Why Banks Want to Issue Stablecoins

On Friday (Feb. 6), the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) clarified that national trust banks may issue payment stablecoins.

And since the start of this month, other financial institutions have made moves in the digital asset space. A European banking consortium expanded a shared euro-denominated stablecoin initiative; Fidelity Investments officially launched its FIDD stablecoin on Ethereum; VersaBank detailed plans for stablecoin custody and interest-bearing deposit tokens; and Goldman Sachs continued to advance stablecoin use cases in emerging markets.

The early wave of stablecoins was dominated by nonbank issuers, filling a gap created by slow cross-border payments and limited access to dollar liquidity in crypto markets. Banks largely stayed on the sidelines, constrained by regulation and reputational risk.

That caution is now beginning to erode as distributed ledger technology matures and regulators clarify expectations around custody, reserves and consumer protection.

This month’s developments underline how far the conversation has moved. In Europe, BBVA joined a banking consortium focused on issuing a euro-pegged stablecoin designed explicitly for institutional use. The emphasis is on shared infrastructure: a common settlement asset that could be used across multiple banks, rather than proprietary tokens locked inside a single balance sheet.

In the United States, Fidelity’s FIDD launch signaled something different. As one of the world’s largest asset managers, Fidelity is positioning a dollar-denominated stablecoin as an extension of its digital asset services business, aimed at institutional clients who want on-chain liquidity without stepping outside a regulated ecosystem.

Taken together, these moves suggest that stablecoins are no longer viewed as speculative side projects. They are being integrated into core strategies around payments efficiency, asset servicing and global market access.

See also: How Banking-Grade Crypto Is Replacing Bitcoin’s Cowboy Finance

Stablecoins as Payment Plumbing, Not Consumer Products

One of the clearest themes emerging from bank-led initiatives is a deliberate focus on wholesale rather than retail use. Unlike consumer-facing wallets or payment apps, most bank-issued stablecoins are designed to sit behind the scenes, improving the economics of existing processes.

What’s taking shape is not a single “bank stablecoin” model, but a family of instruments that reflect where inefficiencies are most painful, and where incumbents believe blockchain rails can quietly outperform legacy systems.

Fidelity’s decision to launch FIDD on Ethereum highlights one axis of bank-issued token segmentation, that of asset servicing and capital markets use cases. By issuing a stablecoin directly, Fidelity can offer institutional clients a way to move cash-like value on-chain alongside tokenized securities, funds or other digital assets.

For asset managers, settlement friction is an increasingly visible bottleneck. Trades may be executed electronically in milliseconds, but final settlement can still take days, tying up capital and increasing counterparty risk. A stablecoin native to a public blockchain allows for delivery-versus-payment models that compress settlement cycles dramatically.

Fidelity’s approach also reflects confidence that public blockchains can meet institutional standards when paired with the right controls. Rather than building a closed, permissioned network, the firm is leveraging Ethereum’s liquidity and developer ecosystem while wrapping its stablecoin in a regulated issuance and custody framework.

The PYMNTS Intelligence and Citi report “Chain Reaction: Regulatory Clarity as the Catalyst for Blockchain Adoption” found that blockchain’s next leap will be shaped by regulation; that evolving guidance is beginning to create the foundations for safe, scalable blockchain adoption; and that implementation challenges continue to complicate progress.

See also: Stablecoin Fragmentation Creates New Risks for Businesses

Messaging, Clearing and the Quiet Economics of Efficiency

What is becoming clear is that there will be no one-size-fits-all bank stablecoin. The market is segmenting along functional lines. Some tokens will be optimized for interbank settlement, others for asset servicing, and still others for corporate treasury or cross-border trade. Design choices around blockchain selection, programmability, interest and access controls will reflect those priorities.

“We don’t start with the asset,” Biswarup Chatterjee, global head of partnerships and innovation, Citi Services at Citi, told PYMNTS. “We typically start with our client need, and then we look at the pros and cons of each type of asset or financing instrument.”

But across the week’s initiatives, a common thread was the desire to economize on the unglamorous but expensive layers of financial infrastructure: messaging, clearing, settlement, reconciliation and compliance. Each layer adds cost, delay and operational risk. Stablecoins offer a way to collapse multiple functions into a single shared ledger.

This is where the distinction between “crypto-native” and “bank-native” stablecoins also becomes meaningful. Bank-issued tokens are being engineered to integrate with know-your-customer frameworks, sanctions screening and reporting obligations from day one. The value proposition is not anonymity or censorship resistance, but predictability and auditability.