In a sector currently navigating the treacherous waters of regulatory scrutiny, institutional demand, and the desperate need for transparency, Maksym Sakharov, CEO of WeFi, is building what he calls the “Deobank.”
As the leader of a next-generation onchain financial infrastructure platform, Sakharov believes that the future of finance isn’t just about digitization, but about compliance-first blockchain frameworks.
In an exclusive interview, Sakharov sat down with us to dissect the hurdles facing fintechs today, the strategic pivot toward institutional-grade rails, and how WeFi’s proprietary WeChain is rewriting the rulebook for transparent banking..
- Africa has dozens of currencies and highly fragmented financial markets. Could stablecoins become a common financial layer connecting these markets, or will differences in local regulation and infrastructure prevent that from happening?
A: Stablecoins could become a common settlement layer across some African corridors, but they will not develop evenly across the continent. Many businesses and users still face slow settlement, expensive transfers, and limited access to stable digital value when moving money across borders. Stablecoins can help where current rails make value movement harder than it needs to be.
A stablecoin becomes useful only when it can move from a balance on a screen into something people and businesses can actually use. If a user cannot convert it locally, a merchant cannot accept it, or a business cannot account for it, the rail remains technical rather than practical. Adoption will happen corridor by corridor, in the markets where regulation, infrastructure, and user demand begin to meet.
- South Africa is taking steps to develop its regulatory approach to stablecoins while also exploring broader digital payments innovation. How do you see stablecoins fitting into the country’s existing financial and payments ecosystem over the next few years?
A: South Africa is different from many African markets because it already has a more developed financial system. Stablecoins there are less likely to begin as a basic access tool and more likely to be tested against specific payment and settlement problems. Current activity in South Africa still appears closer to crypto-market settlement than everyday payments. That creates a clear next step: stablecoins need to prove they can support regulated commercial use, not only trading flows.
The next stage is whether stablecoins can prove value inside regulated commercial activity. They may first become relevant in cross-border business flows, treasury use, or digital asset settlement where existing processes create cost or delay. South Africa’s regulatory direction matters because adoption will depend on whether stablecoins can operate with enough trust and clarity to move beyond crypto-native use.
- One concern around widespread USD stablecoin adoption is “digital dollarization” and its potential impact on local monetary policy. How should African countries approach this risk without restricting access to a technology that is already proving useful?
A: African regulators should take digital dollarization seriously, but heavy restrictions can push the activity into less visible channels. USD stablecoin demand often reflects a real problem: people and businesses want a more stable way to hold or move value when local currency conditions are difficult. Blocking that demand does not remove the underlying pressure.
A safer approach is to bring the activity into a clearer regulatory perimeter. Regulators need visibility into how stablecoins are used, which providers are serving the market, and where the risks sit for consumers and the monetary system. Some markets may also develop local alternatives for domestic use, while USD stablecoins continue to serve dollar-denominated needs. The goal should be transparency and control, not denial of demand.
- Africa has traditionally relied heavily on correspondent banks for international transactions. If stablecoins increasingly sit between African businesses and global markets, how could this change the role of banks across the continent?
A: Stablecoins could reduce dependence on parts of the correspondent banking chain, especially where the current process creates delay, cost, or uncertainty. For an African business paying an overseas supplier, the practical concerns are simple: when does the value arrive, what does the recipient actually receive, and how much visibility does the sender have along the way?
Banks will not disappear, but their role could become more focused. They may remain important where fiat access and local financial relationships are required, while modern settlement infrastructure handles more of the value movement. The banks that adapt to this structure will remain useful. Those that only preserve slow and fragmented rails will have a harder time defending their position.
- Much of the stablecoin discussion focuses on consumers and remittances, but what about larger companies? Where do you see the strongest institutional use cases for stablecoins in Africa — treasury management, international trade, payroll, supplier payments, or something else?
A: For larger companies, the strongest use case is any situation where the company loses time, visibility, or margin because value has to move through fragmented rails. An importer waiting to pay a supplier, a platform paying workers in several countries, or a regional business managing dollar exposure all face versions of the same problem: the payment process becomes part of the operating cost.
Stablecoins can help if they make that process easier to manage. The value is not simply faster transfer. It is knowing where value is, when it arrives, whether it can be converted, and how the company records it. For institutional adoption, stablecoins have to fit into treasury and accounting behavior. If they remain separate from how a company manages cash, they will stay a niche tool.
- Regulation is developing very differently across African countries. Do you think Africa would benefit from greater regional coordination on stablecoin regulation, perhaps through institutions such as the African Union or regional economic communities?
A: Greater regional coordination would be useful because stablecoins do not respect borders in the same way national payment systems do. If every market defines and supervises the activity very differently, responsible providers face uncertainty while risk can move through the gaps. Coordination would make it easier to build useful services without leaving users exposed.
That does not mean every country needs the same rulebook. Local currencies, banking systems, and policy priorities differ. A stronger approach would be shared principles with local implementation: clear provider responsibility, user protection, financial crime controls, and cross-border supervision. That would reduce fragmentation without forcing every market into the same model.
- We are beginning to see regulated local stablecoins emerge alongside established global assets such as USDT and USDC. What will ultimately determine which stablecoins succeed in African markets — the currency they represent, the issuer behind them, liquidity, regulation, or network effects?
A: Success will depend on whether the stablecoin solves the user’s actual problem. In some markets, the problem is access to dollar-denominated value, so global USD stablecoins will remain powerful. In others, the need may be domestic settlement or regulated local payment use, where a local-currency stablecoin could make more sense.
The issuer, liquidity, regulation, and network effects all matter because they shape usability. People and businesses will choose the stablecoin they can trust, access, convert, and use repeatedly. A strong brand is not enough if the asset is hard to use locally. A local currency is not enough if users do not trust the value or cannot move it easily.
- If we look five to ten years ahead, could Africa become one of the markets where stablecoins have their greatest impact on the traditional financial system? And what would need to happen for that potential to become reality?
A: Yes, African markets could be among the places where stablecoins have the clearest practical impact, because the payment problems are visible. Many users and businesses already deal with high transfer costs, slow settlement, limited banking access, and currency pressure. Stablecoins become relevant when they address those problems in ways existing rails do not.
That potential becomes real only when stablecoins stop feeling like a separate crypto process. A business should be able to pay, receive, account for, and use value without managing the technical route. A consumer should be able to access digital value safely without being exposed to unnecessary complexity. From WeFi’s perspective as a Deobanking infrastructure provider, the opportunity is to make digital value work in the places where payment infrastructure has historically been too expensive, too slow, or too hard to access.
