Great businesses win by solving problems, and the $2.5 trillion global payments market is a goldmine for companies that can make money move effortlessly.

Two of the firms competing in that space are Block Inc. (XYZ +4.85%) and PayPal Holdings Inc. (PYPL +1.30%).

As each pushes into new technologies and revenue streams, the next year could define their long-term trajectories.

With this potential turning point, I’ll examine which fintech stock may fit best in your portfolio.

PayPal’s moves into AI, global payments, and stablecoins

PayPal shares have dipped 37.28% over the last year, but the company has three initiatives that could help reverse that trend: PayPal World, artificial intelligence (AI) agents, and cryptocurrencies and stablecoins. PayPal World and AI agents enhance the current services, while crypto and stablecoins open up entirely new financial terrain for PayPal.

Today’s Change

(1.30%) $0.52

Current Price

$40.42

Advertisement

Key Data Points

Market Cap

$37B

Day’s Range

$39.38 – $40.61

52wk Range

Advertisement

$38.88 – $79.50

Volume

35M

Avg Vol

19M

Advertisement

Gross Margin

41.78%

Dividend Yield

0.35%

Announced in June 2025, PayPal World will allow customers to pay global merchants using their payment system, or wallet of choice, in their local currency. In essence, you’ll start seeing PayPal integrate seamlessly with other payment services.

For AI shopping, PayPal says a customer can tell an AI agent they need a ride to the airport at 4:50 a.m. The agent can both book that appointment and pay for it.

Finally, that brings us to cryptocurrencies and stablecoins. The company enables the buying, selling, and sending of crypto within its wallets. PayPal also offers its own stablecoin pegged to the U.S. dollar called PayPal USD (PYUSD) for fast, global payments. As of this writing, holding PYUSD offers a 4% annual yield.

Its peer-to-peer payment service, Venmo, can also boost revenue over time. As a reference point, in 2021, PayPal said it generated roughly $900 million from Venmo. PayPal expects it to generate $2 billion in revenue by 2027.

Block’s next growth chapter

Similar to PayPal, Block shares have stumbled over the last year, dipping 22.48%.

Today’s Change

(4.85%) $2.59

Advertisement

Current Price

$55.97

Key Data Points

Market Cap

$32B

Day’s Range

Advertisement

$54.81 – $56.42

52wk Range

$44.27 – $88.73

Volume

9M

Advertisement

Avg Vol

7.5M

Gross Margin

40.31%

Once again, the key is looking at what lies ahead.

Its flagship Cash App service still has the reputation of friends just sending each other money, but Block is focused on turning it into a complete financial platform. Through banking, savings, direct deposit, bill paying, an AI-powered money assistant, and more, users are gaining fuller control of their financial lives through just one app. In Q3 2025, Block reported $1.62 billion in gross profit from Cash App, a 24% year-over-year increase.

Its global lending products have now surpassed $200 billion in provided credit. Defaults remain low, with 96% of buy now, pay later installments paid on time and 98% of purchases incurring no late fees.

Outside of its consumer products, Block is building out a robust suite of merchant tools to provide businesses with everything they may need, including credit card terminals, payroll services, and loyalty program marketing campaigns. Business owners can also build websites through Block, which could lead sellers to adopt more of its tools over time.

Block has also leaned deeper into cryptocurrencies. In October 2025, it launched Square Bitcoin, which will automatically convert credit card sales into Bitcoin. Block also holds roughly 8,800 BTC, worth nearly $770 million.

The PayPal vs. Block winner

PayPal and Block are both stocks that could rebound in 2026 if their initiatives gain traction.

Block has high-growth segments in cryptocurrencies and lending, and its expanding suite of services and tools for businesses can help it generate more revenue from its current customer base. That high upside potential also comes with a high beta of 2.66, meaning it is more than two and a half times more volatile than the general stock market. Despite those issues, the balance sheet is strong, with $8.7 billion in cash compared to $8.1 billion of debt.

PayPal has steady, transaction-based fees from its global payments platforms and even pays out a dividend of $0.56 per share. Its beta of 1.43 also means it’s less volatile than XYZ. This may appeal more to risk-averse investors. The key here will be if PayPal’s recent moves can take it beyond being just a steady and mature business. With $12.17 billion in debt and $10.76 billion in cash, PayPal operates with a slight net debt that’s reasonable considering its consistent earnings.

Ultimately, the choice comes down to whether you prefer owning PayPal as a dependable revenue machine that could grow meaningfully as it enhances its services and features, or Block’s higher-risk path that could deliver outsized returns if its bets pay off.

As the Greenland crisis came to a head in the days before Davos, Europeans sought tools that could be reforged as weapons against the Trump administration. On Jan. 18, Deutsche Bank’s global head of foreign exchange research, George Saravelos, warned clients in a note that “Europe owns Greenland, it also owns a lot of [U.S.] treasuries,” and that the EU might escalate the conflict with a “weaponization of capital” by reducing private and public holdings of U.S. debt instruments.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reported later that week that Deutsche Bank no longer stood behind the analyst’s report, but Saravelos was far from the only financial analyst to discuss the idea. Within days, a few European pension funds eliminated or greatly reduced their holdings of U.S. Treasurys and—perhaps as a result—U.S. language about European strength became considerably less aggressive.

As the Greenland crisis came to a head in the days before Davos, Europeans sought tools that could be reforged as weapons against the Trump administration. On Jan. 18, Deutsche Bank’s global head of foreign exchange research, George Saravelos, warned clients in a note that “Europe owns Greenland, it also owns a lot of [U.S.] treasuries,” and that the EU might escalate the conflict with a “weaponization of capital” by reducing private and public holdings of U.S. debt instruments.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reported later that week that Deutsche Bank no longer stood behind the analyst’s report, but Saravelos was far from the only financial analyst to discuss the idea. Within days, a few European pension funds eliminated or greatly reduced their holdings of U.S. Treasurys and—perhaps as a result—U.S. language about European strength became considerably less aggressive.

It’s unclear how much of an impact Europe’s moves had on the White House backing off. But it poses a number of questions: Can Europe take advantage of weaponized interdependence to wage financial warfare against the United States? How big are the obstacles in the way, and how much impact can such moves have?

Financial flows and financial policy are instruments of coercive power. There is some evidence of financial flows putting pressure on the United States last year; in the wake of his triumphant declaration of mass tariffs in April, movement away from Treasurys reportedly persuaded President Donald Trump to partly change course.

However, this seems to have been an organic, unplanned development and a short-lived one.

Despite the precipitous fall of the dollar, and lively discussion over the past year of the United States losing its reserve currency status, the evidence points to mundane concerns about inflation and policy uncertainty leading to a slow reallocation of investment from the United States to other countries rather than any kind of coordinated response. Expert observers have asked if it is even possible for Europe to do anything further given its active trade with the United States, its smaller markets, and its interdependence. The Financial Times’s Alphaville blog summarized the idea of weaponization as “implausible.”

Yet the potential is there. History can be instructive. The state weaponization of finance feels new but, in fact, is centuries old. In the last decades of the 19th century, European governments—particularly France and Germany—aggressively used finance to advance their interests. The subservience of finance to diplomacy was considered natural; to propose otherwise could be dismissed as “financial pacifism.” At a critical moment in conflict with Russia, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck banned the Reichsbank from accepting Russian securities as collateral. After the Franco-Prussian War an “official but tacit ban” was used to prevent French investors from putting any money into Germany.

How might similar action look today?

The main battlefield for weaponization is markets for sovereign debt—Treasurys on the U.S. side and the mix of national and European Union-level debt instruments on the European side. If Carl von Clausewitz had been a banker instead of a general, he would have pointed to these instruments as the “center of gravity” of any coercive financial operations. Here, the United States has a distinct advantage: Treasurys are the core market of international finance—large, very deep, very liquid. They form the backbone of world financial flows, a major channel of supply and demand for local markets everywhere.

Virtually all national financial markets are tied to the U.S. Treasury market, and it greatly eases the U.S. ability to borrow. This makes it a potentially powerful target for European pressure but also, at best, a delicate one—it is very difficult to launch pressure that does not boomerang back against the EU. Much of EU ownership of Treasurys is also in private hands.

Despite all this, European governments still have the means to go on the offensive. Finance is notoriously sensitive to the arbitrage opportunities created by regulation, such that leading textbooks on the industry include extensive discussion of loophole mining. (This may also explain why lawyers can now earn more than bankers on Wall Street.) If clever bureaucrats at the European Central Bank and EU and elsewhere created the right loopholes, then European funds could move accordingly. Instead of banning use of Treasurys as collateral à la Bismarck, slight adjustments of their risk weight or tax impact under EU or national law should do the trick. There are great technical and political challenges, but it is absolutely doable.

On a defensive basis, Europe can improve its financial position by further developing common  EU debt, building on the large-scale Next Generation EU issuance during the COVID-19 pandemic. In December, EU leaders agreed to raise 90 billion euros ($106.3 billion) for Ukrainian defense, and further steps are very much under discussion. The political and technical challenges to full development of common debt options are obviously enormous, requiring the historically unprecedented establishment of a large, stable market for supranational debt.

EU common debt tends to trade at a discount relative to comparable national debt, showing investors’ concerns. However, the potential payoffs are significant. In addition to facilitating EU-wide defense planning and creating a clear substitute for the Treasurys market, a strong common debt market could create a new and more powerful backbone to European finance, investment, and economic growth.

None of the above analysis should be viewed as prescriptive; by far the best path forward is a negotiated return to the rules-based order as opposed to a collapse into the full anarchy of unrestrained interstate competition. Unfortunately, the Trump administration seems committed to an aggressive policy that puts that order in peril. From at least the Napoleonic wars to the end of World War II, national interests regularly hijacked international markets, pushing them away from their idealized Economics 101 role as mechanisms of price discovery and efficient allocation into channels of pressure and coercion.

In an effort to bottle up these destructive spirits, the Franklin Roosevelt administration—with the assistance of economist John Maynard Keynes—used the United States’ status as the most powerful surviving state to implement the Bretton Woods system of financial and political controls. The success of the Bretton Woods project can be measured in part by how many of the tactics of the previous eras have been forgotten.

As the past month shows, these tactics and their destructive side effects are reemerging as the order collapses. Once again, bond markets are now battlefields.

People working to support homeless veterans say a bill advancing in the state Capitol would provide much needed funding. But they also say it doesn’t address a housing need outside of southeastern Wisconsin. 

This week, the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee unanimously approved funding for the bill, which would provide $1.9 million spread out in $25 per diem payments to nonprofits that house veterans. 

Greg Fritsch is president of the Center for Veterans Issues, a Milwaukee-based nonprofit that provides housing and supportive services for veterans throughout the state. Fritsch told WPR’s “Wisconsin Today” that the bill is a step in the right direction.

“It’s not enough, but it will go a long way,” he said. 

Besides safe housing, the Center for Veterans Issues program offers support programs and meals to veterans. Fritsch said his group typically operates on a yearly $500,000 deficit, which the bill’s funding would help alleviate. 

“Costs never stop going up,” he said. “This will go a long way to helping us provide more beds to veterans.”

Fritsch said his program currently houses 81 men and five women in sites around southeastern Wisconsin. 

Currently, the federal Department of Veterans Affairs provides about $85 in per diem payments to nonprofit veterans support organizations for housing and care.  

While Fritsch said his organization provides some services like rental assistance statewide, its transitional housing work is only happening in southeastern Wisconsin.

Joey Hoey, assistant deputy secretary at the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, told “Wisconsin Today” there is clearly a problem in finding safe housing for veterans, and funding is part of that problem.

Hoey said the $85 per diem payments from the federal VA “is barely enough to house (veterans), let alone provide the kind of counseling and education to get people back on their feet.”

In September of last year, the state VA closed two of its Veteran Housing and Recovery Program facilities, one based in Chippewa Falls and the other in Green Bay. 

The bill advanced by the finance committee would not provide the state VA with money to reopen the centers. Instead, it goes toward nonprofit programs which are currently based in southeastern Wisconsin, according to Hoey. 

“We fully support these nonprofits — they’re our partners and they do great work. But they’re in Madison, Janesville and Milwaukee,” he said. “It means that none of this money is going to help, no matter what some might try and tell you. This money is not going to help homeless veterans in the northern and western parts of the state.” 

Hoey said he previously warned lawmakers the closures of state facilities in northern Wisconsin would happen without proper funding in the state budget. The compromise budget between Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and the Republican-controlled Legislature didn’t include funding for the state VA facilities. 

“The Joint Finance Committee did this knowing full well that we would have to close those two facilities,” Hoey said. “When the Legislature voted the final vote and didn’t put that money back in the budget, we had to make the tough decision to figure out how much money we had, and we could only keep one of the sites open.” 

The state VA still operates a veterans care facility in Union Grove in southeastern Wisconsin.