The widespread adoption of tokenized deposits could radically transform the funding model of the banking sector. The key risk lies in instant transfers between financial institutions, which could undermine the stability of the resource base and significantly constrain lending. This is the conclusion reached by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) of Dallas in a large-scale study.
Tokenized deposits are a digital form of bank liabilities operating on distributed ledger infrastructure. Unlike traditional stablecoins, they remain within the perimeter of the existing banking system and can generate interest income for their holders.
The main advantage of the technology is real-time settlement. However, it is precisely this feature that, as my analysis has shown, carries a hidden threat to credit institutions. Today, a significant portion of deposits remains relatively stable due to established customer relationships and technical barriers to the rapid movement of funds. This allows banks to predict how long money will remain on their balance sheets.
Tokenization eliminates these barriers. Clients will gain the ability to transfer funds almost instantly to banks offering more attractive rates, and programmable features will automate such operations. AI agents pose a particular danger: combined with smart contracts, they could independently monitor yields and redistribute tokenized deposits between banks without the owner's involvement.
Effect of up to $700 billion
The economists assessed the potential impact on maturity transformation. According to their calculations, about 80% of U.S. banks' interest rate risk from holding long-term assets is supported by the current characteristics of deposits—this amounts to approximately $5.8 trillion of the total $7 trillion in such exposure.
A 10% reduction in the average duration of deposits on balance sheets would decrease banks' ability to take on interest rate risk by $580 billion in 10-year asset equivalents. A 10% increase in the sensitivity of deposit rates to market rates would produce an even more significant effect—around $700 billion.
It is important to emphasize: these figures do not imply a direct reduction in lending by similar amounts. The metric reflects a change in banks' ability to hold assets with interest rate risk. Part of the effect could be offset by attracting longer-term funding, but such debt is typically more expensive than deposits.
"This will likely negatively affect the cost of lending for consumers and businesses," the authors emphasize.
New liquidity requirements
Another important consequence is the change in the structure of bank balance sheets. With the possibility of instant withdrawal of significant sums, predicting daily outflows would become extremely difficult. In stress scenarios, regulatory models could begin classifying such liabilities as less stable.
Credit institutions would have to increase their holdings of highly liquid assets—primarily reserves and U.S. Treasury securities. This would reduce the share of funds available for less liquid investments, including loans to businesses and households. At the same time, the total size of the system's deposit base would not necessarily shrink—money would simply circulate faster between banks, creating risks for each individual institution.
A telling example is Brazil's instant payment system Pix. By the first quarter of 2026, it was used by about 200 million active clients, with a monthly transaction volume reaching $650 billion. A 2025 study by the Central Bank of Brazil found a direct correlation: more active use of Pix was accompanied by an increase in liquid asset holdings and a decline in credit intermediation.
The industry is accelerating
The analysis comes amid a rapid surge in bank projects involving tokenized money. On August 26, 39 U.S. state banking associations created the BankChain alliance, planning to launch a nationwide blockchain network in 2027. In June, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo announced the creation of their own infrastructure through The Clearing House. And on August 19, HSBC and Standard Chartered conducted the first real interbank transaction with tokenized deposits on SWIFT's blockchain infrastructure.
The direction is in its early stages, and the ultimate consequences will depend on system architecture and the rules of interbank interaction. However, it is already clear: regulators and market participants need to adapt in advance to a new reality where the speed of capital movement will become the main factor of instability.
My expert assessment: the banking system faces a fundamental choice between efficiency and stability. Tokenization is inevitable, but without well-thought-out regulation that limits excessive volatility in the deposit base, we risk ending up with a fragile financial architecture where lending becomes a luxury.