Os Stablecoins podem ultrapassar a transição global para a liquidação T+1?

The two-year anniversary of the transition to T+1 settlement for U.S. securities is rapidly approaching, and the rest of the world, at least the UK, the EU, and Switzerland, is set to follow suit in 2027.

Already, in some corners of the world, there are whispers about whether stablecoins could leapfrog the T+1 step in countries where two days are still the norm for now.

The reality of faster settlement times is indisputably the right direction of travel, but from an operational perspective, they make for a tricky transition period and require lengthy preparation, because the stakes are very high, especially when stablecoins are introduced to the equation.

The Shift Beyond T+1: Why Atomic Settlement Matters

Em um mundo de aplicativos de consumo 24/7 e um ciclo de consumo online, a ideia de liquidar transações dois dias após a execução nos mercados de atacado parece arcaica na melhor das hipóteses e risível na pior. Mas há boas razões para o atraso. O fato de que o dinheiro agora se move ao redor do mundo mais rápido do que nunca não significa que os problemas estruturais que levaram à necessidade de liquidação atrasada foram eliminados. Nos últimos anos, muito se falou sobre a solução potencial que a tecnologia de ativos digitais poderia oferecer na forma de liquidação instantânea, ou atômica. Alguns, como o lendário investidor Stanley Druckenmiller, acreditam que a rede global de pagamentos funcionará com stablecoins dentro de 10‑15 anos, como resultado de oferecer uma solução de liquidação superior ao sistema atual.

Whatever the next steps might be, the structural rebuild and disruption to markets is a significant risk, as well as opportunity, that has to be carefully considered and managed. As US banking giant Citi disse a seus clientes em uma nota recente, o impacto da transição para ciclos de liquidação mais curtos no ciclo de vida da transação de ponta a ponta “será nada menos que transformador”, exigindo uma reavaliação operacional de tudo, desde a execução de negociações até a correspondência e reconciliações, financiamento e gestão de inventário, e, finalmente, compensação e liquidação.

An already major task becomes even more daunting when considering scale: according to The 2025 McKinsey Global Payments Report, the payments industry is the most valuable part of financial services, generating $2.5 trillion of revenue from 3.6 trillion transactions as $2.0 quadrillion worth of funds flows around the world each year.

Getting it right is imperative and far from optional.

Resolvendo a Questão da Liquidação

A razão para a liquidação atrasada é simples: fusos horários e horários de corte em bancos e bancos centrais. Para uma empresa situada na Austrália, isso pode ser uma verdadeira dor de cabeça: se perder o corte local de sexta‑feira às 16h, terá que esperar até a manhã de segunda‑feira para enviar instruções de liquidação ou pagamento, e muito pode acontecer nos fins de semana. Um gestor de fundos poderia ver seu erro de rastreamento disparar porque um evento geopolítico surgiu em um domingo e os mercados se moveram antes que suas negociações da semana anterior fossem liquidadas.

Digital money and stablecoins have emerged as a sticking plaster solution and they’re increasingly cementar their role as a permanent feature in payments and settlement. JP Morgan’s Kynexis unit counts BMW and Siemens among clients that chose digital rails to avoid liquidity traps like the one described above. Meanwhile, payments companies are increasingly relying on stablecoins for cross-border payments and fund transfers. This is causing policymakers in countries with big time differences to contemplate whether the T+1 step is a necessary one at all?

It’s possible that a third, blended solution might emerge in the shape of programmable money, which navigates existing market structures instead of requiring a wholesale rewiring of existing systems. The current forms of “program‑mable money” are mechanisms you can wind up and release, but they still fall short of the name.

Truly intelligent money would do more than execute predefined commands. It would respond, adapt, and make decisions based on real-time conditions rather than stale instructions written days, hours, or even seconds ago.

Corrigindo o Que Não Está Quebrado?

The transition of US financial markets to a T+1 settlement cycle on May 28, 2024, did not result in a major spike in settlement failures, contrary to some initial fears, with data indicating that, in some cases, failure rates actually decreased compared to the previous T+2 regime. However, the compressed timeline has heightened operational risks, increased the need for automation, and created significant challenges for global, particularly European and Asian, investors dealing with foreign exchange and securities lending.

Many in remote time zones also have to pre‑fund trades for FX or come up with other, often costly, solutions to the issue of mismatched settlement times and existing cutoffs. These bottlenecks arise due to T+1 creating a liquidity mismatch for foreign investors who must obtain US dollars to settle within the one‑day window, exacerbating the overall risk of settlement failures by operating outside CLS hours.

At the same time, operational teams are battling tightened timelines as the time to resolve exceptions (trade breaks) is greatly reduced, causing errors to result in failures more quickly.

As financial markets contemplate the future of settlement, the path with the biggest long‑term utility might be a rethink of money, rather than attempting the equivalent of changing the engine in‑flight.