Why Instant Payments Adoption Is Stalling
- Marcia Klingensmith
- Dec 31, 2025
- 4 min read
And What Treasury Reveals About the Path Forward
Instant Payments Adoption Is Stalling for a Reason
Instant payments adoption continues to lag across the U.S. banking system.
Despite proven rails, regulatory clarity, and years of industry investment, only a fraction of financial institutions have moved beyond limited or receive-only participation. Even fewer have enabled full outbound capabilities.
This is often framed as a technology challenge or a risk challenge.
In practice, it is neither.
Instant payments adoption is stalling because many institutions lack a clear justification tied to business value, operating model readiness, and control.
The technology works. The question is why and where to use it.
We Are Past First-Mover Advantage, But Not Yet at Scale
Early adopters of instant payments gained experience and confidence. That phase is over.
Today, the market sits in an uncomfortable middle:
The rails are no longer experimental
Adoption is not yet widespread
Competitive pressure is uneven
Leadership teams are unsure how to justify the next step
This creates hesitation.
Institutions are not asking whether instant payments work. They are asking what problem instant payments actually solve for their organization.
Until that answer is clear, adoption remains constrained.
Why Treasury Is the Real Inflection Point for Instant Payments Adoption
Retail use cases helped prove feasibility. They did not create a durable business case for most institutions.
The pressure now sits squarely in treasury and business flows.
Treasury leaders increasingly face:
Real-time cash availability expectations
Liquidity visibility demands outside batch windows
Intermediated payment flows tied to business operations
Reduced tolerance for delayed settlement and reconciliation
These expectations exist even while overall instant payments adoption remains limited.
The issue is not transaction volume. It is expectation mismatch.
Treasury is being pulled toward real-time decisioning while institutional controls, governance, and operating models remain rooted in delayed processing.
The Control Question at the Heart of Adoption Hesitation
A common barrier to enabling outbound instant payments is rarely stated plainly.
Most control frameworks were designed for a world where time existed between decision and settlement.
Batch cutoffs. Manual reviews. After-the-fact reconciliation.
Instant payments compress or remove those buffers.
This does not eliminate control. It relocates control.
In a real-time environment, control must exist:
At initiation
Through policy enforcement
Via limits, velocity, and contextual decisioning
Across treasury, risk, and technology in alignment
When institutions cannot clearly articulate where control lives in real time, enabling Send feels risky regardless of how proven the rail may be.
This is a structural issue, not a technical one.
Why Business Use Cases Unlock Justification
Retail adoption alone rarely justifies expanded instant payments capabilities.
Business and treasury use cases do.
Not because they are novel, but because they are pragmatic.
Business customers care about:
Cash flow certainty
Timing and availability of funds
Predictability in operations
Integration into existing workflows
They are also increasingly served by fintechs that operate natively in real time.
When instant payments are framed around business outcomes rather than speed, they shift from cost center to infrastructure.
This is where instant payments adoption becomes defensible.
Signals Institutions Should Be Paying Attention To
As institutions explore business flows, a consistent set of questions emerges:
Who is accountable when money moves on behalf of a client?
Where does authorization occur when settlement is immediate?
How do liquidity, fraud, and policy decisions stay synchronized?
Which team owns risk when there is no time buffer?
Concepts such as on-behalf-of payment models begin to surface not as strategy, but as operational friction.
These are signals that legacy governance assumptions are colliding with real-time execution.
Ignoring those signals slows adoption further.
AI and Stablecoins Do Not Fix the Adoption Problem
AI and stablecoins are often positioned as accelerators of payments modernization.
In reality, they function as stress tests.
AI becomes necessary when human decisioning cannot keep pace with real-time money movement.Stablecoins add value only when real-time control and governance already exist.
Neither resolves a lack of readiness. Both expose it.
Institutions that pursue these capabilities without addressing operating model alignment often compound complexity instead of reducing it.
What Leaders Should Be Asking Now
To move instant payments adoption forward, senior leaders should focus less on rails and more on readiness.
The most productive questions are simple:
What business problems does real-time capability solve for our customers?
Where does control live when funds move immediately?
Who owns decisions at the moment of execution?
How does this create measurable value that offsets risk?
Institutions that answer these questions clearly move faster and more confidently.
Those that do not tend to stall, even as the technology matures.
A Deeper Perspective on What Comes Next
This article focuses on the institutional implications of stalled instant payments adoption.
A deeper examination of how control, governance, and treasury operating models are shifting is explored further in a recent thought-leadership piece:
👉 Why Treasury Will Drive the Next Phase of Instant Payments
That perspective expands on where real-time control is relocating and why many institutions feel increasing pressure without yet having language for it.
Final Thought
Instant payments adoption is not failing.
It is waiting for clarity.
Institutions that reframe instant payments as business infrastructure rather than payment speed will be better positioned to move forward safely, pragmatically, and with purpose.
Comments