The growing use of stablecoins in cross-border payments and commercial transactions is creating new opportunities for businesses and financial institutions. But as digital assets become more integrated into everyday financial activity, security incidents are exposing a less-discussed challenge: who is responsible when the mechanisms designed to protect the ecosystem disrupt legitimate payments?
The issue came into sharper focus following the October 29, 2026, security breach involving Binance. The incident prompted a coordinated response involving exchanges, blockchain intelligence firms, law enforcement and stablecoin issuers. Binance reported that approximately $6.34 billion in digital assets were impacted, with approximately $2.85 billion frozen or intercepted by November 3.
Tether and Circle also intervened, restricting stablecoins associated with the incident. Tether reported freezing more than $1.5 billion in USDT.
For Jack Tang, Co-Founder and CEO of BoomFi, the response demonstrated the value of issuer-level controls but also highlighted the need for clearer governance around how those controls are exercised. As stablecoins move beyond crypto trading and into commercial payments, the consequences of a freeze can extend well beyond the digital-asset ecosystem.
We spoke with Jack about the growing security risks facing crypto and fintech, the role of stablecoin issuers in containing illicit activity, and why the industry needs stronger accountability frameworks as digital money becomes part of mainstream financial infrastructure.
Crypto hacks are increasing in frequency. What does this tell us about the security of today’s digital-asset ecosystem?
The scale of attacks shows that security remains one of the industry’s biggest challenges. TRM Labs recorded 207 crypto hacks in the first half of 2026, while CertiK reported 344 Web3 security incidents using a broader methodology.
The risks extend beyond smart-contract vulnerabilities. Compromised wallets, credentials, operational weaknesses and attacks on centralised service providers all create exposure.
As digital-asset infrastructure becomes more connected to traditional financial services, an incident can affect exchanges, issuers, payment providers, merchants and customers. Security therefore needs to be considered across the entire payment chain, not just at the platform level.
The Binance incident demonstrated that stablecoin issuers can freeze assets quickly. Why is this capability important?
The ability to freeze assets is an important safeguard when funds are linked to theft, sanctions violations or other illicit activity. Issuers such as Tether and Circle have controls that allow them to block certain addresses and prevent associated tokens from moving further.
The response to the Binance incident showed how these capabilities can help contain illicit activity.
However, that power also comes with responsibility. There must be clear expectations around when a freeze is justified, what evidence is required and how affected parties can request a review. The goal should be to preserve the security benefits without creating unnecessary uncertainty for legitimate users.
What happens when a stablecoin freeze affects a legitimate business transaction?
This is where the issue becomes particularly important for payment infrastructure.
Imagine a merchant that receives stablecoins from a customer and uses those funds to pay a supplier. The transaction may be recorded on the blockchain, and the merchant may already have delivered the goods or services. If the funds are subsequently frozen, the merchant may no longer be able to access or use them.
The blockchain transaction may have reached finality, but the commercial transaction has not necessarily reached a satisfactory conclusion. The business still has suppliers, employees and other obligations to pay.
We need clearer arrangements around who is responsible when legitimate funds become inaccessible and what recourse businesses have. Otherwise, they may face risks they did not anticipate when adopting stablecoin payments.
How do different regulatory frameworks complicate the decision to freeze stablecoins?
Cross-border transactions can involve several jurisdictions, each with different legal requirements. A transaction that raises suspicion in one country may be legitimate under another country’s laws.
The UAE, for example, has established a framework through the Central Bank’s Payment Token Services Regulation. The US has introduced the GENIUS Act, while Europe has its Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA).
These frameworks are important, but they do not automatically create consistent operational processes. The industry needs better coordination on how freeze requests are assessed, how conflicting requirements are handled and what options businesses have when legitimate funds are restricted.
Do smaller stablecoin issuers face greater challenges when responding to security incidents?
Yes. Larger issuers have dedicated compliance teams, legal resources, blockchain-monitoring capabilities and established relationships with law enforcement. Smaller issuers may not have the same capacity.
Responding to an incident requires identifying suspicious activity, assessing evidence, coordinating with authorities and managing the potential impact on redemptions and liquidity.
An incorrect or prolonged freeze can also put pressure on an issuer with limited resources. Common standards are therefore important. Security and operational resilience should not depend entirely on the size of the issuer.
What should the industry do to make stablecoin freezes more transparent and accountable?
The answer is not to remove issuer-level controls. They are an important part of the security infrastructure. Instead, the industry needs clearer rules for how they are used.
There should be defined criteria for initiating a freeze, evidence-based decision-making and practical review or appeal processes for affected businesses. Issuers, banks, payment providers, exchanges and regulators also need better cross-border coordination.
Most importantly, businesses should know who is accountable when a restriction is incorrect or remains in place for an extended period. Intervention needs to be effective, proportionate and predictable.
As stablecoins become part of mainstream payments, what will determine whether businesses trust this infrastructure?
Businesses will look beyond transaction speed and cost. They need confidence in what happens when something goes wrong.
That means considering the entire payment lifecycle: how funds are received, monitored, transferred, settled and, where necessary, restricted. It also means recognising that stablecoin payments involve several participants, including issuers, custodians, exchanges, payment providers and banks.
Ultimately, adoption will depend not only on faster settlement or lower costs, but on the reliability and accountability of the infrastructure supporting those payments.
For businesses looking to adopt stablecoin payments, is it better to build their own infrastructure or work with a specialist platform?
It comes down to whether stablecoin infrastructure is a core capability a business wants to develop and maintain, or whether it is a capability it needs to access as part of its wider payment strategy.
Building in-house gives businesses greater control over their technology and processes. But the investment goes well beyond the initial development. They need to manage blockchain integrations, connect with different stablecoin issuers and payment networks, address compliance requirements, maintain security controls and keep the infrastructure updated as the market and regulations evolve.
There is also the challenge of scale. Supporting one stablecoin or payment network is very different from operating across multiple networks, currencies, providers and markets. Each additional integration can introduce further technical and operational complexity.
Working with a specialist platform can reduce that burden. Rather than building every component independently, businesses can use an orchestration layer to connect with the stablecoin and payment infrastructure they need, while focusing their internal resources on their core products and customers.
This is the thinking behind BoomFi. We focus on stablecoin orchestration, helping businesses and payment providers integrate and manage stablecoin payment capabilities without having to build the entire infrastructure themselves. The value is not simply faster integration; it is having a more flexible way to connect different parts of the payment ecosystem as business requirements change.
Ultimately, businesses should ask themselves where they want to invest their engineering and operational resources. If building payment infrastructure gives them a genuine strategic advantage, it may make sense to develop it in-house. If their priority is to bring stablecoin payments to market efficiently and scale across providers and networks, working with a specialist orchestration platform may be the more practical choice.