Stablecoins vs. Tokenized Deposits: The right debate?
Written by Sharyn Tan (Views are my own) As of late 2025, the total stablecoin market capitalization has surged to around $300 billion, with projections suggesting it could exceed $2 trillion by 2028. This growth is fueled by diverse use cases, from cross-border remittances to institutional settlements and DeFi applications. Yet, a persistent debate dominates industry discussions: Will bank-issued stablecoins or tokenized deposits dominate, leveraging regulated trust and scale? Or will non-bank issued, let’s call these ‘open market’, stablecoins, like USDT and USDC, prevail through their programmability, global reach, and network effects? The real question isn’t which model “wins.” It’s what happens if these two universes remain isolated. Without robust interoperability, we risk fragmented liquidity pools that are fast inside their silos but slow and costly across them—undoing the very efficiencies stablecoins promise. Two parallel worlds emerging today Bank-issued stablecoins and tokenized deposits represent a regulated, compliance-first approach. Institutions like JPMorgan, Societe Generale, Fiserv, and European bank consortia are issuing tokens backed by high-quality reserves, often on permissioned or hybrid blockchains. These offer treasurers the familiarity of institutional trust, robust risk management, and integration with existing banking infrastructure. In the U.S., the GENIUS Act of 2025 has accelerated this trend by providing a clear federal framework, encouraging banks to issue stablecoins while maintaining strict reserve and redemption rules. On the other side, ‘open-market’ stablecoins—dominated by issuers like Tether, Circle and Paxos —thrive on public blockchains. They excel in programmability, enabling smart contracts, DeFi yield, and borderless access. These coins power much of the $650–700 billion in monthly on-chain transactions, particularly in emerging markets and crypto-native ecosystems. Their strength lies in network effects: deep liquidity pools, widespread wallet integration, and innovation driven by open ecosystems. Each model addresses distinct needs. Banks provide a regulated scale for corporate treasurers wary of volatility or regulatory scrutiny. Open stablecoins deliver speed and accessibility for global, programmable payments. But for corporate treasurers, duplicated liquidity, trapped capital, and prefunding requirements persist when the two ecosystems don’t seamlessly connect. The Hidden Costs of Non-Interoperability Fragmentation creates real-world pain points. Consider a multinational treasurer managing working capital: Funds held in a bank-issued tokenized deposit might settle instantly within the bank’s network but face delays or high fees when moving to a public chain for DeFi optimization or supplier payments. Conversely, open stablecoins offer global reach but may lack the full regulatory assurances needed for large-scale institutional holding. This silos liquidity, forcing treasurers to maintain excess buffers—reviving the very inefficiencies stablecoins were meant to eliminate. The IMF has warned that proliferation without interoperability could undermine faster, cheaper payments, as networks become restricted by regulations or technical hurdles. Regulatory divergence exacerbates this: The U.S. GENIUS Act emphasizes U.S.-based reserves and federal oversight, while Europe’s MiCA requires EU bank-held reserves, potentially splitting global liquidity into regional pools. Without bridges, we see duplicated efforts: Higher operational costs, increased run risks in isolated ecosystems, and missed opportunities for capital efficiency. In a 24/7digital economy, slow cross-ecosystem transfers mean trapped cash and renewed reliance on legacy rails like SWIFT. So, who is best placed to build the bridges? Industry debate rages on who should lead the construction of essential bridges: traditional banks, agile fintechs and payment giants, or neutral blockchain protocols and infrastructure providers? The ideal future isn’t one party dominating; it’s a connected ecosystem where institutional trust meets open-network innovation. Interoperability allows treasurers to move value securely between regulated and public networks, with full visibility, compliance, and control. No single group can—or should—build these bridges alone. Success demands collaboration: banks for trust anchor, fintechs for orchestration and speed, protocols for technical neutrality. A Treasurer’s Take: Liquidity follows efficiency, and efficiency follows connection The treasurer’s ideal isn’t about picking sides—it’s about making them work together. Regulated tokens bring safety and trust. Open stablecoins bring speed and global reach. The real potential emerges when value moves freely between the two—secure when held, instant when needed. That’s when digital money truly delivers on real-time, programmable finance. Interoperability isn’t optional anymore—it’s the key to unlocking scale, liquidity, and efficiency. Liquidity follows efficiency, and efficiency follows connection. Markets are quick to reward connectivity and just as quick to punish fragmentation. When networks connect, capital moves faster, costs drop, and liquidity multiplies. Fragmented ecosystems, on the other hand, trap cash and recreate the old frictions that digital money was meant to solve. So, maybe it’s time we stop asking who wins and start asking who’s building the bridges. Because the future of money won’t belong to the loudest or the biggest silo—it’ll belong to the best connectors, linking the two together. Also Read Join our Treasury Community Treasury Mastermind is a community of professionals working in treasury management or those interested in learning more about various topics related to treasury management, including cash management, foreign exchange management, and payments. To register and connect with Treasury professionals, click [HERE] or fill out the form below to get more information. Notice: JavaScript is required for this content.
Franklin
Manual vs Automated Treasury Forecasting: What’s the Real Cost?
This article is written by Palm Introduction If you’ve ever lost a full afternoon chasing down missing bank files, fixing broken spreadsheet links, or double-checking cash flow formulas — you’re not alone.For many treasury teams, manual forecasting has been the norm for years. It’s what we know, what we inherited, and what still kind of works.But as your business grows more complex — more accounts, more currencies, more uncertainty — that once-reliable spreadsheet becomes harder to trust and even harder to maintain. And the real cost? It isn’t just time. It’s the opportunity you lose when your team is stuck in a loop of updates, rather than shaping strategy. This post explores what treasury teams are really giving up by staying manual — and what’s possible when you replace the routine with a tool built to do the heavy lifting. 1. Time: The Most Expensive Resource in Treasury What It Looks Like Today Most treasury teams spend an inordinate amount of time building and maintaining forecasting spreadsheets. Across dozens of companies we’ve interviewed, we found: Even small errors in these forecasts can result in significant misallocations of liquidity or missed opportunities for yield optimization. What Changes with Tools Purpose-built tools automate data collection and harmonization. Whether from ERPs, bank portals, TMS platforms, or spreadsheets, modern systems ingest real-time cash flow data and surface insights instantly. Key outcomes: 2. Accuracy, Consistency, and Confidence The Risks of Manual Forecasting Manual forecasting isn’t just slow — it’s risky. Common issues include: The result? Treasury teams report internal forecast variances of 10–20% regularly — particularly when business units operate in silos or when revenue is highly seasonal. Worse still, these inaccuracies erode trust from senior stakeholders like the CFO or board. Forecasting with Tools Modern forecasting platforms bring consistency to the chaos: 3. Strategic Enablement vs. Survival Mode Manual processes keep treasury teams in a loop of survival: chasing data, correcting errors, and defending assumptions. There’s little room left for what treasury should actually do: advise, allocate, and anticipate. The Manual Trap The Strategic Shift with Tools Modern platforms flip the script. Real-time visibility enables: 4. Team Morale, Talent Retention, and Growth Manual forecasting doesn’t just drain hours — it drains energy. Top treasury talent doesn’t want to reconcile CSVs all day. They want to use their expertise to drive strategy, optimize cash, and support the broader business. The more teams stay stuck in manual loops, the higher the risk of turnover and disengagement. What Manual Processes Do to Teams: What Tools Enable: 5. Let’s Be Clear: Tools Don’t Replace Treasurers — They Free Them At Palm, we don’t believe technology replaces the human factor. Treasury is — and always will be — a function that relies on expertise, judgment, and business context. Yes, pulse checks and manual inputs still matter. Yes, a human lens is needed to read between the lines. But today, that expertise is too often spent cleaning spreadsheets instead of influencing outcomes. Modern tools aren’t about automating people away. They’re about giving treasury professionals back the time and headspace to work on the things that actually drive business growth: We don’t want to replace your treasury team. We want to amplify it. 6. Manual vs Tools Forecasting at a Glance Area Manual Setup With Automation Tools Time spent High — forecasting tasks represent a high percentage of weekly tasks Low — most inputs and updates are automated Data Quality Manually cleaned and restructured Auto-standardised and categorised Update Cadence Weekly, sometimes delayed Daily or live Scenarios Manual duplication + error-prone formulas One-click simulation Collaboration Email chains, duplicate versions Shared access, in-app reports Variances 10–20% forecast error common Reduced through standard inputs + variance flags Strategic Output Compliance-focused Decision-ready forecasts Morale Repetitive tasks, low engagement Strategic focus, ownership and clarity Conclusion: What’s It Costing You to Stay Manual? Manual forecasting might feel manageable — even necessary. But it’s not scalable, not accurate, and not aligned with the expectations facing today’s treasury teams. The organisations we work with aren’t replacing treasurers with tech. They’re elevating them by removing what gets in the way. If you’re still relying on spreadsheets, here are three questions to ask yourself: Also Read Join our Treasury Community Treasury Masterminds is a community of professionals working in treasury management or those interested in learning more about various topics related to treasury management, including cash management, foreign exchange management, and payments. To register and connect with Treasury professionals, click [HERE] or fill out the form below. Notice: JavaScript is required for this content.