The Next Era of USD Access: Banking Without the Bank Account

A vintage car dealer in São Paulo processes $1 million in USD payments annually. He has no US bank account. No US entity. No crypto wallet he manages himself. He clicks 'send payment,' waits two minutes, and pays $2 in fees. A year ago, the same transactions would have cost him $87,000 and required forming a US LLC.

Traditional banking requires geographic presence. To access USD, you need a US entity and a US bank account. But in the past 12 months, businesses around the world moved $1 billion through infrastructure that bypasses this requirement entirely. This isn't a workaround. It's a fundamental restructuring of how international businesses can access the US dollar.

The technology already exists. The infrastructure already works. And institutional banks structurally cannot replicate it.

SECTION 1: WHY USD ACCESS REQUIRES A BANK ACCOUNT (AND WHY THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR MOST BUSINESSES)

For our vintage car dealer in São Paulo, the problem is simple: he needs access to the US dollar. His suppliers send invoices requesting payment in USD. His customers want to pay in USD. His business model requires holding USD to avoid losses from exchange rate fluctuations.

The traditional solution seems straightforward: open a US bank account. But that’s easier said than done.

US banks only open accounts for businesses with a legal presence in the US. This isn't just bank policy; it's a regulatory requirement. Banks operate under country-specific licenses and can only verify entities in their jurisdiction.

So, businesses located overseas need to create a US entity. Forming a US LLC, widely considered the most accessible entity to form overseas, can cost between $2,000-$5,000 and take 2-6 months to set up. Even worse, approval isn't guaranteed.

Just getting over the hurdle of setup won’t prepare you for what comes next: the actual cost of moving money across borders.

Banks don't hold accounts at every other bank in the world. Instead, they use correspondent banks, which are partner banks that handle international transactions on behalf of your bank. When the Brazilian car dealer wants to pay a US supplier, his Brazilian bank routes the payment through one or more correspondent banks until it reaches the destination. Each bank in this chain verifies compliance, checks sanctions lists, and takes a fee: typically $15-$50 per intermediary, plus 2-4% for currency conversion.

If you’ve encountered a SWIFT code before, maybe when sending an international wire, you’ve seen the unique string of letters and numbers that pinpoints a specific bank and branch. That code ensures your payment is routed accurately across borders, reducing errors and delays. Without SWIFT and its standardized identification system, international transfers would be slower, riskier, and far more complicated for banks and customers.

But, SWIFT isn’t perfect. According to Statrys's 2024 analysis, the average payment processed via the SWIFT network takes 18 hours to complete. Additionally, 75% of SWIFT-based payments involve intermediary banks that can add 20+ hours of processing time on average. While the SWIFT message is sent quickly, payments passing through correspondent banking channels can take days to settle.

Not only can SWIFT-based transfers take a while, but they can be pricey, too. According to World Bank data from Q1 2025, banks charge an average of 14.55% for international transfers. For a $10,000 payment, that's $1,455 in fees. If our car dealer processes $50K per month in USD payments (5 transactions of $10K each), traditional banking costs ~$7,275 per month in fees.

The annual cost? Roughly $87,300 in transaction fees alone, plus the additional upfront $2K-$5K entity formation cost.

For a small business, $87,000 per year in payment fees can mean the difference between sustaining an international operation and shutting down. As a result, the car dealer in São Paulo was forced to turn away American buyers. “Sorry—wire transfers take too long and cost too much,” he would say, unaware that the solution to his problem already exists.

Why Banks Can't Fix This

The complicated, high-fee setup required to conduct international business isn’t a result of greed. Really, it just comes down to regulatory structure.

A bank’s license to operate is tied to a specific jurisdiction. That means JPMorgan Chase in the United States is a separate legal entity from JPMorgan Chase in Brazil. A U.S. bank can open accounts only for U.S. business entities, and a Brazilian bank can open accounts only for Brazilian entities. In traditional banking, there’s no such thing as a single “global bank account.”

Banks also can’t abandon correspondent banking. If a bank doesn’t have a direct presence or clearing access in another country, it must rely on correspondent banks to process payments and settle funds through local payment systems on its behalf. Even if licensing constraints were resolved, instant settlement still wouldn’t be possible. Traditional banking infrastructure relies on batch processing: ACH runs overnight, wires are processed during business hours, and many international transfers require manual review.

Most banks cannot hold cryptocurrency on their balance sheets. Crypto doesn’t fit neatly into existing regulatory frameworks: it isn't a traditional bank deposit, and in many jurisdictions it isn’t clearly classified as securities or commodities, either. This regulatory ambiguity makes it difficult for banks to custody, issue, or directly integrate cryptocurrency within their core balance sheet operations.

Beyond regulatory constraints, banks are structurally built to serve high-value clients, institutional relationships, and domestic operations. Their cost base (compliance, infrastructure, and customer servicing) makes it difficult to profitably support international SMBs generating $50K to $500K in annual revenue. As a result, serving this segment at scale is often not economically viable within the traditional banking model.

For decades, this was just reality. Then, three breakthroughs changed everything.

SECTION 2: THREE BREAKTHROUGHS THAT MADE BANKING WITHOUT BANK ACCOUNTS POSSIBLE

Traditional banking requires a bank account, which in turn requires a legal entity and a specific jurisdiction. For decades, this geographic and regulatory chain was unavoidable—until a set of new technologies began to offer an alternative.

Breakthrough 1: Stablecoins (The USD Layer)

In practical terms, a USDC balance is a dollar balance.

USDC and USDT are two different cryptocurrencies backed by US dollars held in reserve by their issuers. For every USDC token in circulation, Circle holds $1 in reserve. The coins don’t represent a bank IOU; the tokens are backed 1:1 by real US dollars, which keep their values steady. Hence the name, stablecoins—their values aren’t volatile, as opposed to an exchange-traded asset like Bitcoin.

This changes everything. If dollars can exist as tokens on a blockchain, then holding USD value no longer requires a traditional bank account. And if you don’t need a bank account, you don’t need to form a local entity, establish geographic presence, or rely on correspondent banking relationships to move money across borders.

When you transfer USDC, you're not sending a message to a bank asking them to move dollars. You're transferring ownership of the token directly on the blockchain. A sender initiates the transaction, validators confirm it within 1-2 blocks, and ownership transfers to the recipient. Total time: around 2 minutes on Ethereum.

Compare this to SWIFT, where the average payment takes around 15 hours and can even stretch to 1-3 business days. More importantly, once a blockchain transaction is confirmed, it's settled. With SWIFT, settlement happens through separate banking channels, meaning transfers can still be reversed or delayed.

But stablecoins didn’t solve every problem. Most business owners don’t want to manage crypto wallets, figure out blockchain transaction costs, or handle the underlying technical complexity. For the car dealer in São Paulo, "buy ETH to pay gas fees so you can send USDC" is a non-starter.

Breakthrough 2: Gas Sponsorship (The Invisibility Layer)

Usually, sending USDC on the blockchain is a multi-step process. You need a wallet with USDC. You also need Ethereum in that wallet to pay for the gas fees, or the transaction fee paid to process an action on a blockchain network. You need to understand how transaction fees fluctuate and how to manage private keys securely. For a business owner who just wants to pay a supplier, this is often too complex.

As Andy Jiang, Slash's Head of Product, explained: "If every time our customers wanted to move USDT they had to preload gas, they would drop the product. It is the kind of friction that pushes people away from crypto."

Slash partnered with Alchemy, a developer platform that processes $150 billion in transactions annually, to solve this. Alchemy handles gas fee payments automatically. Users never buy ETH, never see gas fees, never interact with the blockchain directly.

But another problem remains. Businesses still need to convert stablecoins into their local currency so they can actually use the funds they receive. They also still need to accept payments from customers who prefer credit cards or bank transfers, not just crypto.

Breakthrough 3: Embedded Fiat Rails (The Conversion Layer)

The hardest part of stablecoin banking isn’t using the blockchain. It’s getting the blockchain to work within the confines of traditional banking infrastructure.

Slash built integrations with local payment rails in every market where it operates, including PIX in Brazil, ACH in the United States, local bank transfers in Argentina, Mexico, and Colombia, credit card payments through Stripe, and global wire transfers.1,3,4

Here is what this enables. When a customer pays the car dealer by credit card or bank transfer, the dealer sees “Payment received: $15,000 USD,” and the balance updates immediately. Behind the scenes, Slash receives fiat through Stripe, PIX, or other local rails, converts it to USDC at the market rate, credits the dealer’s custodial wallet, stores private keys in Hardware Security Modules, records the transaction on Ethereum, and runs compliance checks against sanctions lists.

When the dealer sends a payment, they click “Send $10,000 to supplier” and see “Fee: $2. Arrives in 2 minutes.” Slash signs the transaction using HSM-stored keys, Alchemy sponsors the network fee, the transaction is broadcast to Ethereum, validators confirm it in roughly two minutes, and both parties see updated USD balances.

When the car dealer in Brazil needs to pay local expenses in reais, the process works in reverse. The dealer initiates a withdrawal to a Brazilian bank account, Slash converts USDC to reais at the current market rate and initiates a PIX transfer, and the reais arrive in the dealer’s local bank account within minutes.

How It All Works Together

These three breakthroughs work together to create "banking without the bank account." Stablecoins eliminate the need for a bank account to hold USD value. Gas fee sponsorship eliminates the need to understand blockchain. Fiat rails eliminate the need for customers or suppliers to use complex crypto wallets.

As Maxim, Slash's previous Crypto GTM Lead, explained: "International payment rails are very annoying. For operational purposes, we just need dollars." Slash solved this by building infrastructure where businesses get USD access without needing to understand or interact with crypto.

What Slash users experience is simple: open an account without forming an entity, accept credit card payments from customers, see a USD balance that corresponds to USDC on Ethereum, send payments that arrive in two minutes for a couple of dollars, and convert to local currency when needed. So, the car dealer in Brazil can start using cryptocurrency to move money around the globe, no guide needed.

What they don’t see is the infrastructure making it work: blockchain settlement, gas fees, private key management secured in custodial wallets with enterprise-grade HSMs, smart contract execution, and validator networks operating behind the scenes.

Even though stablecoins operate outside traditional banking, Slash still complies with financial regulations through identity verification at onboarding, real-time wallet address screening against sanctions lists, transaction monitoring for suspicious patterns, and regulatory reporting where required. Maintaining this compliance layer is harder than traditional banking because blockchain transactions are public and immutable, wallet addresses don't have names attached, and cross-border transactions happen instantly with less time to screen before settlement. Slash built systems specifically designed for on-chain compliance rather than adapting banking systems that weren't designed for this use case.

The technology already existed. The innovation was making it feel like banking.

SECTION 3: WHAT THIS UNLOCKS (BUSINESS MODELS THAT WEREN'T VIABLE BEFORE)

The $1 billion in annualized stablecoin volume Slash processed in 12 months reflects real businesses moving real money. These aren’t speculative trades—they’re operational payments powering actual commerce: car sales, luxury goods, contractor payouts, cross-border invoices.

Here’s what becomes possible when businesses get banking without bank accounts:

1. Currency Devaluation Protection Without Entity Formation

A luxury watch dealer in Latin America operates across Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile. Argentina's 31.5% annual inflation means holding pesos erodes purchasing power by nearly one-third every year.

The watch dealer receives 1,000,000 pesos for a sale in January 2025 (worth ~$1,100 USD). Six months later, those same pesos are worth ~$780 USD. Loss: $320 (29%) just from holding pesos. If the dealer does $50K per month in revenue ($600K annually in USD terms) but is forced to hold in pesos, they lose ~$180K per year to currency devaluation alone. That's 30% of revenue disappearing before paying any business expenses.

Traditional solutions didn't work. Accept pesos? Lose 30-50% of value before converting. Accept only one local currency? Can't serve Bolivia and Chile if pricing in pesos. Form US entity? $2K-$5K in costs, 2-6 months timeline, no guarantee of approval.

The dealer now prices all products in USDT. Customers across Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile see stable USD prices. When a customer pays in local currency, Slash handles conversion, dealer receives USDT and holds stable USD value, converts to local currency only when needed for local expenses. No 30% loss to currency devaluation.

Business transformation: expanded from one market to six countries, protected 30% of revenue from devaluation, can price consistently across the entire region. A business model that wasn't viable before now works.

As Maxim explained: "For businesses in South America with unstable currencies, holding balances on-chain means their money won't be worth half of what it was before."

2. Cross-Border Commerce Without the Infrastructure Tax

The vintage car dealer in São Paulo sources classic Ford Broncos from US sellers and sells to American collectors. Traditional international payment costs for a $20,000 car: wire transfer fee $50, intermediary bank fee $25, receiving bank fee $30, FX conversion spread 3% = $600. Total: $705 per transaction (3.5% of sale).

With 20 transactions per month, traditional banking costs $14,100 per month in fees—$169,200 annually in payment fees alone. Even after forming a US entity to get a USD account, the dealer still paid correspondent banking fees on every transaction, SWIFT processing delays (1-3 business days), and currency conversion markups when needed.

With Slash: customer sends USDC, dealer receives USDC (fee: ~$2), holds until needed for local expenses, converts to reais only when necessary. Monthly cost: ~$40 (20 transactions × $2). Annual savings: $168,720.

Before Slash, the dealer was turning away American buyers because wire transfers took days and cost $50+ per transaction. Payment processors like PayPal charged 4.5% + $0.30, making high-value car sales impractical.

Now, settlement takes 2 minutes, costs $2, and the dealer just sees a USD balance. International business is now profitable instead of cost-prohibitive.

SECTION 4: WHAT COMES NEXT (WHY THIS IS THE NEW STANDARD, NOT AN ALTERNATIVE)

In 12 months, Slash processed $1 billion through infrastructure that doesn’t rely on traditional bank accounts. The MVP was built in two weeks, and real transaction volume began flowing within a month.

This isn’t a niche tool for crypto-native businesses. It’s infrastructure designed to replace traditional banking for international SMBs that otherwise can’t access USD.

Why This Represents a Permanent Shift

First, scale proves viability. $1 billion in annualized volume demonstrates this works at scale for operational payments: car sales, luxury goods, contractor payments, cross-border invoices. The businesses using this infrastructure don't care about crypto. They care about accessing USD without entity formation, paying $2 instead of $1,455 per transaction, settling in 2 minutes instead of 3 days, and protecting revenue from currency devaluation.

Second, banks can't compete structurally. Country-by-country licensing means banks can only serve domestic entities, correspondent banking dependency means they can't eliminate intermediaries, regulatory constraints mean they can't hold stablecoins, and batch processing infrastructure means they can't match instant settlement. Banks are optimized for high-value clients, institutional relationships, and domestic operations—not international SMBs with $50K-$500K in annual revenue.

Third, geographic barriers disappear. For decades, your business location determined whether you could access USD. If you weren't in the US (or couldn't form a US entity), you couldn't get a USD bank account. Banking without bank accounts makes geography irrelevant. A business in São Paulo, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, or Lagos can access USD the same way a business in New York does—instantly, with minimal fees, without entity formation.

As awareness grows, adoption accelerates. The businesses switching to Slash aren't early adopters or crypto enthusiasts. They're businesses that lost $87K per year to traditional banking fees, lost 30% of revenue to currency devaluation, turned away international customers due to payment friction, and couldn't afford $5K in entity formation costs. The value proposition isn't marginal. It's revolutionary.

Slash's Position: Category Leadership

While competitors serve international founders who form US entities, Slash built infrastructure that eliminates the entity requirement entirely.

Most fintech companies that offer stablecoin access don't build the infrastructure themselves. They partner with crypto companies like Circle, Coinbase, or Fireblocks and act as a front-end interface. Slash took the opposite approach and built everything in-house: a proprietary Flow of Funds framework for managing liquidity across multiple blockchains, direct blockchain integration without intermediaries (managing liquidity pools, gas optimization algorithms, transaction batching, hot and cold wallet infrastructure), a compliance layer built specifically for on-chain transactions (wallet screening, blockchain data monitoring, regulatory reporting across jurisdictions), and multi-market fiat on/off-ramps (PIX in Brazil, ACH in US, local transfers in Argentina, Mexico, Colombia, Stripe for card payments).

Building this infrastructure took 18+ months and significant capital investment. Most fintech companies avoid this because partnering is faster and cheaper upfront. But building in-house gave Slash control over the user experience (no dependency on third-party APIs, uptime, pricing, features); better cost structure (no third-party margins, which is why Slash can charge ~$2 per transfer while maintaining instant settlement); and faster innovation speed (we can ship features without vendor negotiations or API limitations).

As Andy Jiang explained: “Stablecoins are easy; stablecoin banking isn’t.” Anyone can integrate with Circle’s API and let users buy USDC. Creating the infrastructure that makes stablecoins function like a bank account, reliable, compliant, embedded in business workflows, and accessible to non-crypto-native users, is the harder problem. That is the system Slash has developed.

The Future

The question is not whether banking without bank accounts becomes mainstream. It is how quickly businesses recognize the alternative that already exists.

For international businesses that need USD access, the choice is clear. Option A: traditional banking with $87K annual fees, entity formation requirements, and multi-day settlement delays. Option B: Slash's Global USD Account that charges only ~$2 per transaction with no entity required and instant settlement.

One model requires geographic presence, intermediaries, and structural limitations banks can't overcome. The other model is already processing $1 billion in payments for businesses that couldn't access USD any other way.

Slash operates at the forefront of an emerging category, with full-stack infrastructure already in place. As a result, businesses in São Paulo, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, and beyond can now access USD in much the same way as businesses in New York: instantly, with minimal fees, and without forming a U.S. entity.

This is the new era of USD access. And Slash built the infrastructure that makes it possible.

Written by Twisha Chawla. Edited by James Cruikshank and Allie Brown. Collaboration from Maxim Bernard and Andy Jiang