Circle Foundation backs UNDP and WFP payment projects

On 25 September 2026, Circle Foundation announced support for two initiatives: UNDP's Digital Asset Innovation Pool and WFP payment infrastructure. The WFP work includes testing two or three country corridors over three years. These are funded development and evaluation efforts, rather than reported savings from a completed deployment.

Start at the recipient's end

A successful transfer record is an incomplete measure of humanitarian assistance. A useful assessment starts with the recipient: where can the money be used, what documents are needed, and what happens if access to a phone is lost? Those questions put the payment mechanism in the context in which it must function.

Imagine a recipient whose digital payment arrives while the nearest cash-out point is unavailable. The transfer could be technically complete while the programme's practical objective remains unmet. An evaluation should include that kind of inconvenience, alongside the clean successful transaction that normally appears in a demonstration.

Measure access, not just transmission

A comparable scorecard would track time until funds are usable, the recipient's full cost, failed attempts, complaint-resolution time and the proportion of people needing assistance. The measurement should follow money through the local financial partner. Stopping at the transfer between institutions risks missing the most important friction.

Data protection also belongs in the design discussion. Ask what information is genuinely necessary to confirm delivery, who will be able to see it and how long it will remain available. Detailed transaction visibility deserves particular care when a financial record concerns a person in a vulnerable situation.

The initiative describes different starting conditions, including low connectivity in Haiti and local cash-agent networks in The Gambia. Those differences matter when comparing results. A common technology may be addressing different bottlenecks depending on where access to assistance becomes difficult.

This perspective is relevant well beyond humanitarian programmes. Every international payout eventually encounters a local payment environment. If a provider measures neither usability nor support at that point, its conclusion about the quality of the whole journey will be incomplete.

The most useful next evidence will therefore be the testing methodology and published outcomes. Those could help payment teams understand which problems digital infrastructure actually solves and which responsibilities stay with local delivery partners. The funding announcement establishes an opportunity to test; it cannot establish those results in advance.

What it means for PSPs and payout teams

The announcement concerns humanitarian programmes, but its questions are familiar to any company paying out into markets with thin financial infrastructure: marketplaces, freelancer platforms and remittance services. The hardest part of such a route is often the last mile: agent networks, cash-out and recipient support.

• Is the time until funds are actually usable by the recipient measured, rather than only the time of sending?
• Is the recipient's full cost known, including withdrawal fees, the exchange rate and travel to a cash-out point?
• Does the local partner have a clear complaints process and response time?
• What happens if a recipient loses access to a phone or wallet: how is access restored and who verifies identity?
• Which personal data is shared with partners, and for how long is it kept?

Risks and limitations

Digital-asset infrastructure may shorten the path between institutions, but on its own it does not solve local liquidity, the regulatory status of such assets in the recipient's country or conversion into local currency. Results from some corridors will not necessarily transfer to others, so conclusions should rest on the published methodology and data rather than on the fact of funding.