Stablecoin-Based Payment Rails
This idea proposes creating a new payment processing network that uses stablecoins (cryptocurrencies pegged to fiat currency) to bypass the traditional credit and debit card rails (e.g., Visa, Mastercard), thereby avoiding their high interchange and transaction fees for merchants.
Type: Business Model
Justification: The core of this idea is not a new product feature but a fundamental change in how payment processing is monetized and structured. By creating new financial rails, it directly attacks the profit model of incumbent card networks and offers a drastically lower cost structure to merchants.
The following scoring model is used to rank the potential of each JTBD concept on a scale of 1-10. A score of 10 indicates the highest level of potential. The Overall Potential Score is the average of the five criteria.
Criteria | Evaluation Rationale & Methodology |
---|---|
Underserved Opportunity | This score evaluates the gap between the importance of the customer's desired outcomes and their satisfaction with current solutions. A high score signifies a job where customers have critical, unmet needs.
|
Strategic Impact | This score measures the concept's ability to either elevate the level of abstraction or to radically improve a critical step in the consumption chain.
|
Market Scale | This score assesses the size and frequency of the target market.
|
Solution Differentiability | This score evaluates the potential to create a novel and defensible solution by applying Ulwick's Creativity Triggers.
|
Business Model Innovation | This score assesses the opportunity to create a new, defensible, and profitable business model around solving the job.
|
Click on each job below to see its detailed analysis.
A payment processing service that leverages blockchain technology to offer merchants a flat, sub-one-percent transaction fee, directly challenging the 2-4% fees charged by traditional credit card networks and boosting merchant profitability on every sale.
This job elevates the context from the lower-level task of "swiping a credit card" or "processing a payment" to the higher-level functional goal of "reducing operating expenses." It directly addresses a primary financial pain point for nearly all businesses that accept digital payments.
The primary challenges are merchant and consumer adoption. Merchants need new hardware/software, and consumers need a stablecoin wallet and the motivation to use a new payment method. Overcoming the entrenched habits and network effects of credit cards is a monumental task. Regulatory uncertainty is also a significant risk.
The concept could be enhanced by creating a seamless user experience that masks the underlying crypto complexity. For instance, a QR-code-based system where users pay from a simple app linked to their bank account, with the stablecoin conversion happening invisibly in the background. Bundling it with loyalty programs funded by the fee savings could incentivize both merchants and consumers.
Criteria | Score (1-10) | Evaluation Rationale |
---|---|---|
Underserved Opportunity | 9 | Merchants universally dislike high transaction fees and have little power to change them. This is a critically underserved and highly important need. |
Strategic Impact | 8 | This concept fundamentally overhauls the payment journey by creating new rails, elevating it beyond an incremental improvement. |
Market Scale | 10 | Virtually every business that accepts digital payments is a potential customer. The market is global and transactions are constant. |
Solution Differentiability | 8 | The use of a completely different technology stack (blockchain) creates a powerful and defensible point of differentiation. |
Business Model Innovation | 10 | This is the very definition of a disruptive business model that aims to transform the value chain of the payments industry. |
Overall Potential Score | 9.0 | The extremely high potential is driven by a massive, underserved market need and a truly disruptive business model, tempered only by significant adoption hurdles. |
A financial tool that directly converts a reduction in payment processing overhead into increased net profit on every transaction, allowing businesses to improve their financial health and reinvest in growth.
This job is a direct outcome of "Reduce transaction costs" but is a higher-level business goal. It elevates the context from a specific line-item cost to the ultimate objective of profitability. It focuses on the "why" behind cost reduction, making it a powerful motivator for business owners.
The primary challenge is making the link between lower fees and higher margins tangible and visible to the merchant. They need to trust that the savings are real and not offset by hidden costs, currency conversion fees, or operational complexity. It also competes for attention with other margin-improvement strategies (e.g., supply chain optimization).
Enhance the concept with a real-time dashboard that visualizes margin improvement per-transaction and in aggregate. The tool could offer "what-if" scenarios, showing how reinvesting the saved capital into marketing or inventory could impact overall revenue and profitability, transforming it from a payment processor into a financial planning tool.
Criteria | Score (1-10) | Evaluation Rationale |
---|---|---|
Underserved Opportunity | 9 | Increasing profit margins is a universal and paramount goal for all businesses. Current payment solutions actively work against this goal, making the opportunity highly underserved. |
Strategic Impact | 8 | This elevates the conversation from a tactical cost-saving measure to a strategic discussion about business profitability and growth, a significant context elevation. |
Market Scale | 10 | The desire to increase profit margins is universal across all businesses of all sizes, making the market scale absolute. |
Solution Differentiability | 8 | The ability to deliver this is based on the unique, low-cost structure of the blockchain rails, making the method of margin improvement highly differentiable. |
Business Model Innovation | 9 | The solution's business model is predicated on creating and sharing value (in the form of margin) with the merchant, a stark contrast to the extractive model of incumbents. |
Overall Potential Score | 8.8 | This concept scores very highly as it ties a unique technological solution directly to the most critical business outcome—profitability—for a massive market. |
An instant settlement payment system where funds from customer transactions are confirmed on-chain and made available in the merchant's wallet within seconds, eliminating the standard 2-3 day waiting period for credit card batch settlements.
This concept improves a critical step in the "Receiving Journey" of the consumption chain. The delay in receiving funds is a significant pain point, especially for small businesses. By reducing settlement time from days to seconds, it offers a radical improvement over the existing standard.
The main challenge is the "last mile": converting the stablecoins in the merchant's wallet back into fiat currency (e.g., USD) in their bank account. This requires efficient and low-cost off-ramps, which are still a developing part of the crypto ecosystem. Volatility during the settlement window, however small, is also a concern.
Enhance the concept by creating an integrated merchant account that automatically converts a percentage of incoming stablecoin payments to fiat based on the merchant's preference. The system could also enable instant merchant-to-supplier payments using the same rails, creating a B2B ecosystem with the same cash flow benefits.
Criteria | Score (1-10) | Evaluation Rationale |
---|---|---|
Underserved Opportunity | 7 | While many businesses are accustomed to settlement delays, it is a significant pain point for cash-flow sensitive businesses. Instant settlement is a strong, underserved desire. |
Strategic Impact | 6 | This is a significant improvement that fundamentally overhauls the settlement journey, but it doesn't elevate the core job of payments itself. |
Market Scale | 10 | All merchants who accept digital payments face settlement delays, making the target market enormous and global. |
Solution Differentiability | 8 | Using blockchain for near-instant finality is a powerful differentiator that is very difficult for traditional banking systems to replicate. |
Business Model Innovation | 7 | This enables new business models for merchants (e.g., just-in-time inventory funded by instant revenue) and for the provider (e.g., fees for instant fiat conversion). |
Overall Potential Score | 7.6 | The high score is driven by the massive market scale and strong technical differentiability, offering a clear improvement over the status quo for a key pain point. |
A chargeback-resistant payment rail where transactions, once confirmed on the blockchain, are final and irreversible. This eliminates the risk of fraudulent "friendly fraud" chargebacks, saving merchants significant revenue and administrative overhead.
This concept radically improves the "Post-Purchase" or "Dispute" journey for merchants. It doesn't elevate the core job of making a sale but rather removes a significant source of friction, cost, and frustration that occurs after the job is seemingly done. It transforms a variable, unpredictable cost into a fixed, predictable one (near zero).
The primary challenge is that consumer protection (the right to dispute a charge) is a deeply ingrained and legally protected feature of the credit card system. Removing it entirely could be a major deterrent for consumer adoption. A solution must be found to handle legitimate issues (e.g., non-delivery of goods) without re-introducing the potential for fraud.
Instead of complete irreversibility, the platform could incorporate a smart-contract-based escrow system. Funds are held in escrow and released to the merchant only after the consumer confirms receipt of the goods/services. This protects consumers from non-delivery while still protecting merchants from fraudulent post-delivery chargebacks, striking a better balance between the needs of both parties.
Criteria | Score (1-10) | Evaluation Rationale |
---|---|---|
Underserved Opportunity | 8 | Chargeback fraud is a major, costly, and frustrating problem for merchants, especially in e-commerce. Current solutions are administrative and often ineffective. |
Strategic Impact | 6 | This is a significant improvement to a post-purchase journey, removing a major pain point. It overhauls the dispute process but does not elevate the core job of payments. |
Market Scale | 8 | While all merchants can experience chargebacks, it is a much more frequent and critical issue for e-commerce and high-risk industries. The market is large and recurring. |
Solution Differentiability | 9 | The transaction finality offered by blockchain is a fundamental technical differentiator that is structurally opposite to the reversible nature of credit card payments. |
Business Model Innovation | 7 | This enables new business models, particularly for high-risk businesses that are often rejected by traditional processors. It could be monetized as a premium, "fraud-proof" service. |
Overall Potential Score | 7.6 | A high score driven by the exceptional solution differentiability that addresses a very painful and underserved need, balanced by the challenge of removing consumer protections. |
A cryptographically-secured payment network that removes the need for merchants to store sensitive customer credit card data, drastically reducing their liability and the risk of catastrophic data breaches. All transactions are peer-to-peer, minimizing the merchant's role as a financial intermediary.
This concept addresses a higher-level experiential and emotional job. Beyond the functional aspects of processing a payment, merchants (and their customers) want to feel that the process is safe. This elevates the context from a simple transaction to the emotional state of trust and security, which is a powerful driver of adoption and loyalty.
The main challenge is one of perception vs. reality. While a blockchain-based system may be architecturally more secure in some ways, the general public associates "crypto" with hacks, scams, and instability. Overcoming this negative perception and building trust in the security of this new, unfamiliar system is a massive marketing and educational challenge.
The concept can be enhanced by partnering with reputable, well-known cybersecurity firms to audit and certify the platform's security. Offering merchants integrated insurance policies against platform-specific losses could also help build confidence. Furthermore, a strong brand identity focused on "trust" and "security," using clear, simple language rather than technical jargon, is crucial.
Criteria | Score (1-10) | Evaluation Rationale |
---|---|---|
Underserved Opportunity | 7 | Data security is a high-importance need. While solutions like tokenization exist, the fear and liability of breaches are a constant, somewhat underserved anxiety for merchants. |
Strategic Impact | 7 | This elevates the context from a functional transaction to an emotional job of "feeling secure," which can be a powerful strategic differentiator and trust-builder. |
Market Scale | 10 | Every merchant and consumer involved in a digital transaction desires security, making the market universal. |
Solution Differentiability | 7 | The decentralized, cryptographic nature of the solution is a strong differentiator, though it competes with the well-understood security models of incumbent solutions. |
Business Model Innovation | 6 | While security is a feature, it enables a new business model where "security as a service" is a core part of the value proposition, potentially offered in tiered plans. |
Overall Potential Score | 7.4 | This concept has strong potential by addressing the critical emotional job of security for a mass market, but its success is heavily dependent on overcoming negative perceptions of crypto security. |
Optimize payment operations - The ability to manage all aspects of receiving customer payments in a way that maximizes profitability, accelerates access to funds, and simplifies financial management.
This integrated job elevates the context significantly. It moves beyond solving individual pain points like "high fees" or "slow settlement" to addressing the higher-level strategic goal of running an efficient and profitable payments function within a business. It reframes the solution from a simple cost-cutter to a strategic financial tool.
Trigger Type | Creativity Trigger | How it is Applied |
---|---|---|
Business Model | Eliminate a costly, core business process or activity | By creating a parallel financial network, the solution eliminates the need for merchants to pay interchange fees to card networks and issuing banks, which is the single largest cost in payment processing. |
Product Platform | Create a new platform to execute a portion of the job that is performed inefficiently on the core platform | The existing payment platforms are inefficient in terms of both cost (fees) and time (settlement). The stablecoin-based platform is a new value delivery system designed specifically to execute the job of value transfer more efficiently on these dimensions. |
Business Model | Divert a revenue source from someone else in the value chain | The revenue currently flowing to a complex web of banks and networks is diverted and recaptured, shared between the new platform provider and the merchant (in the form of savings). |
The success of the integrated concept hinges on overcoming the massive network effect of the current credit card system. It requires a two-sided market solution: convincing millions of consumers to adopt a new payment method while simultaneously convincing millions of merchants to adopt new hardware and software. This is a colossal undertaking that faces significant hurdles in user experience, education, trust, and regulatory compliance.
Dramatically lower transaction fees (sub-1% vs 2-4%). Near-instantaneous settlement of funds. Inherently global and interoperable rails. Enhanced security and reduced chargeback fraud via blockchain's finality.
Extremely low consumer awareness and adoption. Perceived complexity and security risks of cryptocurrency. Lack of established trust compared to Visa/Mastercard. Dependent on a volatile and nascent crypto ecosystem.
Widespread and growing merchant dissatisfaction with high fees. Growth of the digital economy and demand for better online payment solutions. Ability to build additional services (loyalty, data analytics, B2B payments) on top of the new rails. Untapped market of crypto-native users.
Uncertain and potentially hostile regulatory changes. Intense competition from traditional FinTech (Stripe, Block) and new bank-led initiatives (e.g., FedNow). Reputational damage from major security breaches or stablecoin failures in the broader crypto market.
Criteria | Score (1-10) | Evaluation Rationale |
---|---|---|
Underserved Opportunity | 9 | The core needs of lower costs and faster access to funds are critically underserved for merchants, who have little choice but to accept the current system's terms. |
Strategic Impact | 10 | This represents market-creating potential. It doesn't just improve payments; it creates an entirely new financial network, elevating the job to strategic financial optimization. |
Market Scale | 10 | The total addressable market is the entire global volume of digital payments, a multi-trillion dollar industry. The need is constant and universal for merchants. |
Solution Differentiability | 9 | The use of a decentralized, blockchain-based architecture is a paradigm-shifting differentiator that is fundamentally impossible for incumbents to replicate without disrupting their own models. |
Business Model Innovation | 10 | The concept is a textbook example of a disruptive business model aimed at transforming an entire industry's value chain and profit pools. |
Overall Potential Score | 9.6 | This concept earns an exceptionally high score due to its potential to disrupt a massive, inefficient market with a transformative business model and a highly differentiated technology. Its potential is only limited by the immense challenge of achieving mainstream adoption. |
Configuration | Timing | Operation | Inputs/Outputs | Information | Size/Scale/Shape | Properties |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Separated (Modularized) v Combined (Integrated) | Faster v. Slower Processes | Synchronous (parallel) v Asynchronous (sequential) Processing | Controlled v. Uncontrolled Inputs | Make relevant and accurate information available when/where needed | Larger v. Smaller | Stronger v. Weaker |
Linked (networked) v. Unrelated | Longer v. Shorter Duration/Lasting | Unit v. Batch Processing | Open v. Closed System | More v. Less Information | Longer (Taller) v. Shorter | Harder v. Softer (a change in density, malleability, etc.) |
Distinct (specialized) v Redundant (generalized) in function or capabilities | Continuous v. Periodic Action | Coupled v. Decoupled Processing (parts to parts, customers to solutions, etc.) | Reusable v. Disposable | Aggregated v. Disaggregated | Thicker v. Thinner | More Rigid v. More Flexible |
Nested parts within others (e.g., a cylinder within a cylinder) | Earlier v. Later Processes/Events | Centralized v. Decentralized Processing | Own v. "Rent" Parts or Functions | Filtered v. Unfiltered | Wider v. More Narrow | Hotter v. Colder |
Closer v. Farther Away parts or subsystems | Flexible v. Standard Timing | Directed v. Undirected Activity or Flow | Add/Substitute/Combine Something (a part, a material, a chemical, a function, a composite, etc.) | Linked (networked) v. Unrelated | More v. Fewer Choices | Wetter v. Drier |
Fixed v. Mobile parts or subsystems | Pre-prepared v. Realtime | Invert cause and effect (from A→ B to B→ A) | Remove/Hide Something (in the solution or environment) | Make needed information visible | Change/Vary the proportions (relative size, height, etc.) | Heavier v. Lighter |
Change the location of parts or subsystems (where, relative location, etc.) | Controlled v. Uncontrolled Timing | Invert mobile stationary elements | Borrow an available resource (e.g., from the environment, the customer, wasted by-product or output, space, etc.) | Change the nature of information flow (digital, analog, acoustic, optical, radio-frequency, etc.) | Segmented (multidimensional, smaller and smaller parts) v Undivided | Sharper v. Duller |
Change the location of the solution in the environment | Change the source of information (e.g., customers, experts, solution, etc.) | Change the shape | Change the material (metal, plastic, rubber, fabric, paper, etc.) | |||
Add v. Remove Space | Automatic v. Manual | Change how a function is executed | Leave something behind | Make something physical "virtual" (a virtual map, a virtual implementation, etc.) | Change/Vary the orientation (up, down, angled, etc.) | |
Restricted v. Unrestricted Access | Incorporate, capture, or measure a new input | Introduce feedback to improve the process | More Symmetrical v. More Asymmetrical | Add/Remove a sensory element (sight, sound, feel, taste, smell) | ||
Bundled v. Unbundled Offerings | Add v. Remove Motion/Movement | Dissolve a feature after useful function (e.g., dissolve, evaporate, etc.) | Change the intensity or character of a sensory element (reflectivity, translucence, color, loudness, odor, sweetness, etc.) | |||
More v. Less of something | Change the direction of motion (forward, reverse) | |||||
Change the nature of motion (e.g., linear, oscillation, rotation, agitation, etc.) | ||||||
Change where, when, or how motion originates |
Trigger Concept | Audience/Target | Message/Content | Channel/Medium | Objective/Desired Outcome | Timing/Context | Sensory/Format |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Combine/Integrate | Combine niche audiences; Target look-alikes | Integrate product benefit with emotional story | Use integrated multi-channel campaign | Combine awareness and lead gen goals | Link campaign timing to related event | Combine visual and audio elements |
Separate/Unbundle | Segment mass audience; Isolate high-value customers | Separate features/benefits into distinct messages | Use channel-specific messaging | Focus solely on brand building | Decouple communication from sales cycle | Use text-only vs. image-only |
Change Scale/Scope | Narrow to hyper-niche vs. Broaden target | Simplify message vs. Add detail/depth | Single-channel focus vs. Mass media blitz | Focus on micro-conversions vs. Big sale | Short-term promo vs. Evergreen content | Minimalist design vs. Rich media |
Change Timing/Freq. | Reach prospects earlier/later in journey | Pre-announce vs. Post-event recap | Increase/decrease posting frequency. | Drive immediate action vs. Nurture long-term | Real-time/reactive vs. Scheduled comms | Drip content vs. Content binge |
Reverse/Invert | Target detractors; Focus on non-users | Highlight problems not solved; Use anti-marketing | Use unconventional channels; Offline for digital natives | Aim to reduce an undesired behavior | Communicate during off-peak times | Use silence/negative space effectively |
Add/Substitute | Add a new demographic; Target influencers | Add user-generated content; Add humor/emotion | Introduce a new social platform; Add experiential element | Add a loyalty-building objective | Add context-specific triggers (location, weather) | Add interactive elements; Substitute video for static image |
Remove/Simplify | Remove low-engagement segments | Remove jargon/technical terms; Shorten message | Eliminate underperforming channels | Remove steps in the conversion path | Remove seasonality constraints | Simplify visuals; Remove distracting elements |
Automate/Manual | Automated audience segmentation | Al-generated content variations | Programmatic ad buying vs. Manual outreach | Automated follow-ups vs. Personal calls | Trigger-based comms vs. Manual sends | Standard template vs. Hand-crafted design |
Borrow/Leverage | Leverage partner audiences | Use customer testimonials/stories | Piggyback on trending topics/hashtags | Leverage existing brand equity for new offer | Align with cultural moments/holidays | Use stock assets vs. Commissioned work |
Make Virtual/Physical | Virtual focus groups vs. In-person interviews | Digital content vs. Print materials | Metaverse event vs. Physical pop-up | Online sign-up vs. In-store registration | Synchronous virtual event vs. Asynchronous content | AR experience vs. Tactile mailer |
Customize/Standardize | Personalized messaging vs. Mass broadcast | Adapt content for different segments | Platform-specific content vs. Cross-post | Customized offers vs. Standard discount | Tailor timing to time zones vs. Global launch | Vary format by device vs. One-size-fits-all |