Visa Survey: Bank-style safeguards could boost US stablecoin use

Visa has released new survey results suggesting that stablecoin adoption among Americans could rise meaningfully if issuers offered protections that resemble the banking system—particularly fraud safeguards and deposit insurance.

In a study of 2,192 US-based consumers conducted by Morning Consult between February and March, Visa found that “adoption intention” for stablecoins could increase from 36% to 56% under a hypothetical scenario that includes bank-level fraud protection and deposit insurance.

Key takeaways

• Visa/Morning Consult’s survey points to higher stablecoin willingness when consumers associate the product with bank-style fraud safeguards.
• Adoption intention rises from 36% to 56% in Visa’s hypothetical scenario with deposit insurance and fraud protection.
• Trust, in the survey results, is strongly linked to who provides the payment service—not to the underlying technology alone.
• Europe is also debating stablecoin reserve rules under MiCA, with central bank representatives arguing for changes to bank-deposit thresholds.

Why “bank-like” protections could unlock more stablecoin demand

Visa’s findings center on what drives consumer trust and willingness to use stablecoins for cross-border payments. According to the company, the survey asked participants about financial terms such as stablecoins and compared baseline responses with scenarios that introduced traditional safety features.

Visa reported that nearly two-thirds (64%) of respondents said trust depends more on the payment provider than on the technology itself. That framing matters because it suggests stablecoins may face adoption friction not only from technical complexity, but from a perceived mismatch with familiar consumer protection norms.

Consistent with that idea, Visa said willingness to use stablecoins increases from 36% to 45% when stablecoins are offered through an existing financial provider—an environment where consumers may expect established safeguards, oversight practices, and recourse.

The US policy backdrop: GENIUS and the question of insurance

Visa’s survey arrives as US regulators prepare for the implementation of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act. Visa pointed to the timing of GENIUS rulemaking as companies work toward eventual execution, with finalized guidance from key US financial agencies expected ahead of an effective date targeted for January 2027.

The survey’s “hypothetical scenario” also highlights a real regulatory tension: stablecoins are not currently treated the same way as bank deposits. Unlike traditional bank accounts, stablecoins do not inherently come with protections such as FDIC deposit insurance for consumer funds.

Under GENIUS, the expectation is that US stablecoins will not automatically include FDIC insurance or explicit fraud protection as of January. Instead, the framework is described as including guidelines aimed at addressing illicit activity risk, while still leaving open the broader consumer protection question that Visa’s survey suggests could influence adoption.

For market participants, this distinction is important. If consumer intent is highly sensitive to perceived safety mechanisms, then the effectiveness of stablecoin regulation may depend not just on compliance around reserve management and illicit finance controls, but on whether the final rules produce outcomes that consumers recognize as meaningful safeguards.

Visa’s full study is published through the company’s investor relations site: “Safeguards Could Boost Stablecoin Use Among Americans, Finds Visa Study”.

Europe debates reserve rules for stablecoins under MiCA

While the US focuses on how stablecoins should fit into national rules, Europe is also refining how it expects stablecoin reserves to be structured. On Tuesday, the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) called for changing rules that require stablecoins to back reserves with a specific minimum portion held as bank deposits—30% for most tokens, and 60% for “significant” stablecoins.

Instead of a deposit-heavy requirement, the ESCB proposed shifting the focus toward liquidity thresholds for reserve assets. The rationale, as described in coverage of the ESCB position, is that users could withdraw funds quickly, creating risks tied to deposit composition rather than asset liquidity overall.

The discussion sits within the broader Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, which began enforcing stablecoin-related rules in June 2024. MiCA’s implementation has been a central factor in how euro stablecoins structure compliance, issuance, and reserve practices across European markets.

What the US and EU debates suggest for stablecoin adoption

Taken together, Visa’s consumer research and the ESCB’s reserve-rule commentary underline a recurring theme in stablecoins: adoption depends on trust and practical risk management, not only on speed or cost.

Visa’s survey suggests that consumers view the identity of the provider as a key safety signal. In that light, bank-like arrangements—whether through stronger fraud controls, clearer protections, or stablecoin distribution via established financial institutions—may reduce perceived uncertainty for cross-border use cases.

Meanwhile, Europe’s call to adjust deposit-based reserve requirements reflects a different but related concern: stablecoin frameworks must account for fast-moving redemption behavior, and reserve composition should support liquidity when demand spikes.

For readers tracking where the sector is headed, the next critical variable is how regulators operationalize these policy goals. In the US, GENIUS rulemaking and the final shape of requirements around fraud and consumer protections will determine whether stablecoin issuance becomes more “recognizable” to consumers. In Europe, MiCA-linked reserve thresholds could influence how euro stablecoins manage liquidity and risk—and how compliant issuers design their reserve strategies.

As these developments progress, investors and builders should watch for whether regulatory frameworks translate into protections that consumers actually perceive—since Visa’s results imply that intention can shift dramatically when stablecoins look and feel more like an extension of the traditional payments and banking safety net.