Late last week, a handful of the largest US banks revealed a plan to launch their own tokenized deposit network.

JPMorgan, Citi, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and other major banks will launch the new network, which is set to launch by mid-2027. The banks are launching this new network in partnership with The Clearing House (TCH), a bank-owned consortium that operates critical US payment infrastructure, including the RTP network, which enables real-time payments between participating financial institutions.

The initiative will connect traditional banking infrastructure with blockchain-based payments while keeping deposits inside the banking system. Here are five things banks and fintechs should know.

TradFi’s answer to stablecoins

With a market value of more than $316 billion, stablecoins are no longer a crypto experiment. Stablecoin issuance is projected to reach between $3 trillion and $4 trillion by 2030. This growth has the attention of some of the largest banks in the world, warranting a coordinated response.

Similar to stablecoins, a tokenized network offers 24/7 infrastructure and programmable payments, allowing banks to deliver many of the benefits associated with stablecoins. Most notably, the tokenized deposits network will not require customers to move funds outside the traditional banking system, meaning banks will be able to retain their deposits.

Because tokenized deposits are still bank deposits, they retain the same regulatory treatment, accounting treatment, and credit-risk profile as traditional deposits. Tokenized deposits are different from traditional deposits in that they are represented on blockchain infrastructure instead of existing bank ledgers.

It’s about controlling infrastructure

For much of the past decade, fintech competition centered on who could best distribute products and services. Fintechs and banks competed to acquire customers, launch new apps, and build better digital experiences. Recently, however, firms have shifted their focus to controlling the infrastructure that powers financial services.

This race toward infrastructure can be seen in Stripe acquiring Bridge to gain stablecoin infrastructure, Visa’s and Mastercard’s recent investment in stablecoin settlement capabilities, and in banks’ efforts to build tokenized deposit networks. Rather than competing for customer relationships, these companies are positioning themselves to own the rails that move money.

The new tokenized deposit network creates a shared infrastructure layer for programmable deposits and real-time settlement, allowing participating banks to ensure they remain at the center of digital money movement.

The initial target is corporate treasury, not consumers

The new tokenized deposits network will initially be aimed at corporate treasury, which means it will likely not reach consumers before 2028.

TCH expects early demand to come from multinational corporations seeking treasury automation, real-time liquidity management, cross-border payments, and programmable payments. These are the same use cases that have helped stablecoins gain traction among businesses.

While some of these workflows and use cases are applicable to retail clients, businesses stand to benefit the most from real-time settlement, programmable payments, and always-on liquidity management. For that reason, the battle between tokenized deposits and stablecoins may take place in corporate treasury long before it reaches the consumer wallet.

A tokenized network offers 24/7 infrastructure

One of the biggest benefits of blockchain-based payments is that they do not operate on traditional banking schedules that have batch processing at the end of each day.

The new proposed network would allow tokenized deposits to settle 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This continuous movement helps banks compete with stablecoin networks that already offer near-instant transfers at any time.

Smaller institutions will eventually need a position

With large financial institutions taking the lead on this new tokenized deposits network, where does that leave smaller community banks and credit unions? These smaller institutions will need to find their role in a world where money increasingly moves on programmable infrastructure.

Fortunately for these smaller institutions, the network is expected to be available to banks across the US, not just the largest institutions. As different digital asset infrastructure matures, financial institutions may need to determine their stance on whether they will issue, connect to, custody, or simply enable access to these new forms of digital money.

Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash

Spain’s ministry of consumer rights blocked access to Kalshi and Polymarket this week. The country has paused the use of the prediction markets (also known as event contracts) as it determines whether their models are operating legally without a gambling license.

Spain joins France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Romania, which have all limited or blocked access to Polymarket.

The controversy begs the question: are prediction markets useful forecasting tools, speculative tools, or simply gambling platforms wrapped in fintech language? With that in mind, here’s a look at three arguments for and three arguments against event contracts.

Three arguments for

Supporters argue that prediction markets are not necessarily about gambling, but rather about information discovery.

• Prediction markets can aggregate information more efficiently than polls or experts
  Prediction markets force participants to put money behind their convictions, which essentially rewards accuracy with financial incentives. Supporters argue this makes them more effective than polls or expert commentary at forecasting future events because markets continuously absorb new information and update probabilities in real time.
• Financial markets already operate as forms of event contracts
  If you’ve ever invested in single stocks, you’ve essentially participated in prediction markets. The only difference is that, with stocks, investors are limited to predicting the outcome of a company instead of an event. Bonds and derivatives are also a type of prediction as well, as bonds essentially price default risk and derivatives price probabilities. This raises the question, why is betting on election outcomes different from betting on interest-rate moves.
• Prediction markets could improve forecasting
  Because they are a useful tool for crowdsourcing information, prediction markets can be used by businesses or governments to improve decision-making. Users are more likely to make predictions on events about which they are knowledgeable, and this information could be helpful for forecasting recessions, fraud, supply chains, elections, and demand. Because they can source this information quickly, prediction markets can surface truths faster than committees or social media.

Three arguments against

Opponents argue that event contracts cause unwanted externalities

• They may incentivize harmful or unethical behavior
  Oftentimes, event contracts offer events surrounding wars, assassinations, elections, and disasters. These are uncomfortable things to bet on, as it may feel as if users are rooting for these outcomes. Additionally, this raises ethics concerns over investors profiting from others’ tragedies.
• Markets can be manipulated
  Even though prediction market outcomes may appear more organic than the performance of publicly traded companies, they are not immune to manipulation. Deep-pocketed participants willing to absorb larger losses may attempt to distort market odds, while coordinated misinformation campaigns and bot-driven activity can artificially influence sentiment and pricing. As event contracts become more popular, concerns are growing that the markets themselves could shape public perception rather than simply reflect it.
• They lack consumer protections and regulatory frameworks
  Across the globe, prediction markets are relatively new and therefore lack regulation, as they don’t fit cleanly into existing categories. It is unclear if they are considered securities, gambling, or derivatives and therefore lack proper regulatory oversight and consumer protection standards.

As prediction markets continue to grow in popularity, regulators will increasingly need to decide whether these platforms belong within financial services, gambling, or an entirely new category. Spain’s move suggests that many jurisdictions are still uncomfortable with the idea of turning elections, world events, and public sentiment into tradeable assets.

Photo by Dante Grime Kahan

The US Senate Banking Committee unveiled the latest version of the CLARITY Act this week. The Act aims to establish a clear regulatory framework for digital assets.

The CLARITY Act offers enforceable guardrails for digital asset markets in an effort to protect consumers and investors, counter illicit finance and security threats, and support innovation in the US.

The bill is controversial, as it includes provisions to limit liability for decentralized software developers and enters an ongoing debate around whether stablecoins should be permitted to offer yield or yield-like rewards. After more than 10 months of bipartisan negotiations, the Senate Banking Committee is preparing for a key procedural markup. Here are five things you need to know about the new version of the CLARITY Act.

More than crypto regulation

While crypto regulation is making headlines, the Act comes with broader stakes as it also attempts to define who controls the future infrastructure of digital finance in the US. Supporters argue the Act helps preserve a more market-driven and decentralized approach by defining the boundaries of governmental power while protecting the autonomy of private developers and individual users.

This debate extends beyond crypto trading and will ultimately determine who will own and govern the next generation of financial rails. Stablecoins, tokenized assets, and AI-driven financial agents are on the rise, and the rules governing those future financial rails are yet to be settled. The companies and platforms controlling the new infrastructure could hold influence similar to what cloud providers, mobile operating systems, and card networks hold today.

Delineates between securities and commodities

The debate over whether digital assets are considered securities has been around for about a decade. That’s why determining when a token is treated like a security and when it can transition into a commodity is one of the biggest goals of the CLARITY Act. The determination will dictate how exchanges and platforms operate, which regulator oversees it, and what disclosures are required.

Yield is a battlefield

The debate over whether or not stablecoins can pay yield (or yield-like rewards) has been a major sticking point between banks and crypto firms. While banks argue that stablecoin yield products could compete directly with deposits and pull money out of the traditional banking system, crypto companies argue that restrictions would hurt innovation and competitiveness.

The Act does not explicitly use the term “yield” in relation to stablecoins. However, it does establish a regulatory framework that distinguishes between different types of digital assets based on whether they provide a financial return, such as interest. The CLARITY Act implies that if a digital asset provides a right to interest, it would likely fall under the jurisdiction of securities laws rather than being treated as a digital commodity or a permitted payment stablecoin.

While separate stablecoin legislation continues to evolve in parallel in the form of the GENIUS Act, the CLARITY Act intersects with those debates because of how digital assets offering financial return may ultimately be categorized.

About global competitiveness

Supporters of the Act argue that it is less about embracing crypto speculation and more about preventing the next generation of financial infrastructure from being built outside the US. Europe, Hong Kong, the UAE, and Singapore have already moved ahead with digital asset frameworks, and if the US does not create a set of regulatory guardrails within this arena, banks, fintechs, and crypto firms will feel less safe innovating in the digital asset space.

Even if it passes, the debate is far from over

The legislation does not resolve every concern. In fact, there are still ongoing debates around AML protections, DeFi oversight, systemic risk, political conflicts of interest, and consumer protection. So while the CLARITY Act brings more regulatory transparency to crypto, it also accelerates a broader debate about who will govern the future infrastructure of digital finance as stablecoins, tokenized assets, and AI-driven financial systems become more integrated into commerce and payments.

Photo by akbar fathi