In this interview with Wu, Ben Yu, the head of OSL BizPay, systematically elaborated on the strategic logic of OSL Group's dual-track development of stablecoins and payment business under the compliance framework, drawing on his many years of experience in cross-border payments and the cryptocurrency industry.
Article author, source: Wu
In this interview with Wu, Ben Yu, the head of OSL BizPay, systematically elaborated on the strategic logic of OSL Group's dual-track development of stablecoins and payment business under the compliance framework, drawing on his many years of experience in cross-border payments and the cryptocurrency industry. OSL Group views stablecoin payments as a key infrastructure connecting Web2 and Web3, focusing on B2B cross-border trade, corporate fund transfers, and emerging market payment scenarios, achieving cost reduction and efficiency improvement by reducing intermediaries. At the product level, OSL Group launched the stablecoin USDGO, which will initially be deployed on Solana, while gradually serving traditional cross-border payment institutions and overseas enterprises relying on a global compliance license network. Ben also pointed out that the core opportunity for stablecoin cross-border payments in the future lies in efficiency improvements, while the biggest challenge is regulatory coordination across jurisdictions.
The opinions of the guests do not represent the views of Wu Shuo. The audio transcription is completed by GPT and may contain errors.
Personal background and experience entering the crypto industry
Cat Brother: Could you please share how you entered the crypto industry and how you joined OSL? What are your main responsibilities?
Ben: I am actually a veteran in the cross-border payment industry, having started working in cross-border payments in 2014. By 2018, I began to systematically understand the situation in the crypto industry and came into contact with many stories from practitioners in the crypto field at that time. During that phase, the core applications and narratives of the crypto industry were highly concentrated on cross-border payments. As we all know, one of the original intentions of Bitcoin's design was to solve the problems of cross-border payments. So from the perspective of a cross-border payment practitioner, I started conducting some research related to the crypto industry, including explorations at the application level.
Later in 2018, I started an exchange with a good friend, marking my official entry into the crypto industry. Of course, I also experienced some ups and downs in the process. During the exchange's operation, starting in 2019, due to some policy reasons, I returned to the traditional cross-border payment industry. Until 2025, which is the beginning of this year, I had the opportunity to join OSL and take charge of the entire OSL BizPay business line.
This also brings me back to a direction I have always focused on and pondered for many years: how to optimize and improve cross-border payments using Crypto, especially stablecoins, and even build the next generation of cross-border payment infrastructure. This basically encapsulates my personal experience. I can say that I returned to OSL with a seven-year 'cross-border payment + crypto' dream.
OSL Group brand and strategic upgrade: establishing a dual-track strategy of stablecoin trading and payments under compliance
Cat Brother: In fact, OSL has always placed compliance at a very high priority, which is something you have repeatedly emphasized. Now that you propose the parallel development direction of stablecoin trading and payment platforms, what is the biggest change for you in this brand or strategic upgrade? What internal judgments led to such a decision?
Ben: First, it is important to clarify that this upgrade in branding and strategy does not change our core principle of always prioritizing compliance. This remains unchanged in both positioning and corporate philosophy. The real change is more evident at the business level, where we have further clarified the dual-track parallel development platform and direction of 'stablecoin trading + payments', which is essentially a clear sorting and external presentation of corporate development thinking.
From an external perspective, the biggest change is also quite intuitive. Everyone knows that OSL is a compliant licensed exchange that holds relevant licenses in multiple regions globally. A noticeable change this time is that we are starting to emphasize and highlight the capabilities of our payment platform, including our vision, planning, and investment in payment directions. Internally, this is not a sudden idea, but rather the result of a long-term layout. Because we have always prioritized compliance, any new business direction begins with preparing licenses, regulatory requirements, and compliance frameworks. Only after these foundational conditions gradually mature do we formally bring the large business direction of 'payments' and the overall vision of the group to the forefront.
From our perspective, this change is more like a process of accumulation and bursting forth. As for why we made such a judgment, at the management and company vision level, we have long regarded payments, especially stablecoin payments, as a core business direction. We believe this is where OSL can truly bring substantial change to the cryptocurrency world, and it is a very important and valuable entry point for connecting the fiat world with the stablecoin world.
Differential advantages of compliant exchanges doing Pay: from Day One compliance to B2B payment infrastructure
Cat Brother: I have a feeling that recently not only OSL is doing this, but it seems that some other offshore exchanges are also doing Pay. I recently saw that Gate is also doing Pay, and OKX is doing Pay as well. As a compliant exchange doing Pay, what do you think is the biggest difference or your advantage compared to them?
Ben: I think it mainly reflects in several aspects. First, from the perspectives of Gate and OKX, they have also been continuously promoting the compliance of their businesses over the past few years, including applying for and obtaining more licenses. Many of their progress has already landed, whether in internal compliance governance or external license applications, achieving certain results. However, objectively speaking, the issue of historical baggage may still exist. In contrast, from the company level, our biggest difference and advantage is that OSL has been built as a compliant operating, compliant design, and compliant governance enterprise from day one. We do not have historical compliance baggage, which is a fundamental difference.
Another significant difference lies in the choice of business direction. From what I understand, Gate focuses more on acquiring payment and on-chain payment scenarios, while OKX focuses on their own wallet system to do more on-chain payments, essentially building a more Web3-oriented payment ecosystem around the wallet.
Our positioning will be quite different. From the overall payment strategy of OSL, we are more focused on providing services to companies and enterprises, viewing payments as a bridge connecting Web2 and Web3. Specifically regarding BizPay, our core focus is on B2B payment scenarios, including cross-border trade, global fund and treasury management, and fund allocation, providing underlying payment infrastructure for these scenarios while connecting the gateways between Web2 and Web3.
Therefore, our goal is not to create entirely new payment scenarios but rather to provide a new payment infrastructure based on stablecoins and blockchain for these existing payment needs. Through this approach, we aim to bridge the payment demands in all traditional Web2 scenarios and their potential extensions into Web3.
The core position and phased progress of BizPay within the group
Cat Brother: From the group perspective, what role does BizPay play in the entire OSL business system? How critical is this business? And what is the overall progress currently, such as client types, growth speed, and actual landing situations? Can you share this with everyone?
Ben: From the group perspective, BizPay is one of the most important business directions of the entire OSL group, and it can even be said to be the core product and strategic direction. This point is highly consistent within the group and is a repeatedly emphasized consensus. Therefore, within OSL, BizPay is a very high-priority, even the highest-priority business development direction.
For this reason, throughout the overall promotion process of BizPay, both the group management and all resource lines, as well as the middle and back office teams, have provided very ample support and attention. From the perspective of business progress, frankly speaking, we are now close to completing the first phase, basically nearing the end of the seed user phase. In this phase, we have always adhered to one principle: not to change the already existing payment scenarios and channels in the market, but rather to provide a better payment infrastructure for these scenarios.
To match this strategic direction, in the first phase, the target clients we chose were mainly existing payment infrastructure providers, that is, traditional Web2 cross-border payment companies. By collaborating with them, we output OSL's compliance licensing capabilities and technical capabilities, completing system integration with them, thereby empowering these cross-border payment institutions to directly engage in Web3 or stablecoin payments, allowing them to quickly enter various cross-border payment scenarios.
The core goal of this stage is to achieve breakthroughs in customer types and user scale. Currently, we have already cooperated with some leading cross-border payment companies in the Asia-Pacific region. In the future, everyone may increasingly perceive this point; although you may not directly see the name OSL in the front end, we exist more as a provider of underlying capabilities, but the market will gradually realize that OSL is serving more and more traditional cross-border payment institutions.
From the perspective of client types and business scenarios, at this stage, we are primarily focusing on emerging markets and regions to build localized capabilities and cross-border payment corridors. Currently, we already have several mature operational corridors, such as from Africa to Europe and Africa to Hong Kong, which are running steadily, with real transactions happening every day, primarily serving enterprises that have actual needs in emerging markets and regions with high payment difficulties.
In the next phase, we will further expand our service targets to more global outbound enterprises and internet platforms, focusing on helping them solve pain points in cross-border payments, especially in areas with foreign exchange restrictions and emerging market countries, regarding efficiency, costs, and compliance.
Core necessity scenario of stablecoin payments: cross-border trade
Cat Brother: Based on your actual experience, what are the most common and largest usage scenarios for users currently? Is it cross-border payments, corporate outbound, e-commerce, or gaming? Which type of scenario has the most pressing and strongest demand?
Ben: From the current actual situation, the scenarios mentioned earlier all have real usage demands and landing cases. However, if we must distinguish the 'strongest demand', it still primarily centers around cross-border trade. The reason is that the transaction structure of cross-border trade is relatively straightforward and direct, and the trading counterparties are also quite clear. In most cases, the power of decision-making for transactions is often more in the hands of the buyer. For some export-oriented trade hubs, much of the demand is actually driven by overseas importers.
For example, some overseas buyers may directly express their demands, asking whether payment can be made using stablecoins or whether settlement can be completed in Crypto form. When such demands are initiated by buyers, it will inversely promote the acceptance and usage rate of stablecoin payments along the entire cross-border trade chain quickly. Therefore, overall, the largest and most mature demand still remains concentrated in the cross-border trade scenario.
Of course, in addition to cross-border trade, both e-commerce, outbound enterprises, and the gaming industry have also conducted a lot of exploration and practice in this direction. For instance, we are also serving some outbound platforms, where fund allocation and flow between suppliers or different regions and business entities within the group are realized through stablecoins to improve efficiency and reduce costs. We are also continuously promoting and landing such demands, but from the current stage, the largest proportion, clearest link, and most pressing demand still lies in the relatively straightforward and direct fund settlement scenarios of cross-border trade.
How do stablecoins address the issues of high costs, slow speeds, and lack of transparency in cross-border payments?
Cat Brother: We all know that cross-border payment itself has many pain points, especially when it involves different countries and banking systems, it often experiences slow speeds, high costs, and lacks transparency. How do you plan to solve these problems? Are there any specific cases you can share with everyone about how you help clients address these pain points?
Ben: First, let’s return to the core pain points of corporate cross-border payments themselves. Whether it’s 'expensive', 'slow', or complex and opaque processes, it can ultimately be attributed to one reason: too many intermediaries. Almost all problems stem from this point. The more intermediaries there are, the higher the costs naturally rise, which is easy to understand; and these costs are not just the fees that every intermediary institution needs to earn, but also add a lot of compliance and risk control costs. Each intermediary and mobile institution needs to invest corresponding costs based on their own anti-money laundering and compliance requirements. When the number of intermediaries increases, the process naturally slows down, and this is the core of all the problems in cross-border payments.
From our perspective, whether from stablecoins or from the logic of stablecoin payments, the key point is to minimize intermediaries as much as possible. Here is a specific case. For instance, in some of the business models we are currently running, we once helped a company transfer funds from Africa to Europe.
In this process, we have local partners in Africa who can directly provide local collection and on-ramp capabilities for clients. This means we can directly collect local currency, such as Naira, in Africa, and then convert it into stablecoins, transferring it through the on-chain network to the OSL BizPay system. Within the BizPay system, depending on the country and region where the client ultimately settles, such as Europe, the corresponding stablecoins will be converted into USD, completing the settlement with the client. What is ultimately presented to the client is actually a 'fiat to fiat' link, without a complicated intermediary system, but rather through the stablecoin network achieving rapid transfer and clearing of funds.
The benefits this brings to clients are very intuitive. First, with a large number of intermediaries removed, overall costs drop significantly. Second, we are currently transferring funds on-chain on the Solana network, which has very obvious advantages in speed and cost. For clients, they do not need to understand whether intermediaries are operating through the stablecoin network or the blockchain; the two most direct feelings are: first, the entire process is completely compliant and secure; second, under the condition of receiving Naira locally and settling in USD, the payment experience has improved significantly.
Previously, such cross-border payments might require T+1 or T+2 to arrive; now, in many cases, it can be completed on the same day. Our fastest case so far has been completed in approximately three hours, and this time includes the entire financial approval process. For enterprises, the value brought by this change is very clear—fund turnover speed is significantly improved, and the treasury funds of enterprises can circulate more quickly, thereby reducing the occupation of working capital, which is a very direct and quantifiable improvement.
Reasons for choosing Solana to issue USDGO
Cat Brother: You just mentioned that you launched your stablecoin on Solana called USDGO, right? This is a new product. So why did you choose Solana as the public chain? After all, there are many public chains available now. What was your core consideration? Was it speed, low costs, or other factors? Additionally, will you consider making USDGO more deeply integrated into more usage scenarios after 2025? What indicators will you focus on at that time?
Ben: Yes, our stablecoin is called USDGO, which is relatively simple. First, let’s talk about why we chose Solana. The first point is that OSL has maintained a comprehensive strategic partnership with the Solana Foundation for a long time. Whether in payment business or trading-related sectors, we have ongoing, in-depth cooperation with Solana on multiple levels and have built a solid mutual trust foundation, which is a very important prerequisite.
The second point is that from the performance and design of the chain itself, Solana is very suitable for processing transactions related to payments, especially for cross-border payments, which require high throughput and timeliness. Solana itself boasts a high TPS and relatively low, stable fee levels, making these features very advantageous in payment scenarios and highly compatible with our demand for stablecoin payment infrastructure.
The third point is in terms of institutional adoption. The Solana chain is currently being used by a large number of institutional users, who inherently possess a certain level of awareness and maturity. Therefore, from both technical performance and market and institutional acceptance perspectives, choosing Solana as the main chain for the launch of USDGO is a relatively reasonable and prudent choice.
In summary, on one hand, we have the trust foundation built from our long-term cooperation with Solana, and on the other hand, there is the technical adaptability of Solana in payment transaction scenarios, coupled with its maturity in institutional adoption; these factors jointly contributed to our decision to issue USDGO on Solana.
Of course, looking to the future, we will continue to assess from multiple dimensions, including market penetration, whether different public chains are suitable for high-frequency payment transactions, and the adaptability in more stablecoin distribution and usage scenarios. As the business develops, we do not rule out the possibility of supporting more main chains in the future, allowing USDGO to land and circulate in a broader ecosystem and context.
The strategic significance and enterprise value of USDGO
Cat Brother: The product USDGO was also recently launched. I saw in your announcement that it is not simply 'another stablecoin in the market.' From your perspective, what is the most critical strategic significance of USDGO? And from the experience of enterprise users, what differences or advantages does USDGO have compared to other stablecoins?
Ben: The core can be understood from several levels. First, from the entire OSL stablecoin payment strategy, it is composed of two parts: one part is the payment network, and the other part is the stablecoin itself. For the BizPay payment line, what we are doing now is to provide them with more convenient and easily accessible on-ramp capabilities globally based on different clients' business scenarios, which is the entry point to the stablecoin system. The payment network we aim to build is meant to carry the 'blood' of liquidity, which is our own stablecoin.
From a realistic perspective, there are already various stablecoins in payment scenarios, as well as a large number of usage scenarios revolving around stablecoins. In the future, we also believe there will be more new stablecoins and more diverse stablecoins circulating simultaneously in payment networks. However, this will also bring more complex user experiences and higher cognitive thresholds for corporate users, and may even trigger some issues regarding monetary sovereignty and usage choices. For instance, in a cross-border corridor from the United States to Brazil, whether to use a USD stablecoin or a local currency-related stablecoin will increase decision-making complexity and instead confuse clients.
For this reason, we believe that providing our own stablecoin within our payment network is very necessary. On one hand, this enhances our control over specific payment scenarios, allowing us to better design products and services; on the other hand, it can provide clients with a simpler and more consistent stablecoin usage experience without relying too much on other service providers or third-party stablecoin issuers. Overall, stablecoins themselves are an indispensable part of our strategy.
As you just mentioned, the launch rhythm of USDGO is quite tight. After BizPay completed the initial accumulation of the first batch of seed users and core scenarios, the stablecoin product quickly went live. Going forward, we will continue to do more coordination between the payment network and stablecoins, creating a smoother and more efficient stablecoin payment experience for corporate clients.
The process and compliance challenges for enterprises to connect to BizPay
Cat Brother: Suppose there is a company now that wants to connect to BizPay. What steps do you generally need to go through from the initial communication to actually processing the first payment? In this process, will there be relatively difficult stages, such as compliance, technical connectivity, or funding?
Ben: This question can be viewed from two categories. We have already developed relatively mature and standardized solutions for the target industry, so for some clients with relatively universal business models, the onboarding process is usually quite smooth. These clients often give direct feedback after understanding our solutions, saying 'this is exactly what we need', indicating a high overall match.
For these types of clients, the entire onboarding process is relatively simple and basically a matter of immediate agreement. Because when we initially chose this business direction and designed the plan, I had also been deeply involved in the payment industry for over a decade, and I had a relatively accurate grasp of these clients' pain points and real needs, so the solutions often directly hit the nail on the head. In practical operation, it is merely a standard institutional cooperation process: both parties submit materials, conduct mutual due diligence (DD), complete compliance reviews, and then enter the formal onboarding process.
Next is to connect to our API and complete system integration from a technical perspective, which itself does not have many bottlenecks. The real complexity often appears in business scenarios where cross-border payments are inherently complicated, especially for large outbound enterprises or internet platforms. Based on their business models, they often involve multiple funding chains, various settlement methods, and also need to consider compliance, tax issues, and crossing multiple legal jurisdictions. These combined factors amplify the overall difficulty in a multiplicative way.
In this case, we usually need to provide more customized solution designs for clients beyond standard products and standard account schemes, including streamlining and connecting payment paths, aiming to achieve the lowest possible costs and the fastest possible payment efficiency under compliance. It is also because the enterprises we serve have very high compliance requirements that the most challenging part of the whole process often lies in designing a solution that meets the regulatory requirements of multiple legal jurisdictions and the overall anti-money laundering compliance logic. This stage may encounter some bottlenecks and require considerable communication and repeated verification.
But once the preliminary design of the plan and the overall setup are completed, subsequent compliance due diligence as well as formal onboarding and technical integration will become relatively smooth, with no significant barriers.
Two weeks to complete onboarding and the first cross-border payment: efficiency and cost advantages brought by the compliance network
Cat Brother: Generally, how long does the entire process take from your initial contact to actually completing a cross-border payment?
Ben: Approximately two weeks. For our already relatively mature solutions, the overall advancement speed is quite fast. There is not much need for additional and complicated customization work; based on the mature solution, it typically takes about two weeks to complete the process from onboarding to running the first payment.
Cat Brother: I understand, this timeframe actually surprises me. I didn’t expect the whole thing to be resolved in just two weeks. You have obtained many compliance licenses globally; for the enterprise clients you serve, what is the greatest value that such a compliance network brings them? Is it that processes become simpler and the regions covered become broader because of compliance? Conversely, if competitors do not have such a well-developed compliance network as yours, would it become much more difficult and time-consuming for them to undertake similar activities? Is my understanding correct?
Ben: Yes, we can look at several aspects. First is the value of licenses to us and to clients. Of course, those service providers or clients who do not care about compliance and licenses are not within the scope of our discussion. From our judgment, such participants will ultimately be eliminated by the market and regulation. Globally, whether in developed countries or emerging markets, relevant legislation and regulatory frameworks will gradually take shape in the next year or two, at the latest by next year, most countries will enter a clear regulatory phase. This means that the entire industry must operate under compliance; non-compliant models will find it difficult to exist long-term.
Under this premise, let’s return to another more fundamental question: what is the significance of global compliance and global license layout? This actually goes back to our vision and long-term strategy. We believe that global compliance and broader licensing capabilities fundamentally implement a core logic—removing unnecessary intermediaries as much as possible.
When we have compliance and operational capabilities across multiple legal jurisdictions, we can independently carry out business under compliance, control the flow of funds and service delivery within the OSL system without needing to introduce more intermediaries or rely on additional licensed partners to accomplish the same task. In my view, compliance not only brings value to clients in terms of 'compliance and security' but more importantly, it ultimately helps clients optimize their cost structure, which is a very practical and crucial advantage.
Long-term trend judgment of stablecoin cross-border payments
Cat Brother: You just mentioned that in the future, stablecoins and related payment services will gradually enter the regulatory landing stage globally. In the first half of 2025, some relevant bills were also passed in the United States. The entire industry had a lot of discussions about payments and stablecoins in the first half of 2025, but the second half saw a certain degree of cooling. You have been deeply involved in cross-border payments and stablecoins for many years. From your perspective, what will be the development trends of global payments in the next one to two years? At the same time, what are the main opportunities and challenges facing this industry currently? If you had to choose one, what would be the biggest challenge?
Ben: First, if we start from the topic of stablecoins, or expand the perspective to the overall direction of 'blockchain cross-border payments', I personally believe that the major direction will not change. Whether from the actual market demand and landing cases, or from the progress of regulation and compliance, there is already a very clear consensus in the entire industry on this direction, and everyone will continue to build and promote in this direction. Whether it is our actual business practices in the market, the cases that have emerged in the industry, or the actions of governments in legislation, regulatory frameworks, and license issuance, all of these are continuously validating this point. From the long-term trend of industry development, this direction is not only definite but has already been happening on many levels and continues to advance.
Returning to the question of 'what is the biggest challenge,' the core difficulty facing stablecoin cross-border payments is strongly similar to that of cross-border payments in the traditional fiat world. The essence of cross-border payments dictates that it will inevitably involve multiple legal jurisdictions, and how to achieve mutual recognition and effective connectivity between different legal jurisdictions is crucial for compliant cross-border payments.
To give a simple example, when a transaction occurs between the United States and Australia, both sides have their own independent legal systems and regulatory requirements. In such cases, how can we ensure that transactions occur smoothly while simultaneously meeting the regulatory and compliance requirements of both parties? How can regulators collaborate better to allow companies to truly benefit from the efficiency and cost advantages of stablecoin cross-border payments, rather than introducing more additional compliance costs and burdens?
In my opinion, the biggest challenge facing compliant stablecoin cross-border payments in the future is how to cross the boundaries between different legal jurisdictions, promote mutual recognition and collaboration between different regulatory frameworks, and establish more effective cooperation mechanisms at the regulatory level, thereby truly facilitating the global development of stablecoin cross-border payments.
