Standard Chartered estimated in January that stablecoins could pull about $500 billion from US bank deposits by the end of 2028.
Regional banks looked especially exposed given how much they depend on the spread between what they pay depositors and what they earn on loans.
Now, 21 major financial institutions, including Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo, committed Sept. 1 to build one.
The group announced plans to establish a company in the second half of 2026, launch a US dollar-denominated stablecoin in the first half of 2027, and comply with both the GENIUS Act and MiCA.
The venture started as a 10-bank exploration into reserve-backed digital money in October 2025 and has since grown to 21 institutions spanning North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.
Its stated use cases include wholesale and institutional activity, cross-border payments, digital-asset settlement, and retail markets where client benefits can be achieved.
| Earlier bank concern | Sept. 1 bank response |
|---|---|
| Stablecoins could pull deposits out of banks | 21 institutions committed to launch a bank-backed stablecoin |
| Regional banks could be exposed to funding pressure | Large banks are positioning to capture stablecoin flows |
| Crypto platforms could compete for customer cash | Banks are creating their own digital-dollar product |
| Stablecoins could redirect reserves into Treasuries | Banks may seek a role in reserve management and distribution |
| Payments could move outside bank rails | Banks want stablecoins for cross-border payments, settlement and institutional activity |
Why deposits and stablecoins compete for the same dollar
Bank deposits fund lending and balance-sheet activity, with banks earning income on the spread between what they pay depositors and what they collect on loans.
Stablecoins work as fully backed tokens that hold their reserves in cash, bank balances, and short-dated government securities, with Treasuries making up most of Tether and Circle’s reserve holdings.
A dollar moving from a bank account into a stablecoin can remain a dollar in every practical sense while changing who controls the customer relationship, the reserve economics and the payment rail underneath it.
That move in control is what Standard Chartered’s warning was about.
Owning the stablecoin migration beats losing the relationship
A bank-backed stablecoin customer moving money from a conventional deposit into a fully reserved token still reduces the bank’s traditional funding base.
What a bank-issued stablecoin can preserve is everything built around that deposit: the distribution relationship, the compliance layer, the settlement business and a share of the reserve economics.
Banks appear to be accepting cannibalization of one part of their existing model to avoid surrendering the entire customer relationship to a crypto-native competitor.
Total stablecoin market capitalization stands near $303.7 billion, according to DefiLlama, with Tether’s USDT alone accounting for more than 60%.
Citi’s 2030 research projects a base case of $1.9 trillion in stablecoin issuance and a bull case of $4 trillion, implying roughly $1.6 trillion to $3.7 trillion of additional issuance from today’s level.
Citi’s base case also puts annual stablecoin transaction activity near $100 trillion at 50 times velocity, climbing toward $200 trillion under its bull scenario.
The consortium is positioning for a share of that future issuance and transaction flow, a much larger prize than any slice of Tether and Circle’s existing balances.
The bank that produced one of the industry’s most aggressive stablecoin growth forecasts is simultaneously helping build a company designed to compete inside that forecast. It treats its own projection as a live market opportunity worth entering.
| Metric | Estimate | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Potential US bank deposit outflow | $500B by end-2028 | Stablecoins could pressure traditional bank funding |
| Current stablecoin market cap | ~$303.7B | The market banks are entering today |
| Citi 2030 base case | $1.9T | Roughly $1.6T of additional issuance from today |
| Citi 2030 bull case | $4T | Roughly $3.7T of additional issuance from today |
| Citi base-case transaction activity | ~$100T/year | Stablecoins become payment and settlement infrastructure |
| Citi bull-case transaction activity | ~$200T/year | The market becomes too large for banks to ignore |
Multiple forms of digital money can coexist
None of this means banks are abandoning tokenized deposits for public-chain stablecoins. Citi’s research explicitly expects stablecoins, tokenized deposits, deposit tokens and central bank digital currencies to coexist, and projects that bank-token transaction volume could exceed stablecoin turnover by 2030 even as stablecoin issuance itself keeps expanding.
The more accurate read is that banks want exposure across every plausible form of digital dollar at once. Qivalis, a separate 37-institution consortium building a euro-pegged stablecoin, shows the competitive landscape is already splitting by currency and structure as well as by issuer.
The GENIUS Act takes effect on the earlier of 18 months after its July 2025 enactment, which lands on Jan. 18, 2027, or 120 days after federal regulators finalize implementing rules.
The consortium’s first-half 2027 target overlaps that threshold. The same law that gave existing stablecoin issuers regulatory certainty also opened a clear, compliant path for heavily regulated banks to enter the category directly.
That turns a compliance milestone for incumbents into a competitive entry point for their newest rivals.
One warning sign for bank-issued stablecoins is Societe Generale’s dollar-backed token, which had just $12.5 million in circulation.
Distribution remains the harder test
Institutional trust and compliance infrastructure do not, by themselves, produce the minting volume, secondary-market liquidity, exchange listings, wallet support, and merchant demand that make a stablecoin useful.
Tether and Circle built years of that kind of distribution, and a consortium of banks cannot replicate it by announcement alone.
Whether the bet pays off or produces a compliant token nobody needs
The bull case has stablecoins approaching Citi’s $4 trillion scenario, with bank-backed tokens becoming one of several dominant digital-money formats used across payments, treasury and settlement.
Under that path, deposit substitution turns into a genuine structural funding issue for banks that stayed on the sidelines. Institutions in the consortium capture settlement fees, custody relationships, and reserve income in a market many times larger than today’s.
| Scenario | What happens | Who wins | What it means for banks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bull case: bank stablecoins scale | Stablecoins approach Citi’s $4T scenario and bank-backed tokens gain institutional usage | Consortium banks, regulated issuers, institutional clients | Banks cannibalize some deposits but retain settlement, custody and customer relationships |
| Base case: partial adoption | Bank tokens find use in wholesale, cross-border and institutional settlement but do not displace USDT/USDC broadly | Banks in specific niches; crypto-native issuers in public markets | Banks capture some future flows without fully reshaping deposit funding |
| Bear case: compliant but unused | The consortium launches a well-regulated token that fails to build liquidity or integrations | Existing stablecoins and tokenized-deposit systems | Banks spend years building infrastructure customers do not need |
| Regulatory shock case | Stablecoin rules tighten after a failure, run or liquidity event | Tokenized deposits and bank-controlled rails | Stablecoins lose momentum, and banks pivot harder toward deposit tokens |
The bear case has the consortium building a fully compliant, well-capitalized stablecoin that fails to attract liquidity, matching the same pattern Societe Generale’s token already shows.
In that scenario, deposit strain stays limited because stablecoins never scale far past their current niche. The 21 institutions end up having spent years and real capital building infrastructure that crypto-native issuers and tokenized-deposit systems continue to outcompete on usage.
Banks spent months warning that stablecoins could hollow out part of their business. Their answer was to make sure that if the dollar keeps moving onto programmable rails, some of the largest banking names control the rails it moves on.
