Coinbase tests USDC aid delivery for low-income New Yorkers — will it work?

Coinbase is piloting $12,000 USDC transfers in New York, testing whether stablecoins can deliver aid to low-income households more efficiently.

Coinbase returns to direct aid with GiveDirectly

In early October 2025, Coinbase and the nonprofit GiveDirectly launched a pilot program in New York City called Future First, according to Bloomberg. 

The initiative aims to provide 160 low-income young adults with $12,000 each, distributed over five months in the form of USD Coin (USDC) stablecoins.

Recipients will be chosen through an application process followed by a lottery. Once selected, participants will receive their funds directly into Coinbase accounts.

The benefits of providing unconditional cash have already been well documented through decades of research in the U.S. and abroad, consistently showing improvements in financial stability, health, and access to opportunities.

Future First does not revisit those outcomes. Instead, it is designed as a research study to test whether distributing aid through regulated stablecoins can deliver support faster, at lower cost, and with more flexibility than traditional methods such as bank transfers, prepaid cards, or checks.

This is not Coinbase’s first effort to link crypto with direct aid. In 2018, the exchange launched GiveCrypto, a nonprofit aimed at sending unconditional crypto transfers to people in need around the world.

While GiveCrypto reached many households quickly, it struggled to generate lasting improvements once payments stopped. 

In 2023, Coinbase wound down the project, citing challenges in sustaining long-term impact. Roughly $2.6 million that remained in its treasury was donated to partner organizations, including GiveDirectly.

Two years later, lessons from that experience are being applied to Future First, which is built on a more structured framework, clearer research metrics, and a focus on stablecoins rather than mainstream crypto assets.

USDC ensures dollar stability without spending limits

Under Future First, the $12,000 allocation is not released all at once. Each participant receives an initial transfer of about $8,000, followed by five monthly installments of roughly $800. The structure is meant to balance an immediate financial boost with steady support over the course of the trial.

The funds arrive in USDC directly within Coinbase accounts, where participants can choose how to access or spend them. Options include withdrawing to a linked bank account, moving funds to other wallets, or using debit card integrations and crypto payment rails where available. 

Since USDC maintains a one-to-one peg with the U.S. dollar, recipients avoid the price swings associated with most crypto assets, making the grants more predictable for daily use.

The program also places no restrictions on spending choices. Participants are free to decide whether to use the money on housing, education, food, or any other expenses. 

What the pilot seeks to measure is whether delivering funds in this way reduces delays, lowers transaction costs, and expands choice compared with more conventional channels. 

At this stage, however, details about which metrics will be tracked, how data will be collected, or how privacy will be protected have not been made public.

Several operational points also remain open. It has not been specified how account recovery will be managed if a participant loses access credentials, whether withdrawal or conversion fees will be waived, or how customer support and fraud protection will operate. 

Questions around handling failed transactions and ensuring regulatory compliance, such as meeting banking thresholds or anti-money laundering rules, also remain to be clarified as the program unfolds.

Stablecoin pilots show measurable gains

Stablecoin payments promise near-instant settlement, lower fees, and complete traceability of funds from sender to recipient.

In contrast, traditional disbursement systems often pass through banks, processors, and service providers, with each step adding cost and delay. Cutting those layers could ease the drag that has long defined aid distribution.

Experiments in humanitarian aid have already tested stablecoin transfers in practice. Mercy Corps’ Project Lydian pilot, which distributed funds in conflict-affected regions using USDC, reported a median transfer time of about four days, compared with roughly 10.5 days through traditional financial providers. 

The program also recorded operational savings of around 10.9%, largely from reduced fees and fewer intermediaries. 

According to Mercy Corps, these efficiencies meant the same budget could reach about 12% more households, pointing to the potential for blockchain rails to reduce delays and administrative overhead, while noting that the findings come from a limited pilot in a specific context.

Regulation has begun to catch up, making trials like New York’s pilot more practical. In July 2025, the Genius Act introduced one of the first U.S. federal frameworks for payment stablecoins.

Under the act, issuers must fully back tokens with reserves and publish regular disclosures about those holdings. It also makes clear that compliant payment stablecoins are not securities or commodities.

Such rules reduce legal uncertainty for institutions like Coinbase and give them greater scope to explore public-facing use cases.

Even so, risks and trade-offs remain. Because stablecoins are tied to assets in traditional markets, stresses in those markets can ripple into the token ecosystem.

Transparency brings its own paradox. Frequent reserve reporting, while intended to build trust, can also magnify reactions during tense periods, exposing stablecoins to sharper scrutiny than less open alternatives.

Practical obstacles remain for recipients as well. Converting USDC into cash, meeting compliance requirements, and managing crypto wallets all create friction that is likely to persist as a challenge.

U.S. pilots confirm consistent household-level benefits

Cash transfer pilots in the U.S. have already illustrated how unconditional income shapes households, and the outcomes have been remarkably consistent.

The Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, which ran from 2019 to 2021, gave 125 residents $500 per month for two years. 

Independent evaluation showed that most of the money went to essentials. About 37% was spent on food, 22% on merchandise, and 11% on utilities, while less than 1% went toward alcohol or tobacco. 

Employment patterns shifted as well. Full-time work among recipients rose from 28% to 40%, while households outside the program saw only a slight improvement.

Researchers concluded that steady cash reduced income volatility, supported mental health, and provided a platform for recipients to move into more secure jobs.

The Chicago Resilient Communities Pilot (2022–2023) scaled this model to 5,000 households, making it the largest city-run guaranteed income program in the country. 

Interim findings again showed spending concentrated on food, housing, and debt repayment, with luxury purchases remaining rare. Surveys revealed lower stress levels, fewer missed bills, and greater ability to manage emergencies. 

Logistical issues drew more attention. Delays in onboarding participants and the expense of distributing prepaid debit cards highlighted the inefficiencies of existing financial rails.

New York City has also tested versions of the model. Opportunity NYC, conducted from 2007 to 2010, tied cash transfers to conditions such as school attendance and preventive health visits. 

Modest improvements were observed in certain areas, yet the complexity of conditionality reduced both effectiveness and public acceptance. Analysts concluded that the challenge was not whether cash transfers could succeed in New York, but how they were delivered and under what terms.

Placed against this backdrop, the question is not whether aid matters, but whether crypto-based systems can match or outperform existing methods in speed, cost efficiency, and reliability. 

If they succeed, stablecoins may emerge as a viable complement to conventional infrastructure. If they fall short, the conclusion may be that the value lies in the income support itself, regardless of the technology used to deliver it.