The introduction of tokenized deposits into mass circulation is not just a technological upgrade of banking infrastructure, but a potential trigger for a fundamental restructuring of the funding model. Instant transfers, which underpin this innovation, could undermine the stability of credit institutions' resource base and significantly limit their ability to issue loans. This is the conclusion reached by economists Rosie Levy and Shrini Ramaswamy of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas in their latest analytical report.
Tokenized deposits are a digital form of bank liabilities placed on a distributed ledger. Unlike stablecoins, they remain within the banking system and can earn interest income for their holders. The technology's main advantage is real-time settlement. However, it is precisely this feature that, according to the analysts, harbors a hidden threat.
Today, a significant portion of deposits remains "anchored" to banks due to customer inertia and technical barriers to rapid fund movement. These balances give credit institutions predictability: they can forecast with high accuracy how long money will remain on their books. Tokenization disrupts this model. Customers gain the ability to instantly transfer funds to where rates are higher, and programmable features automate this process entirely.
The authors are particularly concerned about AI agents. Combined with smart contracts, they could theoretically independently monitor yields and move tokenized deposits between banks without owner involvement, which would dramatically accelerate outflows at the slightest change in market conditions.
Model calculations: effect of up to $700 billion
Levy and Ramaswamy quantified how changes in deposit behavior would affect banks' ability to perform maturity transformation. According to their calculations, about 80% of the interest rate risk that U.S. banks assume when placing long-term assets is supported by current deposit characteristics. This is equivalent to approximately $5.8 trillion of the total $7 trillion in such exposure.
If the average duration of deposits on balance sheets decreases by 10%, banks' aggregate capacity to take on interest rate risk would shrink by $580 billion in 10-year asset equivalents. Even more sensitive would be an increase in the correlation of deposit rates with market rates: a 10% rise would produce an effect of about $700 billion.
It is important to understand: these figures do not mean a direct reduction in lending by a similar amount. Rather, they refer to changes in banks' ability to hold assets with interest rate risk. Theoretically, banks could compensate for losses by attracting longer-term funding, but such debt is significantly more expensive than deposits. "This will likely negatively impact the cost of credit for consumers and businesses," the authors emphasize.
A new reality: more liquidity, fewer loans
Another consequence is a change in balance sheet structure. If tokenized deposits allow customers to withdraw large sums almost instantly, banks will find it harder to forecast daily outflows. In stress scenarios, regulatory models would begin to treat such liabilities as less stable, forcing financial institutions to build up holdings of high-liquidity assets—reserves and U.S. Treasury securities. This, in turn, would reduce the share of funds available for less liquid investments, including loans to businesses and households.
Notably, the overall size of the system's deposit base may not shrink—money would simply migrate faster between banks. The risk arises precisely from the unpredictability of balances for each individual player.
As a vivid example, the authors cite Brazil's instant payment system Pix. By the first quarter of 2026, it was used by about 200 million active customers, with monthly transaction volume reaching $650 billion. A 2025 study by the Central Bank of Brazil showed that active Pix usage was accompanied by an increase in holdings of liquid assets (primarily government bonds) and a decline in credit intermediation. Although Pix is not a full analogue of tokenized deposits, Brazil's experience provides a representative picture of possible consequences.
The industry is accelerating
The analysis comes amid rapid development of banking blockchain projects. On August 26, 39 U.S. state banking associations created the BankChain alliance, which plans to launch a nationwide blockchain network in 2027 with support for tokenized deposits and programmable settlements. In June, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo announced the creation of their own infrastructure for bank on-chain money 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 study's authors rightly note that the field is at an early stage, and the ultimate consequences will depend on system architecture and interbank interaction rules. However, it is already clear: banks will have to adapt to a new reality where the speed of money movement becomes the primary factor of instability.
My comment: the market clearly underestimates the systemic risks posed by tokenized deposits. While all attention is focused on settlement efficiency and cost reduction, regulators should simultaneously develop mechanisms to prevent a "digital run" on banks. Otherwise, we could face a new type of liquidity crisis where classical central bank tools prove largely ineffective.