Tokenized securities can move only as reliably as the money used to settle them. A bond may exist on a programmable ledger, but delivery-versus-payment still requires a settlement asset that participants recognize, can access when needed, and can convert at par under stress.
That choice is becoming more consequential as banks, central banks, market infrastructures, and stablecoin issuers develop competing forms of digital money. The Bank for International Settlements addressed the issue directly in its June 2026 Annual Economic Report. Rather than placing privately issued stablecoins at the center of tokenized finance, the BIS favors an architecture anchored in central-bank reserves and commercial-bank money.
Its position is not simply that one technology is preferable to another. It reflects a more basic question: what legal claim changes hands when an institution receives a digital token labeled as money?
The Settlement Asset Determines the Risk
A wholesale central bank digital currency, or tokenized central-bank reserve, is a liability of the central bank. Access is generally restricted to eligible financial institutions, but the instrument provides the monetary anchor for final wholesale settlement.
A tokenized commercial-bank deposit is a digital representation of a deposit claim against a regulated bank. It preserves the familiar two-tier structure in which customers hold commercial-bank money while banks settle their obligations using central-bank reserves.
A stablecoin usually represents a claim against a non-bank issuer, supported by a pool of cash, government securities, or other reserve assets. The holder’s position depends on the issuer’s contractual obligations, reserve arrangements, custodians, redemption procedures, and applicable insolvency law.
Other settlement assets may include tokenized money-market fund shares or electronic-money claims. These can provide liquidity-like functions, but they are not economically or legally identical to central-bank money or bank deposits.
For institutions building tokenized market settlement infrastructure, the token format is therefore secondary. The issuer’s balance sheet, legal documentation, supervisory framework, and redemption model determine the underlying exposure.
Monetary Singleness Is More Than a One-Dollar Price
The BIS describes monetary singleness as the ability to redeem different monetary claims at par in central-bank money with legal finality. One dollar held at one regulated bank should ordinarily discharge the same obligation as one dollar held at another, without the recipient discounting it because of its origin.
Stablecoins aim to achieve similar consistency through reserve backing and redemption commitments. Yet a market price near one dollar is not the same as institutional par convertibility. During periods of stress, a token may trade below its reference value if holders doubt the reserve, face restricted redemption access, or must rely on secondary-market liquidity.
The BIS analysis of trust in tokenized money argues that even small departures from par can matter when markets become uncertain. It recommends integrating tokenized central-bank reserves, commercial-bank deposits, and appropriately supervised private money within interoperable structures that preserve a common unit of account.
This is the monetary layer beneath blockchain settlement finality. A ledger may confirm that a transaction occurred, but settlement is weaker if the received asset cannot be converted predictably into the money used to meet payroll, margin obligations, taxes, or central counterparty requirements.
Reserve Backing and Bank Balance Sheets Work Differently
Stablecoin reserves are generally intended to match the value of tokens in circulation. Due diligence focuses on reserve composition, custody, maturity, segregation, concentration, attestation, and redemption liquidity.
Tokenized bank deposits operate differently. Deposits are liabilities of a regulated bank supported by the institution’s broader balance sheet, capital, liquidity controls, supervision, and access to the central-bank system. Banks also create deposits through lending rather than holding a one-to-one pool of reserve assets against every customer balance.
This distinction affects credit exposure. A stablecoin holder may face the issuer, reserve custodian, reserve-bank, settlement bank, and redemption agent. A tokenized deposit holder faces the issuing bank and the legal protections attached to the deposit, including resolution arrangements and, where applicable, deposit insurance. Wholesale institutional balances may exceed insurance limits, so bank credit analysis remains relevant.
Central-bank money carries the lowest settlement-credit exposure within its currency system, but it is not universally accessible. That is one reason the BIS favors a two-tier model instead of providing every market participant with a direct central-bank account.
Intraday Liquidity Favors an Elastic Monetary Anchor
Tokenized markets may operate beyond conventional banking hours. Smart contracts can issue margin calls, transfer collateral, and settle securities continuously. The money leg must remain available when those obligations arise.
Central banks can provide intraday liquidity to eligible institutions and act as a system-level backstop during stress. Commercial banks can replenish reserve balances through established facilities, subject to collateral and supervisory requirements. That elasticity helps maintain payment continuity when demand for settlement balances changes abruptly.
Stablecoin liquidity is usually constrained by the assets already held in reserve and the issuer’s ability to convert those assets into cash. A reserve composed of high-quality government securities may still encounter settlement cutoffs, market-hour mismatches, custodian dependencies, or concentrated redemptions.
The Bank of England’s 2026 framework for systemic sterling stablecoins illustrates the operational issue. Its rules address backing-asset liquidity, central-bank deposits, payment-system access, and completion of full redemption requests within 24 hours. The policy reflects the challenge of connecting 24/7 token activity with banking and compliance processes that may not operate continuously.
Effective stablecoin liquidity infrastructure therefore requires more than sufficient reserve value on a reporting date. It needs dependable access to settlement cash throughout the operating cycle.
Tokenized Deposits Preserve the Two-Tier Model
Tokenized deposits may offer programmability without creating a separate monetary unit. They can support conditional payments, automated treasury workflows, and atomic settlement while remaining claims against supervised commercial banks.
The BIS’s Project Agorá tested this architecture for wholesale cross-border payments. Its 2026 prototype combined tokenized commercial-bank deposits with tokenized central-bank reserves on a shared programmable platform. The system demonstrated atomic, multicurrency settlement and the ability to embed compliance requirements and transaction conditions directly into payment workflows.
This model does not remove bank credit risk, compliance obligations, or operational dependencies. It keeps them within a familiar regulatory perimeter and links private money to a central-bank settlement anchor.
For institutional digital asset readiness, the practical questions include whether tokenized deposits are portable between banks, how balances are reconciled with core banking systems, who controls smart contract upgrades, and whether liquidity facilities remain available outside standard operating hours.
Wholesale CBDCs Offer Finality but Limited Reach
Wholesale CBDCs or tokenized central-bank reserves provide a strong settlement asset for transactions among approved institutions. They can reduce principal risk when integrated with tokenized securities through atomic delivery-versus-payment.
Their limitation is access. Corporations, asset managers, technology firms, and non-bank market participants may not qualify to hold central-bank money directly. They may still require a commercial bank, payment provider, or regulated intermediary.
The Eurosystem’s 2026 payments strategy reflects this layered approach. It places central-bank money at the core of wholesale settlement while allowing properly regulated tokenized deposits and stablecoins to serve complementary roles.
The likely institutional architecture is therefore not a single form of digital money. It is a hierarchy in which different claims coexist but remain reliably convertible into a common settlement anchor.
Interoperability Can Preserve or Fragment Money
Using multiple settlement assets across separate networks can introduce liquidity fragmentation. An institution may hold a tokenized dollar deposit on one platform, a stablecoin on another, and central-bank balances in a conventional real-time gross settlement system.
Moving between them may require bridges, correspondent banks, reserve transfers, compliance checks, and separate liquidity pools. Each conversion adds operational dependencies and may delay settlement during volatile periods.
Interoperability must address more than technical messaging. Platforms need common rules for identity, transaction status, legal finality, reversals, sanctions controls, data access, and error handling. Smart contract interoperability without aligned legal and governance standards may increase digital asset operational risk.
Institutions should also determine which settlement asset is accepted for margin, collateral calls, redemptions, and regulatory obligations. A token may work efficiently within one ecosystem but remain unusable elsewhere.
Kenson Investments’ stablecoin market education and blockchain and tokenization insights provide additional context on how these infrastructure choices affect custody, compliance workflows, and market design.
Follow the Claim Behind the Digital Money
Stablecoins, tokenized deposits, and wholesale CBDCs can all support programmable settlement, but they distribute risk differently. The relevant comparison is not speed alone. Institutions must examine legal claims, par convertibility, reserve or balance-sheet support, intraday liquidity, access rights, governance, and interoperability.
The BIS’s preferred model preserves central-bank money as the settlement anchor while allowing regulated private money to provide services at the customer and application layers. Stablecoins may still play a role, particularly where they are appropriately designed, supervised, and connected to central-bank settlement systems. They do not automatically provide the same monetary protections as tokenized commercial-bank deposits.
Strengthen Your Understanding of Digital Settlement Infrastructure
The form of money used on tokenized rails will influence liquidity management, counterparty exposure, operational resilience, and the credibility of settlement finality.
Kenson Investments tracks these developments through educational analysis of stablecoins, tokenization, custody, and institutional market infrastructure. Explore our research and connect with Kenson Investments to develop a clearer understanding of the monetary foundations behind programmable finance.
Disclaimer: The information provided on this page is for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice. Crypto currency assets involve inherent risks, and past performance is not indicative of future results. Always conduct thorough research and consult with a qualified financial advisor before making investment decisions.
“The crypto currency and digital asset space is an emerging asset class that has not yet been regulated by the SEC and US Federal Government. None of the information provided by Kenson LLC should be considered as financial investment advice. Please consult your Registered Financial Advisor for guidance. Kenson LLC does not offer any products regulated by the SEC including, equities, registered securities, ETFs, stocks, bonds, or equivalents”
