“Which rail should we use?” is the right question—and the answer depends on AOV, latency needs, fee sensitivity, refund policy, and audience. This guide provides a decision framework for BTC mainnet, the Lightning Network, and stablecoins, with concrete scenarios you can map to your business.

‍

‍

The rails at a glance

‍

BTC (mainnet)

• Pros: Ubiquity, brand recognition, deep liquidity.
  
  
• Cons: Confirmation times can be longer; fees may spike during congestion.
  
  
• Best for: Higher-AOV purchases where buyer preference for BTC is high and a 10–15-minute quote window is acceptable.
  
  

‍

Lightning

• Pros: Very fast, low fees; suitable for micro- to mid-value transactions.
  
  
• Cons: Requires Lightning-capable wallets; liquidity/channel management behind the scenes.
  
  
• Best for: Crypto-native audiences that already use Lightning (e.g., gaming, events, content tipping).
  
  

‍

Stablecoins (e.g., USDC)

• Pros: Predictable value, fast confirmation on efficient chains, simple refunds/accounting.
  
  
• Cons: Requires buyers with stablecoin wallets; asset choice bias in some audiences.
  
  
• Best for: Mainstream commerce, cross-border, marketplaces, B2B invoices—anywhere predictability matters.
  
  

‍

Decision factors & how to score them

‍

• AOV (Average Order Value):
  
  
  
  • Low AOV (≤ €30): Lightning or stablecoins on low-fee rails.
    
    
  • Mid AOV (€30–€500): stablecoins default; Lightning if audience is native.
    
    
  • High AOV (≥ €500): stablecoins or BTC mainnet with fixed quotes.
    
    
• Latency tolerance:
  
  
  
  • Need <1 minute: Lightning or stablecoins on fast L2s.
    
    
  • OK with 5–15 minutes: BTC mainnet fine with a clear timer.
    
    
• Refund/returns policy:
  
  
  
  • Frequent/partial refunds: Stablecoins win for simplicity.
    
    
  • Near-zero refunds: BTC/Lightning viable if audience prefers them.
    
    
• Audience wallet mix:
  
  
  
  • Crypto-native (BTC diehards): offer BTC + Lightning, plus stablecoins.
    
    
  • General global audience: stablecoin-first, BTC optional.
    
    
• Ops complexity tolerance:
  
  
  
  • Lightning introduces channel/liquidity considerations (handled by your gateway but still an operational surface).
    
    
  • Stablecoins and BTC quotes are simpler operationally for most merchants.
    
    

‍

Real-world scenarios

‍

1) DTC store, international buyers, AOV €60

• Goal: minimize fees, reduce card declines, easy refunds.
  
  
• Choice: Stablecoin-first (USDC); enable BTC as secondary.
  
  
• Why: Predictable settlement, low fees, straightforward refund flows.
  
  

2) Gaming platform with micro-transactions (€1–€10)

• Goal: sub-second UX, negligible fees, crypto-savvy users.
  
  
• Choice: Lightning (primary) with stablecoins as backup.
  
  
• Why: Lightning’s speed and cost profile; stablecoins for users without Lightning wallets.
  
  

3) B2B SaaS annual plan (€2,400)

• Goal: cross-border acceptance with minimal FX costs; refunds rare.
  
  
• Choice: Stablecoins default; BTC mainnet as an option for preference.
  
  
• Why: Predictability + treasury simplicity; BTC offered for brand and buyer choice.
  
  

4) Marketplace with split settlements

• Goal: escrow, split payouts, audit trails.
  
  
• Choice: Stablecoins across the board.
  
  
• Why: 1:many payouts and refunds are cleaner with stable value and fast rails.
  
  

5) Events & ticketing (impulse buys, €20–€80)

• Goal: reduce cart friction and costs; time-sensitive purchases.
  
  
• Choice: Stablecoins; consider Lightning if audience is BTC-native.
  
  
• Why: Low fees + clear timers; Lightning can boost speed for crypto communities.
  
  

‍

Pricing & UX tips per rail

‍

BTC mainnet

• Always show a fixed quote with a countdown.
  
  
• Communicate confirmations needed; show transaction status.
  
  

Lightning

• Detect Lightning wallets; fall back to an alternative rail if unsupported.
  
  
• Keep invoicing and expiry obvious; log failures to tune channel liquidity rules.
  
  

Stablecoins

• Hide chain complexity; auto-route to low-fee networks.
  
  
• Default refunds in USDC; mention BTC/ETH refund on request.
  
  

Treasury & accounting implications

• Stablecoins simplify auto-conversion and monthly close (book in fiat, settle in USDC).
  
  
• BTC/Lightning need the same fixed-quote & conversion discipline to avoid exposure.
  
  
• Export line-item data with quote rates and fees for all rails equally—one ledger, many rails.
  
  

Rollout plan

1. Phase 1: Launch stablecoin checkout; set auto-convert to USDC/fiat; publish refunds policy.
   
   
2. Phase 2: Add BTC mainnet with fixed quotes; track conversion by audience segments.
   
   
3. Phase 3: Pilot Lightning where you have clear wallet adoption (e.g., gaming).
   
   
4. Phase 4: Optimize routing and fees; expand rails only where data proves value.
   
   

‍

‍

FAQs

‍

Is Lightning too complex for merchants?
Operationally it’s more nuanced, but a capable gateway abstracts channels/liquidity. Start where your users already have Lightning wallets.

Will stablecoins alienate BTC users?
Not if you offer both. Make stablecoins the default for predictability and keep BTC as an option.

How do we choose chains for stablecoins?
Let the gateway smart-route based on cost/latency. Most buyers don’t want to pick a chain.

‍