Why companies do it
The cost comparison
This is the argument, and the numbers are large.
An international transfer from the United States to Mexico costs between 115 and 200 dollars once correspondent bank charges and the exchange spread are counted, and takes days. The same payment as a stablecoin transfer costs 10 to 30 dollars, and less than that on a cheap network.
Multiply across a team of thirty paid monthly and the annual difference is a real line item rather than a rounding error. The mass payouts entry covers the mechanics of running it at that scale.
Speed matters as much for some recipients. A contractor waiting three days for a wire that may be returned for a formatting error has a different experience from one receiving funds in minutes.
Stablecoins are the only sensible choice
Not a preference. A requirement.
Paying salary in a volatile asset means the recipient’s income changes between the transfer and their conversion, in a direction neither party chose. Somebody has to absorb that, and neither answer is acceptable: the worker bearing it makes their pay unpredictable, the employer bearing it makes payroll unpredictable.
USDT and USDC remove the question. Which of the two depends on where the recipient is, and the comparison entry covers the geography: USDC in the EU, USDT across Asia, Latin America and the CIS.
The legal limit
The employment law limit
The part that decides who can use this.
In most jurisdictions, employees have to be paid in the national currency. Labour law specifies it, and an employment contract promising payment in crypto is unenforceable or outright unlawful depending on the country. Some places allow a portion, some allow it with written consent, and the default is no.
Contractors are different. A service agreement between a company and an independent contractor generally permits payment in whatever both parties agree, which is why almost all real crypto payroll is contractor payment rather than salary.
The practical shape most companies land on: employees paid in local currency through normal channels, contractors and freelancers paid in stablecoins. Anyone considering the first case needs local legal advice rather than a general answer.
Tax and reporting
Neither party escapes anything.
The paying company records an expense in fiat terms. The recipient has income, valued in their local currency at receipt, and declares it under their own rules. In many jurisdictions a later conversion creates a second event on the price difference.
Crypto changes the transfer mechanism and nothing about the obligations, which is worth saying plainly because the opposite assumption is common.
What to have in place
Four things, and the last one is the one people forget.
Address collection with verification
A wrong address means an unrecoverable payment, so the collection step needs a confirmation rather than a text field.
A network agreed per recipient
A contractor watching TRON does not see funds sent on Ethereum, and the mismatch is invisible until somebody asks where their money is.
Native coin balances for fees
One per chain you use, topped up before the run rather than during it.
Records with the fiat equivalent
Each payment needs its value at the moment of transfer, because that is the figure that goes into accounts and into whatever the recipient declares. A payment gateway stores this against each transfer, and the setup guide covers how it reaches your books.