Stablecoins vs Tokenized Deposits

Editorial status: PUBLISHED. AI-assisted educational material; user batch approval recorded on 2026-10-19. Balance sheets and conversion prices are invented, with no product-specific protection claimed.

Learning objectives

• Identify the issuer and holder claim behind a payment token.
• Compare bearer-like and account-linked transfer arrangements.
• Separate par pricing, redemption and final settlement.

Same denomination, different arrangements

A stablecoin and a tokenized deposit can both display a currency label while representing different obligations. Ask who owes the holder, whether the claim is a bank deposit or another contractual instrument, how transfer changes that relationship and how the recipient obtains the intended money.

BIS Bulletin 73 examines stablecoins versus tokenized deposits through the singleness of money: the ability of different forms of money to circulate at par under an arrangement. Its model contrasts bearer-like stablecoins, which can deviate from par, with non-bearer deposit arrangements settled in central-bank money. This is an analytical comparison, not a guarantee about every implementation. BIS Bulletin 73

Do not infer deposit insurance, direct reserve ownership or unrestricted redemption from a token name. Those claims require current institution-, holder- and jurisdiction-specific documents.

Worked example: 100 units in two models

In fictional model S, an issuer creates 100 token units against a stated asset pool. A holder can transfer those units to another person. Assume market participants currently offer 0.98 currency units for each token. Selling all 100 then produces 98 before other costs. An advertised one-unit reference does not itself supply the missing 2.

In fictional model D, a bank records a 100-unit deposit for a customer and uses a token interface for instructions. Assume transfers to another bank are completed through an agreed interbank settlement process. The analyst must examine both the customer's deposit claim and the interbank leg. A customer interface balance is not a substitute for evidence that the receiving bank has credited the intended account.

S: holder → token issuer's stated claim → reserve/redemption arrangement
                 ↘ transferable token may trade away from par
D: depositor → bank deposit claim → interbank settlement → receiving deposit

The teaching models deliberately omit many real details. Model D does not establish insurance, absence of bank credit risk or public availability. Model S does not establish that all stablecoins trade at a discount.

Trace the balance-sheet relationship

A reserve report can describe assets while leaving the individual holder's redemption eligibility unresolved. A bank's deposit terms can describe an account claim while restricting which customers may use a token interface. Separate ownership of assets from a claim against the issuer and separate both from the technical ability to move a token.

Ask how value is measured, who may redeem, minimums, fees, hours, suspension rules and failure treatment. For a transfer, identify whether the original claim is passed to the recipient or one bank liability is replaced by another through settlement. The answer comes from the actual design and legal documents.

PFMI distinguishes settlement money from other settlement controls. A linked exchange can reduce a specific principal exposure while leaving risks in the payment instrument. BIS: PFMI

Common misconceptions

“Stable means a guaranteed bank balance.” Stability is a claim about value behavior, not a universal legal status.

“Tokenized deposit means every wallet can open one.” Customer and institution conditions can limit access.

“A reserve asset belongs directly to every holder.” Asset backing and the holder's legal claim require separate evidence.

Risks and limits

This lesson supplies no current legal classification, insurance determination or issuer recommendation. BIS research is international analysis rather than an enforceable promise to a holder. Currency, eligibility, operational availability, credit and redemption risks must be studied for each actual arrangement. Neither model was implemented or tested.

Exercise and answer

Exercise: One hundred tokens can be sold at 0.98 each. Does a displayed par reference prove that the holder can immediately spend 100 in bank currency?

Answer: No. The stated executable sale yields 98 before costs. A different redemption route needs its own eligibility, timing, fee and completion evidence.

Related learning

Continue in the payments track with card funding structures and the distinction between card acceptance and monetary claims.

Source map

bis-tokenised-deposits and bis-pfmi were directly read on 2026-10-18. Their scope is international research and infrastructure principles, not product-specific insurance or availability. All models, balances and prices are original teaching material; no bank account, reserve or stablecoin redemption was tested.