Integration patterns

Most integrations match one of four patterns: cross-border payments, treasury management, FX-as-a-service, and stablecoin on/off ramps. This page compares them so you can pick the closest, then dive into the full example. Each pattern uses the same APIs — they differ in who triggers the trade, when, and what happens after.

Compare the patterns

Pattern	Typical caller	Trigger	Quote window usage	Withdrawal account	Webhook dependency
Cross-border payments	Remittance or payments backend	Per-payment user or system action	Execute immediately (default 3s)	Fiat bank account	High — `withdrawals` events drive reconciliation
Treasury management	Treasury automation script	Scheduled rebalance or threshold breach	Extend to 15–60s for human approval	Optional — funds often stay on-platform	Medium — `deposits` events for funding pipeline
FX-as-a-service	Consumer app backend (neobank, broker)	Quote requested in UI, executed on confirm	Show to end user (15–60s), then execute	Often none — conversion stays on the omnibus	Low — execution is synchronous
Stablecoin on/off ramp	Fintech or merchant backend	Customer deposit (fiat in or stablecoin in)	Execute immediately after deposit clears	Stablecoin wallet or fiat bank account	High — both `deposits` and `withdrawals` events

Explore each pattern

Cross-border payments

Use this if you need converted funds to land in a third party’s bank account abroad.

Treasury management

Use this if you hold balances in multiple currencies and rebalance without always settling out.

FX-as-a-service

Use this if your end users see a live rate in your product and click to confirm.

Stablecoin on/off ramp

Use this if you bridge between fiat and stablecoins with on-chain or bank delivery.

Every pattern uses the same quote → trade → (optional) withdraw flow on the Trade Settlement model. The currency pairs, idempotency rules, and lifecycle states are identical across all four. You’re picking a usage shape, not a different API.

⌘I

​Compare the patterns

​Explore each pattern