A partnership across competing networks
In a Polygon announcement, the company said its Open Money Stack now supports Solana, allowing businesses to use Solana for stablecoin settlement while accessing Polygon’s bank pay-ins, fiat conversion, embedded wallets, cross-chain routing and payout services.
The arrangement does not combine the two blockchains or require companies to move their activity from one network to the other. Instead, it separates two functions that are often bundled together: transferring stablecoins on a blockchain and moving money between crypto wallets, banks and payment providers.
That distinction matters as stablecoins develop from trading instruments into tools for business payments. A company could settle a transaction on Solana, for example, while using Polygon’s infrastructure to receive funds from a bank, convert between fiat currencies, route assets across networks or pay a supplier through a bank account.
Polygon has competed with Solana for developers, users and transaction volume. Its decision to support a rival network therefore signals a shift in strategy. The company is positioning Open Money Stack less as an extension of one blockchain and more as a payments layer that can operate across several networks.
CoinDesk reported that cross-border payments company Kira is among the first users. Kira uses Solana for stablecoin transfers, while Polygon’s infrastructure helps convert those transfers into dollars for payments to overseas suppliers, according to Kira CEO Edrizio De La Cruz.
Polygon’s stack can also support card payments, customer wallets, cash access through supported providers and payouts to bank accounts. The company has recently added TRON support and acquired U.S. crypto payments company Coinme, developments that point toward a broader effort to build connectivity between digital assets and existing financial systems.
The case for a neutral payments layer
Solana’s payments general manager said the network has processed more than $5.7 trillion in stablecoin transfers so far this year. Polygon says transfers since its launch have exceeded $3 trillion. Those figures include wallet transfers and are not limited to purchases or commercial settlement, so they do not by themselves show how much real-world commerce is using either network.
Still, the numbers illustrate why payment infrastructure providers may want access to multiple chains. Businesses may select a network based on transaction costs, liquidity, speed or the assets available there. Rebuilding banking integrations for every blockchain could make stablecoin payments more expensive and slower to deploy.
Solana Foundation Chief Product Officer Vibhu Norby said connecting Solana to bank accounts and payout networks could help businesses reach more customers and markets. The Block reported that Norby described Polygon’s system as an additional, complementary route for businesses using Solana.
The unresolved risk
The strongest criticism of this model is not that the networks are incompatible. It is that adding another infrastructure layer could create new complexity at the exact moment businesses are looking for simpler payment systems.
A company using Solana for settlement and Polygon for banking access may gain flexibility, but it must also manage more counterparties, compliance processes, technical dependencies and potential points of failure. The promise of interoperability only becomes valuable if businesses can understand who is responsible when a transfer is delayed, a conversion fails or a payout is blocked.
Polygon CEO Marc Boiron said the Solana integration was driven by customer demand and reflects a focus on payments infrastructure rather than direct blockchain competition, according to The Block. That approach could benefit companies that want chain flexibility.
It could also weaken the importance of any single blockchain if the most valuable service becomes the layer connecting several networks to banks. The partnership’s long-term test is therefore commercial, not ideological: whether businesses prefer modular infrastructure, or choose simpler integrations built directly around one chain.
David Smith is not a person. No notebook, no deadlines, no face behind the name — just a byline this newsroom publishes under. Here is the production line underneath it, because a name beside a portrait reads like a journalist, and this one is not one.
The models. Writing: gpt-5.6-luna. Out on the live web: gpt-5.6-luna and gpt-5.6-terra. Pictures: gpt-image-1. Swap one in the newsroom and this line swaps with it — it is read off the machines, not typed here.
How a story is made
- Research. The searching model reads around the story, pointed at primary sources — the filing, the post, the repository — rather than at somebody else's write-up of them.
- Writing. The writing model drafts it against what was found, at David Smith's usual length and in David Smith's usual register.
- The loop. A reviewer reads the draft and sends it back with notes. Then reads it again. A piece can go round several times before it leaves the building.
- Enrichment. A quotation has to appear word for word on the page it is taken from. A chart may only use figures that appear in the source it cites. Whatever fails is dropped, and the reason is kept.
- Fact check. A last pass hunts for claims the article makes and its sources do not.
- A human stop. Sensitive subjects are held for a person to read before publication, and a person can kill any of it at any point.
If that sounds less like a newsroom and more like a factory: quite. It is called Press Factory.
This article was generated using AI and published automatically without human pre-publication review.
Read and checked by admin on 10/30/2026
How this article was made
The article was produced by the Grandmonts Media News Engine using automated research, drafting and verification workflows. No human editor reviewed the article before publication. Grandmonts Media remains responsible for the published content. Errors can be reported at office@grandmonts.cz.