Stablecoins at the till: early lessons from Avolta's Zurich airport pilot

Avolta, the global travel retail and F&B leader, went live with a wallet-to-wallet stablecoin payment pilot at Zurich Airport this September, letting customers pay directly from a self-custodial wallet, with no payment service provider sitting in between.

We spoke with Christian Heeg, Partner at DevelopX (the consultancy and technical architect behind the project), and Philipp Haumueller, Group Treasurer at Avolta, about how the project came together, what Avolta hopes to learn about customer experience and operational feasibility, and what it signals for the next generation of retail payments.

This written interview digs into the practical lessons for those just getting curious about stablecoins, those tracking real-world pilots, and those already building toward what's next.

For readers who haven't seriously considered stablecoin payments yet: what's the simplest way to explain how this works at checkout, and what's the minimum a bank, merchant, or PSP would need to have in place even to start exploring something similar?

Christian Heeg: From a customer experience point of view, it works like any other QR-code-based payment: scan, confirm, and within seconds the payment is accepted.

Under the hood, the difference is stark, though. It is more like a (digital) cash payment than a card payment. The customer needs to hold stablecoins in a self-custodial wallet. They ‘hand’ them directly to the merchant, much like they would with a banknote. Settlement is basically instant, and after that the customer can leave with their goods.

A merchant needs control over their checkout process that allows for alternative digital payment methods, and they need to have enough size so that owning their acceptance layer makes sense from a business point of view.

A bank ideally has fundamentals in place, i.e., ledgering, holding, and transferring natively digital assets, such as stablecoins, on their clients’ behalf.

For PSPs, the question is how to create a compelling stablecoin payment offering so that merchants choose them over going peer-to-peer.

This pilot deliberately avoids a traditional PSP-style intermediary, with settlement instead going through KYT screening and a licensed off-ramp partner. What did that architecture decision solve, and what did it cost you in complexity or risk that a more conventional setup would have avoided?

CH: We unbundled the payment process. First, this allows the merchant to accept digital payments for a very low fixed fee instead of a relative fee that scales with the basket size. Second, the merchant receives the funds near-instantly. After receiving the stablecoins, the merchant can decide on the next step. Right now, an immediate off-ramp is the sensible thing to do; depending on the situation, corporate banking arrangements may not currently support the receipt or custody of stablecoins. In the future, it might be something else like paying vendors abroad or even holding a (digital) cash position.

The architecture allows using existing public blockchain infrastructure, including established standards and an existing base of installed mobile wallets, so the additional technical footprint is very small.

The cost is that you are responsible for things that would otherwise be provided by a PSP, most notably the technology, however small the footprint is, and compliance with KYT/AML obligations.

The less obvious cost is that using this public infrastructure somewhat excludes custodially held stablecoins, as those platforms (CASPs, Crypto Asset Service Providers) and apps have to comply with additional rules such as the travel rule, which adds friction and makes paying directly from there not (yet) feasible for payments that rely on instant settlement. After all, there is no third party providing credit; payment must be settled to be accepted.

You mentioned this is early days - with a longer-term bet on frictionless, embedded stablecoin payments (secure elements, NFC, two-tap UX). For PSPs and banks watching this space, what should they be building or preparing for now, rather than waiting for that end state?

CH: PSPs and banks should enable themselves to deal with stablecoins in their core service offerings. ‘Could I do this with stablecoins instead of fiat?’ is the one question they should ask themselves. They should not leave all this to a handful of leading issuers and PSPs if they want to capture the opportunity.

Over the next 5-10 years, UX friction will be largely gone, and (retail) stablecoin adoption will be much higher than today. However self-custody, is unlikely to suit every customer, and peer-to-peer payments will not be the only way that stablecoins may be used. PSPs and banks are likely to continue playing an important role as the market develops.

In most of the discussions I have, PSPs and banks start exploring stablecoins because their clients ask for dedicated products such as enabling stablecoin payments at the POS or powering stablecoin-based payment programmes.

To summarise: listen to your clients, think about additional business that can be unlocked, start small and controlled (one use case, one chain etc.), and test a practical use case in a controlled environment.

Avolta already supports a huge range of payment methods globally. What made the cost and innovation case for stablecoins compelling enough to move from idea to a live pilot - and what would you tell a merchant who's still on the fence?

Philipp Haumueller: We already offer customers a broad range of payment options, including major credit and debit cards as well as locally relevant payment methods. The question we wanted to test was whether stablecoins could fundamentally simplify parts of the payment chain while providing a straightforward checkout experience for travellers who already hold them.
In this pilot, value moves directly from the customer's wallet to Avolta, without traditional card networks or intermediary payment providers. This creates the potential for faster settlement and, if the model were eventually adopted at meaningful scale, different payment economics.

However, we would not build the case on cost savings today. Adoption remains at an early stage, and the purpose of the Zurich pilot is to generate evidence about the technology, customer experience, operational requirements, and broader economics.  

My advice to another merchant would therefore be to understand the technical feasibility and economics, get comfortable with the legal and compliance requirements, and assess the customer experience and operational implications. Then run a controlled experiment. You can learn a great deal with relatively limited exposure before deciding whether it deserves scale.

The pilot is deliberately scoped to one store at Zurich Airport, rather than a broader rollout. What's the best-case outcome you're hoping to see in the coming months, and what would a ‘this didn't work as hoped’ scenario look like for you?

PH: At this stage, success is not defined primarily by transaction volume. The pilot is deliberately focused on a specific population of customers who already hold stablecoins.

For us, success is about proving several things: that the technology works reliably end-to-end, that customers who hold stablecoins find the experience intuitive and want to use it, that our store teams can operate it independently, and that it integrates seamlessly into the overall customer experience. At the same time, the compliance and settlement processes need to work smoothly.

Those were deliberately the core objectives we set for the Zurich pilot.

Technically and operationally, we entered the pilot from a good starting point. Our earlier proof of concept demonstrated that the payment flow could work end-to-end in a store.

A result that would challenge the case for scaling would be evidence that the customer relevance is insufficient, or that the operational or compliance requirements are structurally disproportionate to the potential benefits.

Either way, the pilot has real value. The objective is precisely to replace assumptions with real-world evidence from the shop floor.

Regulatory clarity, proximity to headquarters, and a supportive airport partner all shaped the decision to start in Zurich rather than, say, a market with higher card fees or stronger stablecoin adoption. What should other merchants weigh when picking where (or whether) to run their own first pilot?

PH: Exactly. Zurich gave us an environment where several important conditions came together: proximity to our headquarters and project team, strong support from our local operations and the airport, a suitable store, and a regulatory and compliance environment that we could properly assess.

Speaking generally, I would optimise a first pilot for learning. Cost efficiencies should certainly be a medium- to long-term objective, and while the pilot should not be a huge financial burden, the cost efficiencies should not determine the location of your first pilot.

For another merchant, I would look at four things. First, regulatory feasibility: can you establish a robust legal and compliance case? Second, customer relevance: is there a plausible population of digital-wallet users? Third, operational simplicity: can you integrate the solution without compromising the checkout experience? And fourth, scalability: will what you learn be relevant for other locations and markets?

Importantly, these factors may differ by jurisdiction and store environment, so I would choose the market where you can learn fastest and safest, rather than where you expect the greatest immediate savings.

If the pilot performs well, what does the next step realistically look like: more Swiss locations, other markets, or something else entirely? And what would need to be true for you to call this a long-term success rather than just a successful experiment?

PH: The next logical step is to ask whether what works in Zurich also works in another country, with a different customer base, store environment, and operating setup. We have completed a proof of concept at another European airport and are considering taking that into a live customer pilot. We are also extending the Zurich test to gather further insights into actual customer usage.

From there, expansion will be selective and evidence-led, with assessment accounting for reliable technology, manageable compliance across materially different regulatory conditions, smooth store operations and, importantly, evidence of growing customer adoption or a tangible improvement in the customer experience.

Long-term success would depend on several broader factors, including stablecoins becoming a genuinely relevant payment rail. Specifically, it would need to become a payment method that customers increasingly choose, can be operated efficiently across markets, and becomes economically compelling as volumes scale.

Ultimately, the real use case for stablecoins goes beyond customer payments. Over time, stablecoins could also become relevant for corporate use cases, such as cross-border supplier payments or intra-group financing. And we are already seeing evidence that stablecoins are gaining traction in business payments. The longer-term opportunity is therefore to connect both sides: accepting stablecoins from customers while also using stablecoin rails within the corporate payment ecosystem. That is clearly a longer-term perspective and will require significantly broader adoption.

About Philipp Haumüller

Philipp is Senior Vice President, Global Treasury and Group Treasurer at Avolta, headquartered in Basel and listed on the SIX, and business owner of Avolta's stablecoin payments programme. In thirteen years with the group, he was previously Director M&A and Corporate Development, after a decade in Transaction Services at PwC in Switzerland and Australia. PhD in economics, University of Basel; CFA; Swiss Chartered Accountant.

 

 

About Avolta

 

Avolta is a global leader at the intersection of travel retail and food & beverage, delivering integrated shopping and dining experiences across airports, motorways, cruise lines, ferries, rail, and other high-traffic travel locations worldwide.

Avolta’s global workforce operates in more than 70 countries and across nearly 1,000 locations, managing around 5,100 points of sale. Its traveller-centric strategy is built on digital, data, and continuous innovation. To learn more, visit avoltaworld.com.

About Christian Heeg

Christian is a Partner at DevelopX, a German technology consultancy and software engineering firm, where he heads the firm’s stablecoin initiatives. He has supported Avolta’s stablecoin payments programme from feasibility study through proof of concept to the live pilot at Zurich Airport. Previously Commercial Lead and management board member at freiheit.com technologies; before that, Roland Berger, Stern Stewart and McKinsey. Diploma in physics, TU Munich; writes the Counterparty Substack series on stablecoins and payments.

 

About DevelopX

 

DevelopX is a German digital consulting and software engineering company with 300+ employees in Germany, Portugal, and Poland. It designs and builds digital products and infrastructure for international corporations and mid-sized companies, with a dedicated focus on stablecoins and digital payments. DevelopX is not a payment service provider. The systems it builds run on client infrastructure and are owned and operated by the client.