Treasury desks at major institutions are juggling three systems for the same job, said Jerald David, CEO of Lynq Network. A JPMorgan tokenized deposit for one client, a regulated stablecoin for another, a conventional correspondent account for a third. They move money on for the same reasons, but on different infrastructure.
“What clients can’t afford are separate pools of liquidity locked up on every network they access, because idle liquidity fragmented across five networks is five times the capital inefficiency of idle liquidity sitting in one place,” he said.
Unlike a stablecoin, a tokenized deposit remains a claim on the bank that issued it. It can bear interest, remain within the regulated banking system and potentially be programmed to settle against tokenized assets. The question is whether banks can deliver those benefits to consumers while maintaining privacy, compliance and control over who holds the deposit.
Interest-bearing deposits
Bhandari said Monument, unlike stablecoin issuers, holds a banking licence that allows it to pay interest on deposits and plans to offer tokenized savings accounts that earn yield.
President of the Midnight Foundation Fahmi Syed said public blockchain infrastructure presents a separate challenge: banks cannot expose clients’ transaction data and commercial relationships.
“Once you create a private blockchain, how do you then speak to another private blockchain? You then have to use a bridge or some other mechanism, and at that point, you have data leakage.” JPMorgan and Citibank have recognized this themselves, Syed said.
