What Payward’s Reap Purchase Says About B2B Stablecoin Cards

In a winner-take-most market, firms typically want to be the ones winning and taking the most. Stable coins are shaping up to be exactly that kind of market.

On Wednesday (July 1), Payward, the parent company behind the crypto platform Kraken, completed its acquisition of Reap in a deal valued at up to $600 million, adding stablecoin-native card issuing, embedded payments, cross-border money movement and treasury-management infrastructure to Payward Services. Reap will continue to operate as a standalone brand within Payward, retaining its leadership team and go-to-market approach, according to a company press release.

The deal works because Payward can supply liquidity, custody, regulatory infrastructure and settlement while Reap supplies card issuance and corporate payment workflows. This enables the combined business to offer enterprises something more practical than a crypto product: a way to move value across jurisdictions, fund cards and manage treasury with stablecoins operating in the background.

The Kraken parent is not betting that businesses will abandon cards. It is betting that the funding, settlement and reconciliation layers behind those cards are up for grabs.

Read also: Stablecoins Outgrow the Exchanges That Built Them

Stablecoins Are Moving Behind the User Interface

Stablecoins do not need to become a consumer habit to become a corporate payments force. They only need to become useful enough, compliant enough and embedded enough that businesses stop thinking of them as crypto at all.

And while there is a huge untapped opportunity for corporate adoption, the flip side of that coin is that most businesses today aren’t that interested in stablecoins. Data in “Waiting for Certainty: Why Most CFOs Are Holding Back on Crypto and Stablecoins,” a recent installment of PYMNTS Intelligence’s 2026 Certainty Project, shows that most middle market companies remain cautious about digital assets. Usage is limited; 13% of firms use stablecoins and 5% employ other cryptocurrencies.

Building enterprise payments infrastructure, after all, is not just a software problem. It requires market access, compliance capacity, liquidity relationships, risk management and trust. In other words, stablecoin infrastructure has to look less like crypto experimentation and more like institutional-grade financial plumbing.

A faster rail that creates new uncertainty for the finance or risk function will not become core infrastructure. The winners will not simply be the firms with the fastest settlement but the ones that can combine speed with controls, licensing, transparency and interoperability with existing financial systems.

PYMNTS CEO Karen Webster has repeatedly highlighted this theme with Ryan Rugg, global head of digital assets for Citi Treasury and Trade Solutions (TTS), on “From the Block,” where Rugg has called ERPs “the gating factor for adoption at scale.”

Read also: Nobody Told the ERP That Blockchain Won

The New Competition in Corporate Finance Is Workflow Ownership

Banks have historically controlled cross-border corporate payments because they control accounts, compliance, liquidity, FX access and payment connectivity. Processors and card networks control acceptance, authorization and spend flows. Enterprise software providers control the systems where finance teams approve, track and reconcile payments.

Stablecoin infrastructure firms are trying to sit across those layers. If a platform can issue cards, initiate cross-border payments, manage treasury liquidity and connect to digital-asset settlement through one integration, it becomes more than a payment vendor. It becomes a financial operating layer for businesses that want fewer intermediaries and faster access to working capital.

This is where the competitive line begins to blur. Crypto infrastructure firms want to become more like regulated financial infrastructure providers. FinTechs want to use stablecoins to improve money movement. Banks want to preserve client relationships while modernizing their own rails. Card and payment processors must decide whether stablecoins are a threat, a funding source, a settlement option or all three.

See more: Open USD’s Biggest Challenge Isn’t Circle or Tether, It’s History

Still, stablecoins are unlikely to replace commercial banking in one sweep. The ore immediate pressure point is narrower: high-friction, cross-border B2B money movement.

If stablecoin-enabled platforms can make those workflows faster, cheaper or easier to reconcile, they can capture parts of the payment chain that banks and correspondent networks have long treated as defensible. That could change fee pools, weaken some legacy intermediary roles and force incumbents to improve settlement speed, transparency and programmability.

That is the broader significance of stablecoins entering the corporate card stack. The technology is moving away from the front-end question of who pays with crypto and toward the back-end question of who controls the movement of business money.