Interview: geopolitical stress makes case for digital payment rails, says Aquanow CEO

In the past few years, digital assets have moved from the fringes of finance to the center of institutional conversations.

The question is no longer whether crypto has a role to play, but how it fits into the evolving global financial system.

The whole industry is entering a more mature phase as stablecoins gain traction among banks and regulators race to define new rulebooks.

But the rapid progress has also raised some key questions.

How do institutions manage risk in a still-evolving market? What does regulatory fragmentation mean in practice, and can digital rails actually hold up during periods of geopolitical stress?

And as conflicts disrupt traditional payment corridors and correspondent banks pull back, that last question is no longer hypothetical.

In this interview with Invezz, Aquanow CEO Phil Sham breaks down how institutional thinking around digital assets is changing.

He explains why stablecoins are moving from experimentation to adoption, and where the biggest structural challenges still lie.

Excerpts:

Invezz: You went from writing code at IBM to running algorithmic trading desks to building crypto infrastructure. That's not an obvious path. What actually pulled you in this direction?

Phil Sham: It wasn’t a jump as much as a progression. I’ve always worked at the intersection of technology and markets.

Early in my career, I was building systems, and then I moved into electronic and algorithmic trading, where you see very clearly how infrastructure shapes how markets function, from access to speed to efficiency.

Around 2018, it became clear that institutions wanted to participate, but the infrastructure wasn’t there yet.

That’s the gap we set out to solve with Aquanow, bringing institutional-grade reliability, liquidity access, and execution into digital assets.

For me, it was a natural step from understanding code to markets to building the infrastructure needed for what comes next.

Invezz:Many CFOs still associate crypto with volatility and regulatory uncertainty. How do you navigate those concerns in early conversations?

Phil Sham: That's a very common and valid concern, the first step is usually to separate different parts of the market rather than treat all digital assets as one category.

There is a clear difference between highly volatile assets like Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies and stablecoins, which are built for price stability and are increasingly being looked at for payments, settlement, and treasury use cases rather than speculation.

The second point is that regulation is becoming clearer.

Markets are moving away from a grey area and toward more defined frameworks, whether through Europe’s MiCA regime or ongoing legislative efforts in the US.

That does not remove every concern, but it does make the conversation more practical and less theoretical.

From there, the discussion becomes less about whether all crypto is risky and more about which digital asset use cases make sense, under what regulatory conditions, and with what level of exposure.

Stablecoins move from experimentation to financial infrastructure

Invezz: Stablecoins are everywhere now. Regulators are paying attention, big banks are piloting them, and governments are debating them. Do you think the hard part is over in terms of getting people to take them seriously, or is the real fight still ahead?

Phil Sham: I’d say the credibility phase is largely over; stablecoins are now firmly on the institutional roadmap.

We’re seeing clear signals of that shift: Mastercard’s $1.8B move into stablecoin infrastructure, Hong Kong preparing to issue its first stablecoin licenses, and a consortium of European banks working on euro-backed alternatives.

At the same time, central banks like the ECB are raising concerns about potential impacts on monetary policy and banking liquidity.

So the conversation has clearly shifted from ‘is this real?’ to ‘how do we control it?’

The real challenge now is structural: who gets to issue them, how they’re regulated, how they integrate with the existing banking system, and how risks like deposit flight or systemic instability are managed.

So yes, they are taken more seriously today, but that’s exactly why the next phase is more complex.

The focus has shifted from adoption to questions of ownership, regulation, and broader systemic impact.

Invezz:The Iran conflict has rattled Gulf payment corridors in ways that don't always make the headlines. Remittances are getting stuck, FX access is tightening, and correspondent banks are pulling back. Does a moment like this actually vindicate the crypto payments argument, or do digital rails hit the same walls when geopolitics gets messy?

Phil Sham: Moments like this do highlight why the conversation around digital payment rails has become more serious.

When traditional cross-border channels come under pressure, businesses start looking much more closely at infrastructure that offers greater speed, transparency, and flexibility.

That doesn’t mean digital rails are a magic solution, but it does reinforce their value.

Where crypto and stablecoin-based rails help is in speed, programmability, and fewer intermediaries.

That is exactly why large incumbents are leaning in.

Visa’s expansion of stablecoin settlement capabilities, including its US launch, is a clear signal that digital rails are being taken seriously for cross-border payment flows.

The IMF has also noted that cross-border stablecoin flows are already meaningful, even if they remain small relative to traditional payments.

So I would say it’s less about legacy rails struggling and more about the market recognising that the future will need more modern, more adaptive payment infrastructure.

The real opportunity is in building regulated digital rails that can work alongside the existing financial system and make cross-border payments more efficient, especially in times of stress.

Invezz: The US, EU, Singapore, and UAE are all writing different rulebooks on crypto at the same time. For someone operating across borders, is that the thing that keeps you up at night, or is there a bigger problem nobody's talking about?

Phil Sham: Different rulebooks are a challenge, but they’re also a sign the industry is maturing.

The fact that major jurisdictions are putting serious frameworks in place means digital assets are now being treated as part of the financial system, not outside it.

A firm can understand the rules in each market and still face friction when trying to integrate custody, payments, liquidity, reporting, and banking relationships into a single coherent cross-border product.

That’s where execution becomes difficult.

So regulatory diversity alone is not what keeps you up at night.

If that happens, it creates a much stronger foundation for long-term institutional adoption.

Building trust in a market shaped by crises

Invezz: FTX and Terra Luna were significant moments for the industry. Each time an event like this occurs, it can set the ecosystem back. How do you navigate that, given how much effort goes into building trust that can be affected by factors outside your control?

Phil Sham: In any emerging financial system, there will be periods of disruption. That’s part of how markets evolve.

What matters is how you operate through those moments. You can’t control external events, but you can control your standards around risk, governance, and who you choose to work with.

For us, that has always meant building with a long-term, institutional mindset.

Trust isn’t built on short-term sentiment. It’s built through consistent execution over time, particularly in more challenging environments.

These periods also play an important role in raising the bar across the industry.

They push the ecosystem toward stronger infrastructure, better practices, and greater accountability.

So the focus is not on reacting to every cycle, but on continuing to build something durable that stands up over time.

Invezz:For someone from traditional finance who understands markets but is new to digital assets, where would you suggest they start?

Phil Sham: To understand digital assets, a traditional finance professional should apply a mental model that prioritizes structural innovation over speculative noise.

The most effective starting point is to evaluate where this technology enhances fundamental utility, specifically in areas such as optimizing cross-border payments and achieving atomic settlement.

This transition represents a sophisticated evolution of market architecture.

By embedding financial logic directly into the assets, the industry can move toward a model of real-time transparency that builds upon the high standards of established systems.

This same analytical discipline should be applied to emerging models like Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), which offer innovative approaches to ownership while presenting new requirements for institutional-grade governance.

Ultimately, the industry is navigating a macro tension between national regulatory frameworks and a borderless financial layer.

Success lies in bridging these two worlds - harnessing the efficiency of a global network while maintaining alignment with sovereign regulatory standards.

The post Interview: geopolitical stress makes case for digital payment rails, says Aquanow CEO appeared first on Invezz