The Next Stablecoin Contest Is About the Stack—and the Controls Around It

Stablecoin infrastructure is becoming harder to evaluate as a standalone category. On September 16, Column unveiled offerings spanning stablecoin functionality, card issuing, global bank accounts and multicurrency accounts. A day later, S&P Global announced an agreement to acquire OpenZeppelin, a provider of security products and services for onchain finance.

The announcements address different parts of the market, but they point in the same direction. As stablecoins move into broader banking and international-account stacks, the infrastructure contest may increasingly turn on two capabilities: connecting fiat and onchain financial tools, and providing credible mechanisms for assessing the technology risk behind them.

For cross-border operators, this changes the evaluation framework. Access to a stablecoin rail matters, but so do the accounts, currencies, cards, settlement arrangements and controls around it. The emerging question is not simply whether an operator can use onchain infrastructure. It is whether that infrastructure fits into a workable and governable operating architecture.

Stablecoins move beyond the standalone product

Column presented its new offerings as an expansion of its existing banking-infrastructure capabilities. The four reported areas—stablecoin functionality, card issuing, global bank accounts and multicurrency accounts—extend its proposition across both conventional and onchain financial services.

That combination is strategically notable. Stablecoins are often discussed as an alternative rail or asset type, but their practical value depends on the systems surrounding them. Businesses still need ways to manage accounts, currencies and card-based use cases. Product builders also need to connect these components to the customer experiences and operational processes they already run.

Column’s expansion suggests that infrastructure providers may see more value in offering a broader set of financial components through a unified provider relationship. In that model, stablecoin functionality is not the whole product. It is one module within a wider stack spanning the movement, storage and use of money.

The announcement does not establish that this model will work equally across every market. It does, however, illustrate a shift in positioning: stablecoins are being placed alongside familiar banking and payment capabilities rather than presented as an isolated layer.

The stack is becoming the product

For cross-border and embedded-finance companies, the attraction of a broader stack is straightforward. These businesses often rely on multiple partners for account infrastructure, currency functionality, cards and digital assets. Bringing more of those components into one provider relationship could reduce some of the integration and coordination burden.

But that outcome cannot be assumed from product breadth alone.

The verified reporting did not sufficiently establish Column’s exact geographic availability, supported currencies or detailed payment-rail coverage. Nor does the presence of four product areas prove that every component is fully interoperable. Those details determine whether a broad offering produces genuine operational simplification or merely places several capabilities under the same commercial umbrella.

For an operator, the relevant test is therefore not the length of the product list. It is whether the components work together in the required jurisdictions and operating flows. A multicurrency account has limited strategic value if it does not support the currencies a business needs. Stablecoin functionality is less useful if fiat entry, exit or settlement processes remain fragmented. Card issuing only strengthens the stack when it aligns with the operator’s intended customer and market coverage.

The stack becomes the product when its components function as an operating system rather than a catalogue.

A broader stack creates a larger control problem

As onchain functionality becomes part of broader financial infrastructure, the associated technology risk moves closer to the centre of the operating model.

On September 17, S&P Global entered into an agreement to acquire OpenZeppelin. S&P Global described OpenZeppelin as a provider of security products and services for onchain finance and positioned the proposed acquisition as an expansion into onchain technology-risk assessment. The transaction remained subject to customary closing conditions when announced.

The significance lies in the category of risk being addressed. Smart-contract security and the governance of onchain systems can become material operational concerns when those systems support financial products. The more closely stablecoins and tokenized infrastructure are connected to accounts, payments and settlement processes, the less plausible it becomes to treat their technical foundations as a specialist issue at the edge of the business.

S&P Global’s move indicates institutional interest in making onchain technology risk a more formal field of assessment. It does not demonstrate that a common model already exists. But it suggests that security analysis may increasingly sit alongside more established forms of infrastructure and counterparty evaluation.

Risk assessment is becoming infrastructure too

S&P Global said OpenZeppelin would operate as a standalone business unit following completion of the transaction. Financial terms were not disclosed, and the announcement did not establish that OpenZeppelin’s products had already been integrated with S&P Global’s market-data or assessment systems.

Those limitations matter. An acquisition agreement and its stated rationale should not be confused with a completed integration or an industry-wide standard. Even so, the proposed structure points toward a broader understanding of what onchain financial infrastructure requires.

Rails and products are only one side of market development. Institutions and infrastructure buyers also need processes for evaluating whether the underlying systems are reliable, governed and secure. As more financial functions depend on smart contracts and other onchain components, security assessment may become part of routine partner selection and operational oversight.

This reframes controls as a component of infrastructure rather than an external check applied after deployment. The reliability of the code layer, the governance around it and the ability to assess both may influence whether onchain functionality can be incorporated into institutional operating environments.

What cross-border operators should evaluate next

Taken together, the Column and S&P Global announcements suggest that cross-border operators should assess stablecoin infrastructure across two connected dimensions.

The first is functional coverage. Operators need to determine whether fiat accounts, multicurrency functionality, card issuing and stablecoin capabilities can support their required markets and workflows. The key criteria include interoperability, jurisdictional availability and the practical connections between conventional and onchain components.

The second is control maturity. Operators need credible ways to evaluate the technology supporting onchain activity, including the security and governance of smart-contract systems. That assessment can affect partner selection, compliance processes and operational resilience.

A provider that addresses only one dimension may leave substantial work unresolved. Broad functionality without adequate controls can create risk. Strong security assessment without usable account, currency and payment connectivity does not solve the integration problem. The more complete proposition is likely to be the one that treats product breadth and control maturity as parts of the same architecture.

From the Belmoney perspective

From our perspective, stablecoin access is strategically useful only when it fits the operator’s wider account, card, currency and settlement requirements. Cross-border payment infrastructure should be evaluated as an operating architecture, not as a collection of isolated rails.

We think operators should begin with the end-to-end flow: where funds enter, how value is held or converted, which accounts and currencies are required, where cards fit, and how settlement and payout processes connect. A broader provider stack could simplify parts of that flow, but only when coverage and interoperability match the actual operating model.

The same discipline should apply to controls. As reliance on smart contracts and onchain systems increases, technology-risk assessment becomes relevant beyond the engineering function. It can shape compliance review, governance, vendor oversight and resilience planning.

For MTOs, wallets, neobanks, RaaS providers and embedded-payment platforms, the practical test is therefore twofold: does the infrastructure connect the required forms of money, and can its onchain components be assessed and governed to an institutional standard?

Conclusion

The competitive question is moving beyond access to an individual rail. It may increasingly concern how fiat accounts, multicurrency services, cards and stablecoins are assembled—and how the technical risks within that architecture are measured.

Column’s expansion and S&P Global’s agreement to acquire OpenZeppelin do not establish the final shape of this market. They do identify two capabilities that operators should watch together: integrated financial functionality and formal onchain risk assessment.

As the stack broadens, the controls around it will matter just as much as the rails inside it.

Sources & further reading

1. S&P Global — S&P Global Announces Agreement to Acquire OpenZeppelin
2. Bloomberg Law — Column Expands Offerings Into Stablecoins, Card Issuing (1)