Section 1
Methodology & Context
This survey was initially distributed to registrants of The Bitcoin for Missions Summit (April 8, 2026, Arlington, TX) beginning on February 12, 2026. It has since been shared more broadly through missions finance networks, including through Mission Nexus, to capture a wider range of perspectives from the missions finance community. The 25 responses reflected in this report were collected through March 11, 2026. The majority of responses come from Summit registrants, but the survey remains open and future reports will incorporate a broader respondent base.
A screener question filtered for respondents with direct oversight of cross-border payments. 20 of 25 respondents (80%) qualified, and the analysis that follows focuses on this qualified pool unless otherwise noted. The five who answered "No" were primarily CEOs and field leaders — they may influence decisions even without direct payment oversight.
The respondent pool is notable: these are not random nonprofit professionals, but senior finance executives at organizations collectively moving an estimated $60–120 million per year across international borders, often into some of the most financially challenging corridors on earth. Their insights carry significant weight.
Section 2
Who Responded
A remarkably diverse set of senior finance roles — not just CFOs, but the full spectrum of people who touch international payments.
Respondent Roles (All 25)
Cross-border Oversight Filter
Analytical Note: 80% of respondents have direct cross-border payment oversight. This is not a general-interest sample — it is a decision-maker sample. Every data point that follows carries operational authority behind it.
Hidden Pattern: The role diversity is itself a finding. Titles range from CFO and Controller to COO, Asset Manager, and VP of International Operations. This tells us that cross-border missions finance is not contained within a single department — it is an organizational-wide challenge that touches operations, compliance, field leadership, and executive strategy. Any solution must speak to this full spectrum.
Section 3
Validating the Problem
Respondents were asked whether the estimate of $20–40 billion in annual cross-border Christian missions giving — with hundreds of millions lost to fees — rings true.
Accuracy Assessment (18 responses)
78%
Say the estimate is ACCURATE
17%
Say it is EXAGGERATED
Kingdom Perspective: When 78% of the people actually managing these transfers validate the scale of the problem, this is no longer a theoretical estimate. It is a confirmed reality. Hundreds of millions of dollars intended for gospel work, humanitarian aid, and community transformation are being silently siphoned away by financial friction. If we steward donor generosity faithfully, we must confront this waste.
Analytical Note: Zero respondents said the estimates were "Understated." This may indicate that even those who see the problem as large don't feel it's worse than described — or it may reflect that organizations have normalized these costs and lack full visibility into what they're truly losing. As the fee transparency findings below suggest, some of these costs are hidden by design, making it plausible that even "Accurate" is generous.
Section 4
Geographic Pain Map
Respondents identified up to three countries with the greatest cross-border payment barriers. The pattern is striking.
Countries Cited as Most Challenging (by mention count)
Regional Analysis
| Region | Mentions | Share |
|---|
| South Asia | 15 | 28% |
| Middle East | 15 | 28% |
| East Asia | 6 | 11% |
| Central/South Asia | 5 | 9% |
| Africa (all) | 5 | 9% |
| Eurasia | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
Hidden Pattern — The India Anomaly: India dominates with 9 mentions — more than any other country by a wide margin. This isn't just about difficult corridors; India represents a unique convergence of factors: FCRA regulations restricting foreign donations, growing government scrutiny of faith-based organizations, and a massive scale of missions activity. India is likely the single highest-volume corridor for this community, making its friction disproportionately costly. Any pilot program should prioritize an India-compatible solution.
10/40 Window Alignment: Nearly every country named falls within or borders the 10/40 Window — the geographic band where the world's least-reached people groups reside. The financial barriers are not randomly distributed; they are concentrated precisely where the Great Commission's remaining task is hardest. This is not coincidence — it is the architecture of opposition, and it demands innovative financial infrastructure.
Section 5
How Money Moves Today
Organizations use a patchwork of methods — often multiple at once — revealing the complexity of the challenge.
Payment Methods in Use (check all that apply)
Method Sophistication Tiers
Key Observations
The Cash Paradox: Hand-carried cash is used by 65% of respondents — nearly as common as SWIFT wires. For organizations collectively managing tens of millions in cross-border payments, the continued reliance on physically carrying currency is a powerful indicator that formal banking channels are failing in these corridors.
The Shadow System: Hawala networks (used by 20% of respondents) and trusted intermediaries (50%) represent a parallel financial infrastructure built from necessity. These aren't fringe operations — they're mainstream coping mechanisms for when the banking system can't reach.
Early Adopters Already Exist: 6 respondents (30%) already use Bitcoin for some transfers. Every one of them reports being "Very interested" in expanding. They are proof of concept within this community.
Section 6
The Cost of Transfer
What percentage of funds do organizations estimate they lose to fees, FX spreads, and intermediary costs in their hardest corridors?
Estimated Fee Loss in Hardest Corridors
Fee Distribution Analysis
| Range | Count | Share |
|---|
| 1–2% | 1 | 6% |
| 2–3% | 4 | 22% |
| 3–5% | 5 | 28% |
| 5–10% | 3 | 17% |
| 10–15% | 1 | 6% |
| 15–20% | 1 | 6% |
| Don't know | 3 | 17% |
The Transparency Gap: 17% of respondents — senior finance professionals — don't know how much they're losing. This confirms that fee opacity is itself a systemic problem. Hidden FX spreads and correspondent bank charges make true cost calculation nearly impossible. Organizations that have not recently audited the full cost of their most difficult corridors — including hidden FX margins, intermediary fees, and correspondent bank charges — may find the actual figure surprising.
3–5%
Modal (most common) fee estimate
5.0%
Weighted average fee estimate
$3–6M
Estimated annual fee loss for this group alone
15–20%
Highest corridor loss reported
Kingdom Perspective: If these 20 organizations lose an average of 5% on $60M+ in annual transfers, that's $3 million per year — enough to fund dozens of missionary families, build schools, or launch community health programs. Extrapolate to the broader missions community moving $20–40 billion annually, and the global leakage could reach $1–2 billion per year. This is not a rounding error; it is a kingdom-scale resource drain.
Section 7
Organizational Scale
The organizations represented span a wide range of cross-border sending volumes.
Annual International Send Volume
Volume Distribution
| Volume Tier | Count | Share |
|---|
| Under $100K | 0 | 0% |
| $100K – $500K | 4 | 20% |
| $500K – $2M | 4 | 20% |
| $2M – $10M | 4 | 20% |
| Over $10M | 6 | 30% |
| Prefer not to say | 2 | 10% |
Key Finding: 30% of respondents represent organizations sending over $10 million/year across borders. This is not a small-scale sample. These are major senders with significant collective influence to pilot and validate new payment methods.
Hidden Pattern — No Small Senders: Zero respondents fall in the "Under $100K" bracket. This respondent pool represents organizations with established, ongoing cross-border operations — not occasional one-off transfers. They have infrastructure already built around the current system, which means switching costs are real but so is the ongoing pain. New solutions must demonstrate superiority at scale, not just in theory.
Section 8
Operational Pain Points
When forced to pick the single greatest source of operational stress, respondents revealed a surprising hierarchy.
Greatest Source of Operational Stress
Stress Categories (Grouped)
The Surprise Inversion: High FX spreads and transfer fees — the most intuitive pain point — ranked fourth. The top stressor is regulatory compliance (35%), followed by fieldworker safety and banking access issues, tied for second at 15% each. This is a profound finding: the missions finance community is not primarily asking for cheaper transfers — they are asking for safer, more accessible, less surveilled pathways to move money. Any solution focused purely on cost savings misses the deepest need.
Kingdom Perspective: "Fieldworker safety when receiving funds" — tied for the second-highest stressor — is not just an operational inconvenience. Behind this sterile survey option are real people: missionaries, national partners, local pastors who face physical danger when collecting cash or whose banking activity is monitored by hostile governments. The financial system is not just expensive; for some, it is dangerous. This urgency goes beyond efficiency.
Section 9
Decision-Making Dynamics
Who would evaluate or approve adopting a new cross-border payment method?
Primary Decision-Maker(s)
Decision Structure Analysis
| Decision Type | Count | Share |
|---|
| Individual Authority (Me/My role) | 6 | 30% |
| Committee / Multiple People | 6 | 30% |
| CFO / Finance Director | 4 | 20% |
| Executive Director / CEO | 1 | 5% |
| Board / Finance Committee | 1 | 5% |
| Hybrid (CFO + COO + CEO) | 1 | 5% |
| Missions Director | 1 | 5% |
Governance Insight: 60% of decisions involve multiple stakeholders (committees, boards, or role combinations). This means that adoption of any new payment method requires addressing the concerns of CFOs, CEOs, board members, and operations leaders simultaneously. Materials tailored to each stakeholder's perspective — accounting treatment, fiduciary responsibility, field security, mission alignment — are likely necessary to navigate these governance structures.
Section 10
Bitcoin Concerns
Respondents checked all concerns that applied. The total concern mentions (65+) across 20 respondents reveals a multi-layered hesitancy.
Greatest Concerns About Bitcoin (check all that apply)
Concern Cluster Analysis
The "Last Mile" Cluster: The #1 concern (65% of respondents) is converting Bitcoin to local currency. Combined with regulatory fears (#3) and accounting complexity (#4), a clear picture emerges: organizations aren't worried about Bitcoin in principle — they're worried about the practical integration with existing financial and legal systems on the receiving end.
The Credibility Cluster: Price volatility (55%), unproven viability (30%), and donor reputation risk (25%) form a second cluster around institutional credibility. These are not technical objections — they are trust objections. They require working proof points from peer organizations, not theoretical arguments.
The Capacity Cluster: 45% cite lack of team knowledge. This is perhaps the most actionable concern — it can be directly addressed through targeted training, peer learning, and community gatherings like the Bitcoin for Missions Summit.
Section 11
Pilot Interest & Readiness
If concerns were adequately addressed, how interested would organizations be in piloting Bitcoin or stablecoin transfers in the next 12–24 months?
Interest in Piloting (16 responses)
25%
MODERATELY interested
The Zero Rejection Signal: Not a single respondent selected "Not interested." In a community historically cautious about financial innovation, 100% openness — even if conditional — is remarkable. The door is not just ajar; it is wide open. The condition is clear: "address our concerns adequately." The data suggests these concerns are practical and addressable — through research, honest conversation, and shared learning across the missions finance community.
Section 12
Hidden Patterns & Cross-tabulations
The deepest insights emerge not from individual questions, but from how answers correlate with each other.
Interest Level by Organization Size
Interest Level by Fee Awareness
Cross-tabulation: Interest × Annual Volume
| Volume Tier | Very | Moderate | Slight | Total | % Very |
|---|
| $100K – $500K | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 50% |
| $500K – $2M | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 50% |
| $2M – $10M | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 67% |
| Over $10M | 3 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 60% |
Pattern 1 — The Bigger They Are, the More They Want It: Organizations sending over $2M/year show zero "slightly interested" responses. Among the $10M+ group, 60% are "very interested" and none are "slightly." The largest senders — who bear the highest absolute cost of the current system — are the most eager to explore alternatives.
Pattern 2 — Fee Awareness Drives Openness: The respondent estimating 15–20% corridor loss is "Very interested." But intriguingly, those who selected "Don't know/Not sure" on fees are less likely to be very interested (0 of 3). Awareness of the problem is itself a prerequisite for openness to solutions. For organizations that have not recently calculated the full cost of their hardest corridors — including hidden FX margins — that exercise may be the most important first step before evaluating any new approach.
Pattern 3 — Method Sophistication Predicts Openness: "Very interested" respondents use an average of more payment methods than "Slightly interested" respondents. Organizations already navigating complex, multi-method payment ecosystems are more open to adding another tool. They've already demonstrated adaptability. Conversely, organizations using fewer methods may benefit from foundational education before considering Bitcoin.
Pattern 4 — The Accuracy-Interest Link: Among those who called the $20–40B estimate "Accurate," 67% are very interested in piloting. Among those who said "Exaggerated," only 33% are. Belief in the scale of the problem predicts willingness to explore solutions. This means that research and data-sharing across the missions finance community is not just informational — it is foundational to collective action.
The Early Adopter Profile
Six respondents already use Bitcoin for some transfers. Their profile is remarkably consistent:
| Characteristic | Early Adopters (n=6) | Non-Adopters (n=14) |
|---|
| Interest in expanding | 100% Very Interested | 36% Very Interested |
| Median annual volume | $2M–$10M+ | $500K–$2M |
| Accuracy belief | 100% Accurate | 71% Accurate |
| Avg. payment methods used | 5+ methods | 3–4 methods |
Implication: Early adopters are larger, more sophisticated, and uniformly enthusiastic about expanding their use of Bitcoin. Their real-world operational experience — what's working and what isn't — represents one of the most valuable resources available to organizations considering their first steps.
Section 13
Implications & Next Steps
Translating these findings into practical considerations for the missions finance community.
1. The Real Problem Isn't Fees — It's Access, Safety, and Compliance
The data is unambiguous: high FX spreads and transfer fees are a secondary concern. Regulatory burden, fieldworker safety, and banking access are the top stressors. When evaluating new payment methods — whether Bitcoin, stablecoins, or specialized fintech — the first question should be whether they address the compliance gauntlet, the safety of people on the ground, and the basic ability to get money into a corridor at all. Cost savings follow naturally from solving those deeper problems.
2. The Local Currency Conversion Question Must Be Answered First
65% of respondents flagged "difficulty converting to local currency" as their #1 Bitcoin concern. This is the right question. Until there is a clear, safe, and documented pathway from Bitcoin to local fiat in corridors like India, Turkey, and Afghanistan, institutional adoption will remain limited. Working examples — not theoretical frameworks — are what the community needs to see.
3. True Costs Remain Hidden
17% of respondents — seasoned finance professionals — could not estimate the full cost of their hardest corridors. Hidden FX margins, correspondent bank charges, and intermediary fees are designed to be opaque. A thorough fee audit of the most challenging corridors may be the single most valuable exercise an organization can undertake. Alternatives cannot be evaluated without a clear picture of what the current system truly costs. The data shows that organizations with greater fee awareness are consistently the ones most open to exploring new approaches.
4. Internal Alignment Is a Prerequisite for Any New Approach
60% of decisions about new payment methods require committee or multi-party approval. Organizations exploring Bitcoin or other innovations will need to address what each stakeholder requires to feel comfortable: an accounting treatment summary for the CFO, a regulatory risk assessment for the board, a mission-alignment case for the CEO, and a security advantages brief for field leadership. These are the building blocks of internal consensus.
5. Early Adopters Have Valuable Experience to Share
Six organizations in this survey already use Bitcoin for some transfers, and every one of them wants to expand. They are not fringe actors — they tend to be larger, more financially sophisticated organizations using five or more payment methods. Their experience navigating volatility, accounting treatment, and last-mile conversion is directly applicable to organizations earlier in the journey. The Bitcoin for Missions Summit in Arlington this April is one venue designed precisely for this kind of peer exchange.
6. India Demands Focused Attention
45% of respondents named India as a top-three barrier country. Its FCRA regulations, government scrutiny of faith-based organizations, and sheer scale of missions activity make it a uniquely challenging corridor. For organizations sending significant funds to India, cross-organizational collaboration — sharing compliance strategies, conversion pathways, and risk mitigation approaches — may be more productive than any individual organization trying to solve it alone.
Final Reflection: This survey reveals a community that knows it has a problem, understands its scale, and is overwhelmingly open to exploring new solutions. The barriers are practical — conversion logistics, regulatory navigation, team training — not ideological. What's most encouraging is that not a single respondent expressed disinterest. From the smallest senders to the largest, there is a shared sense that the current system falls short of what faithful stewardship demands. The path forward requires honest conversation, shared learning, and the courage to experiment. The Great Commission advances not only through preaching, but through the faithful and innovative stewardship of every dollar entrusted to the mission.