Foreign media reports that the core reason Wall Street is promoting stablecoins is not merely to keep up with the crypto industry. As the scale of stablecoins exceeds $300 billion in 2026, banks have begun to regard such products as part of the payment and settlement infrastructure, rather than mere crypto experiments.
24-hour settlement capability
Although traditional electronic payments have been widely adopted for a long time, they still rely on correspondent banks, clearing periods, and multiple intermediaries at the underlying level. The article points out that stablecoins can transfer value around the clock on blockchain networks, thereby shortening some parts of the payment chain.
This makes it more suitable for cross-border payments, corporate fund management, and on-chain financial transactions. For large banks, if more capital flows and asset transactions shift to the blockchain in the future, a lack of stablecoin capabilities could mean losing the initiative in new settlement networks.
Reserve assets generate returns.
The article mentions that fiat-backed stablecoins typically require equivalent reserve assets as support. These reserves are often allocated in assets such as U.S. Treasury bonds, repurchase agreements, government money market funds, and cash, which can generate interest income on their own.
Users typically hold tokens with a face value of 1 US dollar and do not directly receive all of the reserve earnings. The article argues that once the issuance scale expands, this type of reserve income could become a considerable business model. Currently, the stablecoin market is mainly dominated by Tether and Circle, which presents both opportunities and pressures for banks.
Banks are also defending their deposits.
In addition to expanding new businesses, banks' deployment of stablecoins also involves defensive considerations. The article states that if customers transfer a large amount of funds from bank deposits to stablecoins, banks may lose a source of low-cost capital. Especially stablecoins with yield attributes are more likely to attract funds out of the traditional deposit system.
The Bank for International Settlements has previously expressed similar concerns, suggesting that the widespread adoption of stablecoins could increase banks' financing costs and affect credit allocation and the transmission of monetary policy. For banks, rather than allowing funds to flow to external issuers, it would be better for them to directly participate in issuing their own stablecoins or develop related products.
Tokenized finance requires on-chain cash.
The article argues that a longer-term driving force comes from tokenized finance. If assets such as bonds, funds, and securities are traded on blockchain platforms but payments are still made through the traditional banking system, the efficiency gains will be significantly reduced.
In this scenario, compliant stablecoins can take on the role of cash in transactions, allowing asset delivery and fund payments to be completed within the same digital process. As a result, banks are not giving up on traditional deposits; rather, they are preparing for a parallel system where customers can use both traditional bank currency and blockchain-based digital dollars.
The article summarizes that Wall Street's competition for stablecoins is not just about faster payment channels and additional revenue, but also about continuing to maintain a central position in issuance, custody, and circulation as currencies gradually enter programmable financial networks.
