Money that arrives within seconds at home encounters exchange rates, fees and processing delays when it crosses a border. Efforts are growing to connect national instant payment systems and make international transfers feel like domestic bank transfers. Beyond fast transmission technology, the central challenge is how smoothly different currencies and financial rules can work together.

* Innovation in international transfers is expanding towards linking national instant payment systems. The aim is to extend the fast bank-transfer experience familiar at home across borders.

* Connecting countries two at a time becomes more complex as participation grows. Multilateral links using common standards and operating rules offer a way to reduce this burden of expansion.

* Connecting payment systems alone does not deliver inexpensive international transfers. Users will feel the difference only when currency conversion costs, funding arrangements and regulatory compliance also improve.

* Fast transfers need fast safeguards. How countries share responsibility for recipient verification, fraud response and error handling determines trust in the service.

* The opportunity for businesses extends beyond lower transfer fees. The more closely payment receipts, order confirmation and accounting are connected, the greater the potential business value of instant payments.

***

The words a business most wants to hear after paying an overseas trading partner are simple: “We have confirmed receipt.” Yet there can be a gap between notification that a transfer request has been completed and confirmation that the other party can actually use the money. The sender believes the process is finished, while the recipient is still waiting. In the meantime, dispatch may be delayed, or the person responsible may have to contact the bank and the trading partner in turn.

For users accustomed to domestic bank transfers, this is difficult to understand. They use the same banking application on the same phone, yet the procedure changes simply because the destination is overseas. More recipient information is required, and exchange rates and fees must be considered. When a transfer is delayed, finding out where it has stalled is not easy either.

Behind this difference lies the structure of international transfers. In the correspondent banking model described in the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Annual Economic Report 2025, several banks exchange payment instructions and update their respective account records. When different currencies are involved, currency conversion and settlement must also be coordinated. On the screen, it is a single transfer; behind it, processing continues across several institutions.

Making international transfers faster therefore cannot be achieved through the speed of information transmission alone. Even if a message arrives immediately, payment may be delayed if recipient information is incorrect or required checks remain incomplete. The entire process must connect, from the moment the user presses the transfer button to the moment the money is credited to the recipient’s account.

This is where the idea of linking national instant payment systems comes in. It means using the infrastructure that already handles fast domestic transfers for international transfers as well. The concept is for the payment systems in the sending and receiving countries to exchange information in a common way, while coordinating currency conversion and the necessary checks between them.

The appeal of this approach is that it extends a familiar financial experience. Rather than holding a new currency or learning an unfamiliar service, users can send money overseas through existing accounts and payment methods. Yet keeping the interface familiar requires more sophisticated connections behind it. A simple user experience rests on complex cooperation between countries.

This change has already appeared in actual services. In April 2021, Thailand and Singapore linked Thailand’s PromptPay and Singapore’s PayNow. At launch, customers of participating banks could transfer money between the two countries using the recipient’s mobile phone number. The joint announcement explained that transfers would be completed within minutes, shortening processing from the average of one to two business days then required by many international remittance services. Fees and applicable exchange rates were also to be displayed before the transfer was confirmed.

A phone number may seem a small convenience, but its significance is considerable. It reduces the burden of receiving and re-entering complex account details for an international transfer. It demonstrates that cross-border transactions can offer a user experience similar to domestic transfers.

Consider, for example, someone working abroad who sends money home to support family members. What the user wants is not to understand how international financial networks function. It is to identify the recipient on a familiar screen, check how much will arrive for the amount paid, and send the money. Interlinking payment systems brings this ordinary requirement into the design goals of financial infrastructure.

The speed involved must nevertheless be distinguished carefully when interpreting this launch. Just because domestic payment systems support instant payments does not mean cross-border transactions always finish within seconds. The Thailand?Singapore launch announcement itself specified “minutes”. The capabilities of connected systems and the processing time customers experience in individual services need to be considered separately.

What matters in this case is not a declaration that every problem with international transfers has been solved. It is the fact that linking financial infrastructure in different countries can change the transfer process for actual users. It also shows that turning technical experiments into everyday services requires cooperation from payment system operators and participating banks as well as central banks.

At the same time, bilateral links raise the next question. What must change to extend an approach that works between two countries to more countries? The ability to connect well with one destination and the ability to keep expanding to many destinations are not the same problem.

Suppose every country establishes an individual connection with every other country. Three countries require three connections, but ten countries require forty-five. This is a simple calculation assuming one connection for each pair of countries. Actual business structures may differ, but it is clear that the burden of bilateral coordination rises rapidly as participation increases.

Agreement on technical specifications is not all that each connection requires. Decisions must be made about what information to transmit, how to handle errors and who will bear the costs. Even when an existing connection works well, adapting to a new partner country’s institutions and operating arrangements may require further work.

Nexus, developed by the BIS Innovation Hub, addresses this challenge of expansion. Instead of establishing a separate connection with each partner country, national instant payment systems are designed to connect to Nexus in a standardised way and gain access to the network of participating countries. The blueprint published in 2024 addressed technology alongside operating and oversight arrangements, setting out an approach that uses existing domestic payment infrastructure.

This can be compared to connecting airports. Establishing common rules rather than separate operating rules between every city can reduce the burden of connecting a new city. What matters is less that one route has been created than how much of the existing framework can be reused when the next participant joins.

Nexus also moved towards establishing an operating organisation. In an April 2025 announcement, central bank partners from India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand said they had incorporated Nexus Global Payments as a not-for-profit organisation in Singapore. This was an institutional step towards preparing for live operations; the announcement itself did not mean commercial services had begun between all participating countries.

This development also changes how competition in payments should be assessed. Alongside the number of connected countries, attention must be paid to the cost of admitting a new country, the changes existing participants must accommodate and the stability of common rules. More participants may broaden the service’s usefulness, but they also make operations and decision-making more demanding.

Common rules do not eliminate differences between countries. The connection framework is closer to a mechanism for coordinating transactions between different systems than one for removing their differences. Deciding what to standardise and what to leave to national discretion determines the success of expansion.

For users, a question as important as transfer speed is: “How much will actually arrive?” Even when a transfer fee is low, an unfavourable exchange rate can increase the total cost. Conversely, a service that lists a separate fee may deliver a better final amount to the recipient. Comparing costs cannot stop at the most prominently displayed number on the screen.

Consider two hypothetical services. One advertises no fee but incorporates costs into its exchange rate. The other charges a small separate fee while offering a better exchange rate. To compare them properly, users need to check how much the recipient will receive when the same amount is sent.

The Nexus design emphasises this transparency. Its approach enables senders to understand exchange rates and costs and check the recipient’s amount before proceeding. For the efficiency of connection technology to benefit customers, final prices must be comparable.

A further issue is the funding needed for currency conversion and payment. Even when two countries’ payment systems are connected, functions that enable transactions between different currencies remain necessary. Being “connected” does not by itself mean that any amount of the desired currency can be paid at any desired time.

In particular, for a service to operate around the clock, operators and financial institutions must consider when and where funding needs may arise. Transfers could concentrate in one direction at a particular time, or transactions on a holiday could exceed expectations. For the customer, it is one transfer; for the provider, pricing and funding management must work together.

Considering this structure makes the paths to cost reduction clearer. Whether the burden of message processing and building connections can be reduced, whether currency conversion markets offer sufficient competition and whether users can compare prices easily all become important. Shorter processing times alone provide little reason to expect every cost to fall by the same proportion.

Businesses must also change their assessment criteria. When choosing an international transfer service, they need to consider not just the stated fee but also certainty over the final amount received, how long a quoted exchange rate remains valid and how delays are communicated. Changes in payment methods can translate into real operational improvements when affordability and predictability come together.

Faster payments can reduce the time users spend waiting. They may also reduce the time available to detect and respond to an incorrect transaction. Consider a sender who chooses the wrong recipient or is deceived into authorising a transfer: speed affects both convenience and protection.

Responding can become more complicated in cross-border transactions. The sender contacts a financial institution in their own country, while the recipient account is in another. The channels for reporting suspicious transactions and the authority to take action on an account may also differ. What users need in these circumstances is prompt, consistent guidance rather than a dispute between institutions over responsibility.

This requires rules for handling exceptions alongside those for processing normal transactions. Arrangements must specify how to request the return of money sent in error, which institution receives customer enquiries and whom to notify when an outage occurs. Responding when problems arise is as important as making the service work well under normal conditions.

In its 2024 final report, the BIS Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) addressed governance and oversight frameworks for cross-border interlinking of fast payment systems. Legal setup, ownership, operational structure and stakeholder engagement were among the main matters for consideration. This shows that connecting payment systems requires a framework for joint operations alongside technology.

The Reserve Bank of Australia likewise assessed that realising the potential benefits of interlinking requires appropriate governance, scheme rules and payment processing capabilities. Addressing differences in national laws and regulations and agreeing on common rules are major challenges.

Businesses cannot treat this solely as an internal matter for financial institutions. If faster payment receipt automatically connects order confirmation and dispatch, identifying incorrect payments and fraudulent transactions also becomes important. This is why internal approval and transaction verification procedures need to be reviewed in line with payment speed.

The competitiveness of a good instant payment service depends both on reducing seconds in normal transactions and on reducing confusion in exceptional situations. Users can trust fast payments more when recipient verification is clear, processing status can be tracked and there is a clearly identified point of contact when problems occur.

The race to connect payment systems is also unfolding beyond Asia. According to the European Central Bank (ECB), a cross-currency payment capability has been available to participants in Europe’s TARGET Instant Payment Settlement (TIPS) service since October 2025. It provides a basis for instant payments between the euro and the Swedish and Danish currencies.

The same guidance distinguishes the stages of connections with payment systems outside Europe. A link with India’s Unified Payments Interface (UPI) is described as being in the phase of completing legal arrangements and technical implementation, while a Nexus link is in the phase of investigating technical, legal and economic feasibility. Distinguishing operating capabilities from proposed future connections is essential to understanding market developments accurately.

For businesses, these connections create value when they become part of actual transaction processes. If a small exporter can confirm receipt of an overseas buyer’s payment sooner, it may be able to bring forward order confirmation. A business serving overseas customers could make the process of granting access upon payment confirmation smoother. These are potential business applications of instant payments.

Shorter transfer times do not, however, improve every company’s cash flow to the same extent. If a buyer sends money after the contractual payment date, late payment remains a problem even when the payment system is faster. Conversely, when an already authorised payment is held up during processing, shortening the transfer stage can offer practical help.

Businesses therefore need first to distinguish the causes of the delays they experience. The appropriate improvement depends on whether time is spent awaiting customer payment approval, converting currency and processing the transfer, or confirming receipt internally after the money arrives. Instant payment systems provide infrastructure for changing part of this process, and their effectiveness can grow as they are connected more closely to business procedures.

Using payment information is also important for small and medium-sized businesses. Even if money arrives quickly, staff will continue repeating manual tasks if it takes time to identify which order a payment relates to. Transfer information, order numbers and invoices must be reliably linked to reduce the burden of payment confirmation and accounting. The speed of payments and the speed of business processes need to increase together.

Financial institutions also need to consider the entire business transaction process alongside the convenience of the transfer itself. Customers want more than a fast overseas-transfer button. They want to know in advance how much they will receive, confirm whether payment has arrived and understand the resolution process when delays or errors occur. These capabilities can provide a point of connection between transaction management and cash management services.

Linking national instant payment systems across borders is not a simple story of bringing the world’s money into a single network. It is a process of widening the points of connection that enable transactions while preserving national currencies and financial infrastructure. Technical standards, pricing structures, and rules for oversight and responsibility develop together in that process.

This is also the basis for judging changes in international transfers. Alongside the announced number of connected countries or the fastest processing record, attention must be paid to actual service coverage, the final amount received, outage response and integration with business operations. As the time money takes to cross borders shrinks, competitiveness in finance increasingly depends on how reliably that short interval can be guaranteed.

BIS, June 2025, Annual Economic Report 2025, Chapter III: The Next-Generation Monetary and Financial System

BIS Innovation Hub, July 2024, Project Nexus: Enabling Instant Cross-Border Payments

Bank of Thailand / Monetary Authority of Singapore, April 2021, Thailand and Singapore Launch World’s First Linkage of Real-time Payment Systems

BIS Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures, October 2024, Linking Fast Payment Systems Across Borders: Governance and Oversight ? Final Report

European Central Bank, accessed October 2026, Cross-border Payments