–PayNow link (PPPN)

Scope: Singapore and Thailand

PPPN launched in April 2021, connecting the fast payment systems of Singapore (PayNow) and Thailand (PromptPay) via cross-border gateways operated by the respective systems operators (BCS and ITMX, respectively).

The linkage enables individuals to make real-time, low-cost transfers of up to SGD 1,000 (Singapore dollars)/THB 25,000 (Thai baht) (approximately $787–$791) per day between Thailand and Singapore, using only the recipient’s mobile number. Information on the initiative’s success is sparse; the World Economic Forum reported that PPPN processed more than 65,000 cross-border transactions per month, with transaction sizes averaging $150–$ 200 per transfer as of mid-2022.

SEPA expansion/interoperability with non-EU schemes

Scope: All 27 EU member states, European Economic Zone members, as well as the UK, Switzerland, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican City.

While Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) payments are limited to the euro currency and the SEPA geographic zone (so not global cross-border like SWIFT for non-euro or worldwide transfers), it is explicitly a cross-border A2A system. In addition to European Union member states, SEPA covers European Economic Area members and other countries, including the UK, Switzerland, and several Balkan states.

SEPA eliminates distinctions between domestic and cross-border euro payments through harmonised rules, formats (like IBAN), and regulations.

Software solutions

Several businesses use software to facilitate better cross-border payments, combining regulated financial infrastructure with API-driven platforms. They reduce dependence on the legacy correspondent banking system through local clearing connections, prefunded accounts, and direct partnerships with domestic banks and payment systems. As a result, the cross-border leg often occurs off-ledger within the provider’s own infrastructure, with correspondent banking used primarily for liquidity placement, safeguarding, and regulatory access, rather than for per-transaction routing.

These solutions do not replace the correspondent banking system but help de-risk and de-fragment it by reducing intermediaries, holding liquidity in advance to mitigate remote settlement risk, and centralising compliance. They also de-fragment by replacing many bilateral bank-to-bank relationships with a single, interoperable network layer.

However, there are coverage gaps: corridors in which direct clearing access is unavailable or prohibited; correspondent banks remain essential. Additionally, holding funds in multiple local accounts ties up capital and introduces treasury and FX risk, particularly during periods of market volatility.

Takeaway points

Despite global efforts, progress on cost, speed, transparency, and accessibility targets has been limited, reflecting the structural complexity of cross-border money movement.

Rather than converging on a single solution, the market is evolving through multiple parallel paths: upgrades to correspondent banking, the expansion of A2A payment links, software-driven infrastructure, and the growing role of stablecoins. Each addresses different use cases and risk profiles, and none alone resolves the full set of cross-border payment challenges.

In this context, global cross-border payments targets would be more effective if they were to target specific actions and system capabilities rather than high-level outcomes that are hard to attribute or measure.

In terms of practical steps to address the fundamental challenges in cross-border payments, international coordination on regulations, data standards, and infrastructure access will enable existing solutions to function more effectively. Together, they can enable faster, cheaper, more transparent, and accessible cross-border payments.