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?
- Banks: Bring trust, compliance, and client relationships (e.g., JPMorgan’s public-chain experiments). But risk aversion and proprietary focus can slow broader connectivity.
- Fintechs/Payment Giants: Visa (USDC settlements), Stripe (via Bridge), Fireblocks (bank-to-stablecoin networks), and Circle lead in orchestration—fast integration, on/off-ramps, and user-centric innovation. Their agility makes them prime accelerators.
- Blockchain Protocols: Chainlink (CCIP), LayerZero, and intent-based bridges provide neutral, secure cross-chain tech without favoritism.
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
- Can Stablecoins Fix FX Risk?
- Stablecoins on the Balance Sheet: The Counterparty & Credit Risk Debate
- On-Chain Settlement: Beyond the Hype and Into the Messy Middle
- From Static Cash to Symphonic Liquidity: Orchestrating the Future with Stablecoins
- Prefunding — The Silent Cost of Speed
- The Stablecoin Reality Check: Unlocking Liquidity or Just Relocating the Traps?
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.