Mastercard refuses to disclose the revenue generated from settlements in stablecoins instead of using its proprietary card networks, nor does it provide forecasts on how AI-based purchasing agents will affect transaction volumes within its network.
Mastercard refuses to disclose the revenue generated from settlements in stablecoins instead of using its proprietary card networks, nor does it provide forecasts on how AI-based purchasing agents will affect transaction volumes within its network.
The company repeatedly emphasizes that decades of established trust will allow it to remain at the center of digital commerce, even as both stablecoins and agentic AI are changing the landscape of payments.
These statements were made in response to written inquiries from TechCentral regarding tensions in Mastercard's strategy: the company is actively investing in stablecoins and agentic AI—precisely the technologies that threaten to completely redirect payments outside of card networks.
When value is fixed in regulated stablecoins, such as Circle's USDC or Ripple's RLUSD, the company does not disclose what revenue it receives per transaction or how this compares to traditional settlement revenues. Prakriti Singh, Vice President of Core Payments in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, stated that commercial agreements vary depending on products, partners, markets, and use cases, and therefore the company does not disclose its revenue or pricing related to specific settlement methods.
This issue is practically significant because cross-border transfers are the fastest and cheapest when using stablecoins, which is particularly noticeable in Africa, one of the world's fastest-growing stablecoin markets. TechCentral asked Mastercard what share of this volume it expects to retain over the next three to five years, given that cross-border operations are one of the company's most profitable revenue streams. The answer was again negative: Singh noted that stablecoins represent an opportunity to expand ways of moving value through the company's network and complement existing payment flows, adding that cross-border payments remain a significant growth opportunity.
Nevertheless, Mastercard is not standing aside from the stablecoin discussion. In March, the company agreed to acquire the firm BVNK, which specializes in stablecoin infrastructure, for up to $1.8 billion, thereby deepening its involvement in this technology. Singh explained that BVNK's capabilities 'complement our current work in digital assets and stablecoins,' and that Mastercard remains committed to creating a compatible ecosystem with partners through its cryptocurrency partnership program, which she said now covers over 100 industry leaders.
Why would merchants choose to stay within the network despite cheaper stablecoin channels at checkout? Singh replied that 'cost is just one aspect that merchants consider when choosing a payment acceptance method.' She added that other important factors include reliability, reach, security, consumer protection, dispute resolution, fraud management, and a seamless checkout experience.
Regarding agentic commerce, where Mastercard's Agent Pay feature allows AI agents to make transactions on behalf of consumers, the company was equally cautious. When asked about liability if an AI agent initiates a fraudulent or erroneous transaction, Singh stated: 'Liability will depend on the specific transaction, the parties involved, and the applicable legal and regulatory frameworks.'
She mentioned tokenization, biometric recognition, and fraud detection systems that 'analyze over a trillion data points in real time,' and also reported that since 2019, Mastercard has invested over $12.6 billion in cybersecurity and AI solutions. Concerning whether transaction volumes will grow or shrink due to the emergence of comparative agents eliminating impulse purchases, Singh said: 'It is too early to predict the long-term impact of AI agents on transaction volumes or spending patterns,' although she acknowledged that AI agents 'have the potential to make commerce smarter, more personalized, and more efficient.'
This restraint contrasts with the position of competitor Visa, which announced this month that it reached an annual stablecoin settlement speed of approximately $7 billion as of March, and has integrated South African banks into its Agentic Ready program ahead of launching local AI-based payments.
On the question of whether a consortium of major banks issuing their own stablecoins is a more important long-term factor than USDC or fintech issuer tokens, Singh responded that success 'will depend less on who issues the digital asset and more on trust, security, interoperability, and the ability to provide a seamless experience at scale.'
She confirmed support for Mastercard's Open Standard and its stablecoin Open USD—a consortium of over 140 companies, including FNB, Absa, and Nedbank, scheduled for launch at the end of this year. Even partnerships with direct competitors are being considered. When asked about supporting Ripple's RLUSD, which has its own ambitions in cross-border payments, Singh replied: 'We have a long history of collaboration with a wide range of partners in the payments ecosystem, including banks, fintech players, technology providers, and digital asset companies.'
Singh also reported that Mastercard's Crypto Credential verification service has been launched with exchanges such as Mercado Bitcoin, Lirium, and Bit2Me, Bybit, Intebix, and ATAIX Eurasia. When asked which parts of its protective barrier are hardest to replicate, she answered: 'Our global network, acceptance reach, fraud prevention, cybersecurity, and identification capabilities have been built over decades... We are extending these trusted capabilities to new payment scenarios, not viewing them as separate ecosystems.'
Fintech company Motswagae Holding, based in Pretoria, has filed an official complaint with the Competition Commission. The company accuses South Africa's largest banks of blocking access to ATM networks necessary for its cashless payment platform to function.
The company, which is not widely known to the public, stated in its submission to the commission (case number 2026Jul0016) that there are 'structural barriers to access' in the banking sector. The accused parties include FirstRand, Standard Bank, Capitec, Nedbank, and Investec.
A commission representative, Siyabulela Makunga, told TechCentral that the commission received the official complaint on July 8, but he declined to comment on the substance of the claim or the possible start of an investigation.
According to Motswagae CEO, Wally Sifo Faloane, the complaint is addressed not only to the five banks but also to the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) and the Intergovernmental Fintech Working Group (IFWG). At the heart of the dispute is the 360Wallet platform, which, according to Motswagae, will allow consumers to withdraw or deposit cash at any participating ATM using a voucher or e-wallet token, regardless of the issuing bank.
Currently, a person who receives money via a cashless voucher—a common way to connect with unbanked individuals—can usually only withdraw it from their issuing bank's ATMs or through its selected retail partners. Motswagae claims that its system will dismantle these isolated structures and reduce transaction costs for low-income and unbanked consumers.
The company insists that its platform is the subject of a patent application in South Africa. Furthermore, it refers to the IFWG regulatory sandbox—an initiative allowing fintech companies to test ideas under the supervision of the Reserve Bank and other financial regulators—which determined on June 30 that 360Wallet complies with existing payment rules and does not require regulatory exemptions to operate.
Faloane stated in the submission: 'Regulators have certified that our system is legally valid and does not require special legal exceptions to operate.' He added that this proves that obstacles to innovation in financial accessibility are structural, not regulatory. When established financial infrastructure refuses to interact with proven, cheaper services for small and medium businesses, the ordinary consumer pays the price in the form of inflated transaction fees.
However, the sandbox letter provided by Faloane to TechCentral reveals a more complex picture. The document dated June 30 states that Motswagae's application to test 360Wallet 'was rejected.' The letter explains that the sandbox only accepts innovations that clearly do not comply with current rules, and that 'there is no need for regulatory support that could be assessed,' because 360Wallet is 'conceptually closer to activities provided for by existing regulations,' referencing the 2007 directives mentioned in Motswagae's submission. Ultimately, the application was deemed unsuitable for further consideration.
Faloane interprets this outcome as confirmation of his correctness: if regulators see no need for regulatory support, he believes the barriers to 360Wallet are commercial, not legal. The Reserve Bank, acting as the secretariat for IFWG, partially supports this view, stating that the sandbox 'is not a market access mechanism,' and the rejection does not prohibit the product from entering the market; if an innovation does not require regulatory support, 'it generally indicates that it can operate within existing regulatory frameworks.'
Nevertheless, the letter does not certify 360Wallet as 'legally valid,' as Faloane claimed. Its phrasing is explicitly cautious—'seems,' 'does not seem'—and does not draw conclusions about the legality of the model. Moreover, the possibility of legal operation does not oblige any bank to connect to the platform, which is the commercial issue underlying the complaint.
In addition to confirming receipt of the complaint and correspondence with Faloane, the company's statements could not be independently verified as Motswagae's website was down at the time of publication. The complaint to the commission is an assertion by the filing party and does not mean the commission has found any violations or even intends to investigate the case.
Motswagae's submission also includes an accusation against the Reserve Bank of 'centralized control,' ignoring proposals sent to Governor Lesetj Kganyago, and responding through lawyers instead of direct engagement. The central bank categorically rejects this characterization, presenting a completely different version of the legal development of the dispute.
The Reserve Bank's media office responded to TechCentral's questions: 'SARB does not accept the characterization that it engages in 'centralized control' or that it has refused to engage on this matter.' It continued: 'Mr. Wally Sifo Faloane of Motswagae Holding (Pty) Ltd sent a demand letter containing false allegations against SARB, in which he threatened legal action. Therefore, SARB will not comment further pending a possible legal process.'
The central bank also objected to the link the company draws between the sandbox and the access complaint: the sandbox 'does not address issues of commercial access and therefore does not create any structural barriers, nor does it impede participation in the national payment system,' the organization stated.
TechCentral reviewed Faloane's demand letter of June 24, addressed to Kganyago. It contains an accusation of 'administrative negligence' against the IFWG secretariat due to delays with the sandbox and demands recognition of a separate proposal for payment modernization submitted to the governor's office on April 30. Otherwise, Motswagae warned that it would appeal to the High Court and refer SARB to the commission as a 'facilitator of market exclusion.' In fact, this is what happened. The sandbox rejection came on June 30, and the Reserve Bank's legal response on July 1 refutes all accusations and warns of intent to seek a 'punitive legal fine' if Faloane proceeds to court.
TechCentral also saw a strategic document from April 24, which Motswagae claims accompanied its proposal. In it, 360Wallet is described as 'production-ready' and positioned as a modern successor to Saswitch, a ten-year-old interbank ATM switch that was not originally designed for cashless withdrawals. The document also shows that Faloane viewed the sandbox as 'control that disproportionately protects the market position of incumbent banks' back in April, two months before the application was rejected, and decided to commercialize the platform through avenues 'independent of IFWG sandbox approval.'
Faloane also points to the timeline: in June, after his proposal, the Reserve Bank published its position paper 'To a Cash-Oriented Society,' which supports white-label ATMs—ATMs operated by entities other than large banks. He claims that his 'own strategic models were used to inform these regulatory and institutional directions behind closed doors.'
This document proposes a white-label ATM structure, but TechCentral found no evidence of any connection to Motswagae's proposal. Meanwhile, the company's own strategic document bases its argument on the Reserve Bank's policy documents published prior to this proposal, starting with the interoperability consultation in March 2025 and ending with the 'Vision 2030+' document from February 2026.
Motswagae's complaint falls within a broader industry debate about who gains access to South Africa's payment infrastructure. The Reserve Bank's payment modernization program envisions a national payment utility built on open, interoperable infrastructure, partly because cash remains sustainably dominant and costs the economy approximately 30 billion rand annually.
The industry's flagship interoperability project, PayShap, attracted millions of users but faced issues due to fees and uneven implementation by banks, after which it shifted its focus to merchant payments.
Faloane concludes the statement by saying that Motswagae remains 'deeply committed to collaborating with all progressive banking partners, retail networks, and regulators who share the national goal of modernizing our payment systems and ensuring genuine mass economic inclusion.'
