You pay in US dollar stablecoins. The supplier receives them and immediately converts back to local currency. The result: the amount received is 2% less. That 2% exchange rate loss is probably yours to cover—unless you agreed on something else in advance.
This is not a bug. It is a hurdle you cannot avoid in stablecoin payments.
Key idea: stablecoins move exchange-rate risk, they do not remove it
US dollar stablecoins (USDC/USDT) track the US dollar, not your local currency.
If your company is in Europe, your local currency is euros, and your supplier is also in Europe, using USDC means both you and the supplier are exposed to EUR/USD exchange rate changes. Even a few minutes between payment approval and the supplier selling USDC for euros can change the rate.
CoinGate's view on B2B stablecoin payments is direct: stablecoins transfer your exchange-rate risk, not remove it. With a bank wire, the exchange rate was set by the bank on the processing day, so you could blame the bank. With stablecoins, you gain control over when to convert, but you also bear the result if you choose the wrong moment.
This is the gray area of responsibility: previously you could blame the bank; now you can only blame yourself.
How responsibility is divided: check the contract
Who bears the exchange rate loss depends on how the invoice and contract are written.
| Situation | Who is responsible | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Invoice priced in USD | Supplier | The supplier bears USD exchange risk. Whatever currency they convert to is their own choice. |
| Invoice priced in local currency (e.g., EUR), converted to USDC at the payment-day rate | You (buyer) | You bear the difference between the conversion-day rate and the actual payment-day rate. |
| Invoice priced directly in stablecoins | Supplier | The supplier decides whether to hold or sell. The risk is theirs. |
In practice, the second case causes the most problems.
You calculate the USDC amount using the invoice-date rate. By the time the supplier actually sells, the rate has moved, and they receive less local currency. They come back asking you to cover the difference. Your accountant says: "I paid the correct amount under the contract." The supplier says: "I actually received less." Both sides feel they are right.
Regulatory reality: the "1:1 peg" of stablecoins is a market consensus, not a legal guarantee. MiCA requires licensed issuers to offer daily redemption at face value, but that only solves the stablecoin-to-dollar part. It does not solve the dollar-to-supplier-local-currency part.
The right approach: agree on three things in advance
First, write the "settlement time point" into the contract.
Make clear which moment locks the exchange rate:
- Invoice date
- Payment initiation date
- Supplier sale date
- Or the quote time from a third-party exchange-rate platform
Once it is written down, there is nothing left to argue about.
Second, use a local-currency stablecoin.
This is the cleanest option. If your supplier is willing to accept EURC (a euro stablecoin), the entire transaction never touches dollars, and exchange-rate risk disappears. The catch is that EURC currently only supports Ethereum, unlike USDC which covers seven chains, so its availability is still limited.
Third, agree to complete conversion at the moment of payment and pay the fee.
Circle's approach is to settle stablecoins and convert to fiat through a payment processor at the same time, delivering local currency to the supplier's account. The cost is €0.50 plus a 0.5%–1.5% conversion fee. This is clearly less than hidden bank-wire fees, but you need to know that you pay it, not the supplier.
Final checklist
Before you pay a supplier with stablecoins again, do two things:
- Open the contract and check whether the "payment terms" section clearly states how the exchange rate is locked. If not, ask the supplier to sign a short contract update.
- Do the math: average payment amount to this supplier over the past year × 2% (estimated exchange-rate swing). See whether that number is large enough to justify changing your payment strategy.
How to verify: If the supplier does not raise a "shortfall" complaint during the next account check, the responsibility split is clear. If they are still arguing, go back and fix the contract.
