Still under scrutiny without issuing tokens? The regulatory aftershocks of Meta's stablecoin pilot

On April 29, 2026, Meta (formerly Facebook) began a pilot program to pay some creators in Colombia and the Philippines using the USDC stablecoin, which creators can receive through crypto wallets supporting the Solana and Polygon blockchain networks. The service is supported by the payment company Stripe. However, this seemingly small-scale creator payment pilot quickly drew the attention of the U.S. Congress: Elizabeth Warren, the minority leader of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, sent a letter to Meta founder, chairman, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, requesting a detailed explanation of this stablecoin pilot and future integration plans.

From the market perspective, Meta has not loudly restarted its own stablecoin project, but only introduced third-party USDC as a payment method for creators. Why does this still attract regulatory attention? If on-chain payments further expand within the Meta ecosystem to include advertising payments, creator tips, e-commerce transactions, or subscriptions, what new regulatory issues related to taxation and compliance might arise? This article will analyze the regulatory logic behind Meta’s stablecoin pilot, starting from the pilot’s content, combined with the historical legacy of the Libra (Diem) digital currency project and the latest U.S. digital asset regulatory developments.

1. Core Content of Meta’s Pilot

1.1 From Banks/PayPal to On-Chain USDC Payments

Under Meta’s existing creator payment system, earnings are usually calculated in USD, and bank or PayPal accounts convert these earnings into local currencies. This process relies on intermediaries for currency exchange and cross-border clearing, which can be time-consuming and incur significant fees and exchange rate losses. Meta’s official help page states that payment arrival times depend on the bank, typically taking 1-7 business days; international payments can take up to 10 days to reach the bank or PayPal account.

Unlike the current payment system, Meta’s pilot offers creators a new option: eligible creators can enter a wallet address supporting USDC on the Solana or Polygon network within Facebook’s payment system, and receive USDC—an on-chain asset pegged to the US dollar—directly. This allows creators to settle transactions on the blockchain, reducing reliance on cross-border banking intermediaries and shortening the time from platform payout to wallet receipt. However, Meta does not convert USDC into local currency; if creators want to cash out USDC into their local currency, they still need to use other channels, which may involve additional time and costs.

1.2 Why Colombia and the Philippines?

Meta has not publicly detailed why the pilot is limited to Colombia and the Philippines, but these markets align well with the logic of cross-border stablecoin payments. On one hand, both countries have strong cross-border capital flow needs. The Philippines is a typical remittance economy, with overseas Filipino workers’ remittances being a major source of foreign exchange income. The Philippines’ central bank data shows that in 2025, remittances sent via banks from overseas Filipino workers totaled approximately $35.63B. Colombia, while not as famous for overseas remittances as the Philippines, has also seen rapid growth in remittance inflows in recent years: in 2025, Colombia received about $13.1B in remittances, a 10.6% increase year-over-year, roughly 3% of its GDP. The large cross-border capital market creates a strong demand among creators in both countries for cross-border payments and settlement.

On the other hand, compared to markets in the U.S., EU, or Brazil, the overall size of the crypto markets in Colombia and the Philippines is smaller, making risks more controllable and less likely to threaten local payment systems and regulatory frameworks. This makes them suitable as early pilot samples.

Additionally, both countries have some foundation of crypto asset usage. According to Chainalysis’ 2025 Global Crypto Adoption Report, Asia-Pacific and Latin America are among the fastest-growing regions for on-chain activity, with stablecoins still playing an important role in cross-border payments and crypto infrastructure. If the pilot in the Philippines and Colombia succeeds, Meta is more likely to expand this model to more creator markets and even extend to more complex payment scenarios such as advertising, subscriptions, e-commerce, or tips.

2. Pilot Sparks Regulatory Attention: No Issuance Doesn’t Mean No Risk

Regulators’ concerns about Meta’s move are not unfounded. Given that Meta’s platforms have over 3.5 billion daily active users, Warren’s letter states: “Any attempt to control, influence, or favor a certain stablecoin on Meta’s platform—even if issued by a third party—could have serious consequences for competition, privacy, payment system integrity, and financial stability.” Her statement reveals the core concern in Congress: whether Meta might leverage its platform access and user relationships to influence the stablecoin market landscape.

2.1 From Libra (Diem) Legacy

In fact, the reason this pilot quickly attracted congressional attention largely stems from Meta’s historical issues with the Libra project. In 2019, Meta’s predecessor Facebook announced the Libra digital currency project. Unlike typical crypto projects, Libra was designed with clear platform financial infrastructure attributes from the start: leveraging Facebook’s vast global user base to establish a digital currency system usable in cross-border payments, transfers, and commercial scenarios. The project faced immediate scrutiny from U.S. Congress and global regulators. Later that year, CEO Mark Zuckerberg was summoned to testify before the U.S. House Financial Services Committee regarding Facebook’s financial services plans and Libra.

In December 2020, the Libra Association rebranded as the Diem Association, attempting to downplay Facebook’s involvement and rebrand as a more compliant and independent project; however, under ongoing regulatory pressure, the project was ultimately terminated in 2022.

For Meta, Libra/Diem’s failure was not just a product failure but a significant setback in its regulatory relations. The project cemented a stable perception in Congress: when a large tech platform with billions of users enters the digital currency and payments space, even with technical adjustments, it must face stricter scrutiny.

Senator Warren’s cautious attitude toward Meta’s cryptocurrency efforts is also rooted in this history. Besides viewing Libra/Diem’s failure as a warning against large tech platforms issuing private currencies, she co-signed a letter last year with Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal expressing concerns about Meta’s stablecoin plans, especially whether Meta might restart its own stablecoin project.

In her letter, Warren’s questions focus on two aspects: first, requesting detailed disclosures about the third-party stablecoin pilot—how Meta chooses stablecoins and partners, whether there are commercial arrangements, how risk controls and privacy protections are set; second, whether Meta intends to use this pilot as a starting point to further allow users to hold funds within the platform, and whether it still commits to never issuing its own stablecoin or similar private currencies in the future. This reflects regulators’ deeper concern: whether a limited third-party stablecoin payment pilot could become a stepping stone for Meta to re-enter platform financial infrastructure. According to Fortune magazine, a Meta spokesperson stated: “We have repeatedly told Senator Warren directly that Meta does not have a stablecoin. We also told her that we want users and businesses to be able to choose their preferred payment methods on our platform, which may include third-party stablecoins.”

2.2 Platform Control of Payment Entry Shapes Demand

Even without discussing whether Meta will further control or integrate stablecoins in the future, regulators have ample reason to worry about the potential impact of this pilot. Fortune quotes Polygon Labs CEO Marc Boiron, who said Meta’s stablecoin payment plan is expected to expand to over 160 countries by the end of this year. If true, Meta clearly intends to promote stablecoins on its controlled platform at scale. This could allow USDC to leverage one of the world’s largest distribution channels to reach a vast user base.

For the crypto market, large platforms can shape demand even without issuing their own tokens. Therefore, even introducing third-party stablecoins, Meta’s scale and market position give this behavior significant influence. For regulators, the issue is not just who issues the tokens but who controls customer relationships and payment entry points. Compared to blockchain technology itself, Meta’s advantages lie in distribution channels, messaging, advertising networks, and social environments. If stablecoins become an option for creator revenue sharing or business payments, most users may not care which chain they run on or which issuer supports it; they care whether it’s effective, cheap, and conveniently accessible within their daily apps.

Thus, Meta can influence competition among different stablecoins, wallets, and payment providers by deciding which payment tools are prioritized and how users interact with them.

Concerns about Libra persist in this scenario. With 3.5 billion daily active users, Meta has the economic power to effectively control its payment system and limit entry for small businesses and emerging competitors, risking market competition. Although stablecoins are less volatile than other cryptocurrencies, they can still face bank runs and instability.

2.3 Clarity Act: Regulatory Focus on Market Structure

In her letter, Senator Warren requests Meta to respond by May 20. This timing coincides with ongoing U.S. digital asset legislation. On May 14, the Senate Banking Committee approved the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY Act) with a 15–9 vote, which will next be considered by the full Senate.

As a broader digital asset market structure bill, the CLARITY Act reflects a shift in U.S. regulation from focusing solely on issuers to considering the entire ecosystem—trading, custody, payments, and platform distribution. Against this background, her inquiry may be asking: when a super-platform enters the stablecoin market as a distributor, should it be subject to regulatory rules? Is Congress creating rules for an industry still dominated by exchanges, wallet providers, and stablecoin issuers, or for a platform with billions of users controlling payment channels? In the latter case, rules designed for issuers and exchanges may be incomplete.

Meta is not the only large tech company exploring stablecoins or digital asset payments. Recently, companies like X, Apple, and Google have also experimented with integrating stablecoins into their payment tech. The stablecoin market is entering a phase where distribution capability may be as important as technological capability. If a global platform of Meta’s scale becomes a factual gateway for stablecoins and digital payments, banks, payment processors, and crypto firms could face higher compliance demands, especially regarding KYC, data protection, and reserve adequacy. From this perspective, Meta’s current regulatory focus is unsurprising.

3. How Will On-Chain Payment Responsibilities Be Reallocated?

3.1 Tax Responsibilities: Dispersed Tax Chain

For creators, paying in stablecoins does not fundamentally change the nature of their income. They still earn revenue from content monetization and must fulfill tax obligations based on their tax residency and local laws. The difference is, they no longer hold fiat balances in bank or PayPal accounts but hold USD-pegged on-chain assets like USDC. Although USDC is nominally pegged to $1, it remains a digital asset, and the formation and retention of tax information shift from centralized platform records to a multi-node chain involving platforms, payment providers, wallets, exchanges, and on-chain records.

In traditional payment models, Meta typically controls creator income amounts and payment records, enabling tax authorities to establish a relatively clear audit trail through platform backend, payment accounts, and bank statements. Under stablecoin payments, the platform may only know how much creators earn on the platform and their wallet addresses; Stripe, as the payment infrastructure provider, controls payment execution and records; the blockchain records USDC transfer hashes, timestamps, and addresses; crypto wallets or exchanges hold records of subsequent conversions, local cash-outs, or further transfers. Tax information is thus fragmented across different entities and systems.

From a regulatory perspective, this dispersal increases the difficulty of tracking, reconciliation, and auditing of tax data, raising the bar for tax reporting, platform information disclosure, and tax authority verification. If this model extends from creator payments to advertising, tips, subscriptions, and e-commerce, the complexity of the tax chain will further increase.

3.2 KYC/AML Responsibilities: Increased Platform Verification Challenges

Widespread use of stablecoins could amplify illegal financial risks, as cross-border virtual asset flows complicate anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) efforts. Promoting stablecoin payments within platforms will require enhanced KYC and AML measures.

In traditional bank or PayPal payments, recipient accounts usually undergo identity verification—users upload bank documents, corporate papers, government-issued IDs, selfies, etc. If verification fails, accounts are frozen or income is lost. Since banks and PayPal have established mature real-name account opening, AML screening, and suspicious transaction monitoring, it’s easier to link platform accounts, recipient accounts, and real identities.

Stablecoin payments change this structure. Creators provide a wallet address during payment; Meta knows the platform account but not necessarily who controls the wallet. Under this setup, KYC focuses on the wallet address and its control relationship. Meta can verify whether the address is usable and controlled by the user via wallet signatures or third-party payment verification, and use on-chain analysis to assess risk. However, such verification is more complex and challenging.

If stablecoin payments are only used for Meta’s creator payouts, the main risks involve verifying recipients and screening wallet addresses. But if the scope expands to tips, subscriptions, advertising, e-commerce, and social transfers, Meta will face numerous small, high-frequency cross-border transactions involving multiple parties. Illicit funds could be masked as fan tips, fake subscriptions, ad placements, creator collaborations, or platform product sales. The platform must identify not only “where the money comes from and goes” but also whether the transactions are genuine—who the creator is, why income is generated, whether tips are real, whether ads are suspicious, and whether there are suspicious linkages among accounts. Payment providers, wallets, and on-chain analysis tools can perform some AML functions like identity verification, address screening, and transaction monitoring, but they often lack full visibility into Meta’s internal transaction context, making it hard to distinguish genuine tips from money laundering.

As the organizer of the transaction scene, Meta cannot simply outsource AML responsibilities entirely to third-party providers.

3.3 Payment Network Organizers: Clarifying Regulatory Boundaries

If on-chain payments further expand within Meta’s ecosystem, Meta’s role will also evolve. Stablecoins will no longer just be a payout method from the platform to creators but will become a multi-directional payment tool among users, creators, merchants, advertisers, and the platform itself. In this case, simply judging responsibility based on whether Meta issues stablecoins is too narrow. The GENIUS Act (or similar legislation) might focus more on issuers like Circle. But as mentioned earlier, stablecoin risks are not limited to issuers. A large platform can influence the market by choosing, displaying, promoting, and embedding certain stablecoins, even without issuing its own.

The market-structure regulatory approach represented by the CLARITY Act aims to extend oversight from issuers to trading platforms, brokers, custodians, and payment intermediaries. This regulatory logic requires regulators to reconsider the responsibility boundaries of super-platforms that act as distribution channels in stablecoin markets—covering KYC/AML, tax reporting, consumer protection, and data governance. Therefore, regulators need to assess whether Meta functions as an intermediary in the stablecoin payment chain; if so, it should be included in the responsibility framework accordingly.

4. Summary

Meta’s USDC pilot remains in early stages with a limited scope, but it signals an important trend: stablecoins are moving from settlement tools within crypto exchanges and on-chain ecosystems toward real revenue settlement scenarios in platform economies. For creators, USDC payments could offer faster cross-border receipt experiences; for Meta, this is a more low-profile, pragmatic crypto payment attempt compared to Libra (Diem). Whether Meta will expand its payment activities from creator earnings to broader platform payments remains to be seen, but this pilot leaves the crypto market with a key lesson: when a platform with global distribution capabilities begins to influence stablecoin usage paths through its massive user base, regulators’ focus will shift from token-specific risks to platform power—covering payment entry points, user relationships, and transaction data.