Q&A with Serhii Zakharov, Founder and CEO of PayDo
Crypto has spent years promising a faster, more open and more efficient financial system. Inside blockchain ecosystems, much of that progress is real. Digital assets can move quickly, networks run around the clock, and entirely new models of value transfer have emerged.
The trouble starts when crypto needs to connect with the fiat economy. For businesses, that is where speed often gives way to friction. Funds may move instantly on-chain, but converting them into usable working capital can still mean delays, fragmented processes and added operational risk.
In this Q&A, Serhii Zakharov, Founder and CEO of PayDo, argues that the real weakness is not crypto itself, but the infrastructure surrounding it – and that if digital assets are going to play a bigger role in global commerce, the bridge to fiat needs to become far more stable.
Crypto is supposed to be fast and efficient. So why does it still become painful when businesses try to use it in the real economy?
Because crypto may be fast, but the surrounding financial plumbing often is not.
On-chain, things can work very efficiently. Transfers are fast, markets are always on, and businesses can move value globally without many of the constraints that exist in traditional finance. But companies do not operate purely on-chain. They still have to pay salaries, suppliers, taxes and operational costs in fiat.
That means they are constantly moving between two very different systems. One is continuous, digital and built for speed. The other still depends on more traditional rails, processes and controls. So the moment crypto has to leave its own ecosystem and interact with the fiat world, the friction shows up very quickly.
So the real problem is not crypto, but the bridge between crypto and fiat?
Exactly. Too much of the discussion treats this as a crypto problem, when in reality it is an infrastructure problem.
Businesses can receive digital assets in minutes, but that does not mean they can reliably convert and deploy those funds in the way the business actually needs. That is where delays, bottlenecks and uncertainty still appear. Liquidity gets stuck in the handoff between systems instead of flowing through the business.
So when people say crypto is not ready for real-world use, I think that often misses the point. In many cases, the weakness is not the asset or the network. It is the bridge connecting that world to the fiat economy.
What makes that bridge so unreliable today?
Fragmentation, more than anything else. Most businesses are already dealing with multiple providers across accounts, payments, settlement, compliance and treasury. That creates operational drag even before crypto enters the picture. Once digital assets are added, the complexity usually gets worse.
You end up with different ledgers, different compliance processes, different settlement timelines and different counterparties involved in one flow of funds. Finance teams then spend too much time stitching systems together, reconciling transactions and managing exceptions. That is the real bottleneck. Not the idea of crypto, but the fragmented infrastructure around it.
What does that fragmentation actually cost businesses?
It costs them time, control and usable liquidity. A business might accept a crypto payment instantly, but still face delays in accessing those funds as working capital. It may need to rely on multiple intermediaries just to convert, settle and move value into its operating environment. That slows down payouts, complicates treasury planning and increases reconciliation work.
Those costs are rarely captured in one headline number, which is why they are often underestimated. But they show up everywhere in the day-to-day running of a business. And when those inefficiencies build up, crypto starts to feel operationally harder than it should.
You talk about “stable banking infrastructure”. What does that actually mean in this context?
It means having regulated, dependable financial infrastructure that can absorb complexity instead of passing it on to the business.
That starts with compliance. If crypto and fiat are going to interact safely, there needs to be strong AML controls, transaction monitoring and reporting. Those are not just regulatory requirements. They are part of what makes the bridge usable at scale.
It also means liquidity management. Crypto markets run continuously, but fiat settlement still happens through established banking systems. So if you want to connect those two worlds properly, you need infrastructure that can manage liquidity and settlement across both without creating unnecessary friction.
And just as importantly, it means reducing operational fragmentation. Businesses need more unified systems where accounts, payments, settlement and compliance work together rather than pulling in different directions.
Is this really a banking problem, then?
It is a banking infrastructure problem, yes — but that should not be misunderstood as an argument against crypto.
Crypto has introduced new speed, flexibility and programmability into finance. But none of that removes the need for stability, liquidity and regulatory confidence when money moves into the fiat economy. Those functions still matter enormously.
So the challenge is not choosing one system over the other. It is building infrastructure that lets the two work together properly.
Does that mean the future is hybrid rather than fully decentralised?
I think the most scalable version of the future is clearly hybrid. Blockchain offers speed, transparency and programmable value transfer. Traditional financial infrastructure offers settlement reliability, liquidity access and compliance frameworks. The idea that one simply replaces the other is too simplistic.
What businesses actually need is a model where they can receive digital assets, hold value flexibly and still settle obligations through trusted fiat infrastructure when required. The winners will be the businesses and platforms that can combine those capabilities in a way that feels seamless.
What is still missing from the broader crypto adoption story?
Too much of the conversation still focuses on the visible layer — tokens, trading, price action, market narratives. But long-term adoption will be decided by the less visible layer, which is infrastructure. If the rails connecting crypto and fiat remain unstable, then adoption will keep running into the same practical limits.
Businesses do not scale on theory. They scale on systems they can trust. That is why infrastructure matters so much. It is what determines whether crypto remains interesting, or becomes genuinely useful.
What changes once that infrastructure matures?
Once the infrastructure matures, crypto stops feeling like a workaround and starts feeling like part of the financial system. Businesses will not adopt digital assets because they are fashionable. They will adopt them if they make it easier to move money, manage liquidity and operate across borders.
However, that only happens when the surrounding infrastructure is stable enough to support everyday commercial use. That is the real shift. When the bridge works properly, crypto is no longer judged as an experiment. It becomes another practical financial tool.