Welcome to the Money Code Episode Brief, where we distill each Money Code episode into the key ideas and implications that matter.

Listen to the full episode on Apple, Spotify, Youtube, or on your favorite platform. Don’t forget to follow Money Code on X (@moneycodepod) and LinkedIn. 

Money Code is presented by Stablecon and Powered by BVNK

Episode Brief: Why Building a Global Venmo with Stablecoins is Still Hard w/ Mike Hudack (Sling)

Stablecoins make the “shared ledger” part of money movement dramatically cleaner, but they do not remove the messy perimeter where most products break: getting funds in and out locally, verifying identity, earning trust in-market, and operating fraud and AML programs that can survive real abuse.

Mike gives a pragmatic builder’s view of what it takes to ship a “global Venmo” experience across 120+ countries while staying inside legal definitions (especially around self-custody) and while preserving UX speed without turning the product into a criminal tool.

Core ideas you should take away

• Payments are slow because ledgers are fragmented. Banks run separate databases and rely on compatibility layers (ACH, SWIFT, Faster Payments) that work unevenly domestically and poorly internationally.
• Stablecoins help by providing a shared database or a better interoperability layer between ledgers. Cross-border transfer becomes simpler at the ledger layer, even across different chains that are compatible with each other.
• The wallet layer is global by default, but compliance forces restriction work. Sling spends meaningful effort making the product not work in certain jurisdictions to avoid legal exposure.
• “Self-custodial” is defined by control and initiation constraints. Sling’s framing: they don’t have the private key, can’t move funds on a user’s behalf, and transactions require user authentication; meeting legal tests across jurisdictions is non-trivial.
• The hardest global surface area is local: ramps, IDV/KYC, and localization. Integrating local payment methods, handling identity verification, and building culturally trustworthy messaging are the ongoing grind.
• Fraud and AML sit in direct tension with “instant, always-on” UX. The same features users love are attractive to bad actors, so the system and team have to get good at distinguishing legitimate activity from abuse.
• Stablecoin selection is a product decision that touches trust and market plumbing. Sling used USDP (partner relationship, regulated, not PYUSD), added EURC in Europe, and plans to move users toward USDG because broader DEX liquidity matters for some users’ confidence.

What this changes

• For fintech builders: Expect the heavy lift to concentrate on ramps, identity/KYC conversion, fraud/AML operations, and localization, not on the onchain transfer itself.
• For stablecoin issuers: Distribution apps will care about regulatory posture, liquidity, compatibility, and recognizable trust signals, not just “it’s 1:1 backed.”
• For anyone selling “end-to-end onchain” narratives: The practical near-term reality is often hybrid flows that still touch fiat endpoints (accounts, cards), even if the settlement leg is onchain.

Still unresolved

• Why so many non-bank brands want to issue their own stablecoin. Mike is skeptical and points to compatibility, brand, and regulatory complexity, but doesn’t land a definitive model for when it’s worth it.
• How far the industry can push toward fully onchain loops. He sees acceleration, but also expects fiat touchpoints to persist for a long time.
• What the “right” long-term consumer safety model is for self-custody. Sling built recovery and key-backup approaches without giving itself key access, but the broader equilibrium isn’t settled.

If you listen, listen for this

Stablecoins don’t fully remove complexity. Some complexity is relocated. The shared ledger makes money movement feel like software, but the product still wins or loses at the perimeter: local ramps, identity, localized trust, and fincrime systems that can keep “instant” from becoming “unsafe.”