Stablecoins and Tokenised Deposits: Same Rails, Different Money

--

They look almost identical on the surface. Underneath, they are two completely different forms of money, with very different consequences for banks, businesses, and the financial system. Here is what every executive should actually understand in 2026.

If you stand far enough back, stablecoins and tokenised deposits look like the same thing. Both are dollar- or euro-denominated tokens. Both live on a blockchain. Both promise faster, cheaper, programmable payments running 24/7. Both can be sent peer-to-peer with instructions baked in. Both are increasingly being pitched to corporate treasurers and CFOs as the future of how money will move.

That visual similarity is a trap. It is the same trap that made money market funds look interchangeable with bank deposits in the 1970s, until the Reserve Primary Fund broke the buck in 2008 and the world remembered why the difference mattered. Stablecoins and tokenised deposits are not substitutes. They are two structurally different instruments that happen to share a delivery mechanism.

If you are running a treasury, advising a bank, or writing a strategy paper, you need to be able to articulate the difference cleanly. So let us do that.

What they actually are

A stablecoin is a digital token, issued by a non-bank entity (or, increasingly, by a regulated trust company), pegged to a fiat currency and backed one-to-one by reserve assets, typically short-dated government bills, cash, or money market instruments. Those reserves sit off a bank’s balance sheet, generally in segregated custody or trust arrangements. The dominant examples are Tether’s USDT and Circle’s USDC, which between them account for the majority of the roughly $310–320 billion of stablecoins in circulation as of early 2026.

Crucially, a stablecoin is a bearer instrument. Whoever holds the token owns the claim. Sending a stablecoin transfers the issuer’s liability from one wallet to another, just like handing over a banknote. The issuer does not need to be involved in the transfer, does not need to know who the recipient is, and in most cases cannot prevent it.

A tokenised deposit, by contrast, is a digital representation of a deposit liability sitting on a regulated bank’s balance sheet. It is commercial bank money, the same stuff that exists when you have a balance in your current account , except recorded on a distributed ledger rather than in the bank’s traditional core systems. JPMorgan’s Kinexys/Onyx (formerly JPM Coin), Société Générale’s EURCV, and the shared infrastructure being built by US regional banks like First Horizon, Huntington, KeyCorp, M&T and Old National are all examples of this model.

A tokenised deposit is account-based, not bearer. You do not own the token; you own a deposit at the bank, and the token is the receipt. Transfers are recorded at the bank level, ownership is tied to a verified customer account, and the bank retains the ability to freeze, reverse, or block transactions. Functionally, it is closer to a faster, programmable wire transfer than to digital cash.

That distinction, bearer instrument versus account-based liability, is the single most important thing to grasp. Almost every other difference flows from it.

The differences that matter

Issuer and balance sheet treatment. Stablecoin reserves are off-bank balance sheet, parked in Treasuries or cash. The token does not contribute to credit creation. Tokenised deposits are on a bank’s balance sheet and continue to fund the bank’s loan book, just like any other deposit.

Insurance and lender of last resort. Tokenised deposits inherit the protections of the underlying deposit , FDIC insurance up to $250,000 in the US, FSCS protection up to £85,000 in the UK, and the issuing bank can borrow from the central bank’s discount window in a crisis. Stablecoins have neither. If an issuer fails, holders are creditors against the reserve pool, not insured depositors. The UK FCA’s proposed regime addresses this partially by requiring backing assets to be held in statutory trust for the benefit of holders, but trust protection is not deposit insurance.

Liquidity effects on the banking system. This is the underappreciated one. When a customer converts £100 from their bank account into a stablecoin, that £100 leaves the banking system and moves into the issuer’s reserve pool. The bank loses funding. The money multiplier shrinks. A New York Fed staff paper from February 2026 frames this as a return of the old narrow banking debate: stablecoins intermediate safe assets into a medium of exchange, while tokenised deposits keep the bank’s lending engine running on digital rails. The Bank of England has taken the same risk seriously enough to propose temporary holding limits, £20,000 per individual and £10 million per business, on systemic sterling stablecoins, precisely to manage the speed at which deposits could migrate.

Network openness. Stablecoins are designed to be globally portable. USDC alone now lives on more than 30 blockchains. Anyone with a wallet can hold them; no banking relationship is needed. Tokenised deposits live in permissioned environments, generally on private or consortium ledgers, and can only be held by verified customers of the issuing bank or its network.

KYC and compliance posture. Bearer instruments push KYC to the edges and rely on issuers and intermediaries to monitor flows. Account-based deposits keep KYC at the centre, the bank knows every holder by definition. This is why stablecoins draw most of the financial crime concern and why tokenised deposits draw very little.

Fungibility. Different USD stablecoins are not fully fungible. A USDC dollar and a USDT dollar trade at par almost all the time, but they are claims on different issuers with different reserves on different chains, and the protocols that bridge them are imperfect. Tokenised deposits within a single bank are perfectly fungible with that bank’s traditional deposits, they are the same liability, but tokenised deposits across banks face the same settlement problem any interbank payment faces.

Stablecoins: the case for and against

The case for stablecoins is, fundamentally, a case for openness and reach. They settle in seconds rather than days. They run constantly. They are programmable in ways that ACH and SWIFT simply are not. They reach end users who do not have, or cannot easily access, a US dollar bank account, which is most of the world. They are battle-tested at scale, having moved tens of trillions of dollars over the last several years through multiple market crises. And the infrastructure around them, wallets, exchanges, on/off ramps, DeFi protocols, already exists.

The case against is mostly about what they are not. They are not insured. They are not part of the banking system’s safety net. They concentrate exposure on a small number of issuers whose reserve management has, historically, not always been transparent. They depend on the credibility of those issuers’ attestations and on the operational integrity of custodians most users will never audit. They create regulatory headaches around money laundering, sanctions, and consumer protection that have only recently begun to be addressed by frameworks like the US GENIUS Act, the EU’s MiCA, and the FCA’s qualifying stablecoin regime. And, at the macro level, they pull funding away from banks and toward government bills, with implications for credit availability that policymakers are still working through.

Tokenised deposits: the case for and against

Tokenised deposits inherit decades of prudential regulation. They sit inside a supervised institution with capital requirements, liquidity requirements, deposit insurance, and access to the central bank. They preserve the money multiplier. They support atomic settlement of tokenised securities and FX trades, when a counterparty is on the same network, you can settle the cash leg and the asset leg simultaneously, eliminating settlement risk in a way that traditional rails cannot. And they slot into existing corporate banking relationships without forcing the corporate to learn new infrastructure or take on counterparty risk to a non-bank issuer.

The case against is mostly about reach. As of 2026, no production-grade interbank tokenised deposit network exists in the US or UK. JPMorgan’s tokenised deposits move freely between JPMorgan’s clients but stop at the bank’s edge. The five-bank US consortium is building shared infrastructure, but it will only move money between participating banks initially. Cross-border tokenised deposits are even further away. Until the interbank settlement problem is solved, which ultimately requires either tokenised central bank money (a wholesale CBDC) or some new shared settlement utility, tokenised deposits remain powerful within walled gardens and limited beyond them. They also lack the developer ecosystem that has grown up around public-chain stablecoins, which matters if you are building a programmable payments product and need composability with other protocols.

Where each one actually fits

Strip away the marketing and the genuine use cases for each instrument become fairly clear.

Stablecoins win where reach and openness matter more than balance sheet integration. Cross-border payments to markets underserved by correspondent banking. Payouts to gig workers and creators in emerging markets. Settlement on crypto exchanges. DeFi liquidity. Programmable consumer payments where the recipient may not have a relationship with the sender’s bank. Anywhere you want money that behaves like internet-native cash.

Tokenised deposits win where the participants are already inside the regulated banking perimeter. Domestic real-time corporate payments. Treasury management within a banking group. Intraday liquidity sweeping. Atomic settlement of tokenised securities, repos, and FX between institutional counterparties on the same network. Supply chain finance where buyers and suppliers all bank with the same institution or consortium. Anywhere the deposit treatment, FDIC/FSCS protection, and credit creation matter, which, for most large corporates, is most of the time.

The interesting cases are where the two meet. A corporate treasurer might hold operating balances in tokenised deposits to keep the FDIC protection and the relationship pricing on credit lines, then bridge to stablecoins at the moment a cross-border payment needs to leave the regulated network and bridge back into another bank’s tokenised deposit on the other side. That is more or less the architecture Citi has been describing in its “Stablecoins 2030” work, which forecasts the combined market for stablecoins and tokenised deposits reaching as much as $4 trillion by the end of the decade.

What the regulators have done , and what is still coming

The regulatory picture in 2026 is finally starting to look coherent, though it is still moving fast.

In the US, the GENIUS Act has established a federal framework for payment stablecoin issuance. The OCC granted conditional national trust bank charters to Circle, Paxos, Ripple and others over the winter, allowing them to issue GENIUS-compliant stablecoins under federal supervision. The Federal Reserve, OCC and FDIC have updated their guidance to allow banks to engage with digital assets, including issuing tokenised deposits, without the friction of the now-rescinded SAB 121.

In the UK, the picture is split across two regulators by design. The FCA is finalising its regime for non-systemic UK qualifying stablecoins (UKQS), with applications opening in September 2026 and full rules expected to come into force in October 2027. The FCA’s framework requires 1:1 backing, statutory trust safeguarding, par redemption by the next business day, and a clear prohibition on paying interest to retail holders — which is what keeps stablecoins legally distinct from deposits. The Bank of England, in parallel, has consulted on a separate regime for sterling-denominated systemic stablecoins, with proposals including 40% backing at the Bank of England, 60% in short-term gilts, holding limits, and central bank liquidity arrangements. Banks issuing tokenised deposits continue to operate under existing PRA expectations set out in the 2023 Dear CEO letter, rather than under the new stablecoin regime. HM Treasury announced in April 2026 that it intends to build a single payments framework covering conventional payments, e-money, stablecoins and tokenised deposits — bringing the various streams together rather than leaving them to evolve in parallel.

In the EU, MiCA is now fully in force and has effectively divided the world into authorised e-money tokens, asset-referenced tokens, and everything else. Tokenised deposits, treated as bank money rather than crypto-assets, sit largely outside the MiCA perimeter and inside the existing CRD/CRR framework.

The direction of travel everywhere is the same: stablecoins are being pulled into the regulated payments perimeter rather than left as a parallel system, while tokenised deposits are being recognised as a legitimate way for banks to modernise without leaving the prudential framework.

So which one wins?

It is the wrong question. Banks multiply money. Stablecoins move it. The two are designed for different problems, and the framing of stablecoins versus tokenised deposits as a zero-sum format war is a distraction that has held back a lot of corporate strategy work over the past two years.

The likely end state is a hybrid one: tokenised deposits as the dominant form of regulated, on-network bank money for corporates and institutions; stablecoins as the dominant form of open, internet-native digital cash for cross-border, retail and DeFi use; tokenised central bank money as the wholesale settlement layer that lets the two interoperate cleanly; and bridges between all three that hide the complexity from the end user.

If you are a bank, the strategic question is not whether to back one over the other. It is whether your rails can support both, whether your treasury and corporate clients will be served on a 24/7 programmable basis by you or by someone else, and whether you have a credible answer for what happens when those clients start asking about tokenised settlement of tokenised assets. If you are a corporate, the question is which form of money is cheaper, safer and more functional for each specific flow you run — and the honest answer will almost always be that the answer differs by use case.

The instruments are not the same. The strategy that treats them as the same will lose to the strategy that uses each one for what it is actually good at.

#Stablecoins #TokenizedDeposits #DigitalMoney #Blockchain #Fintech