The "mainstream entrance" that the cryptocurrency community has been waiting for many years has finally arrived.

However, the way it arrives may not be what many people imagined.

According to CoinDesk reports[1][2], large American banks like JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Citi plan to launch a shared tokenized deposit network through The Clearing House, expected to be launched in the first half of 2027. In simple terms, the banks hope to create deposits that can be transferred as digital tokens on a blockchain network 24/7.

This sounds like mainstream finance is finally taking blockchain seriously.

The awkward part is that they did not choose DeFi, not a permissionless public chain, nor did they move the financial system into a crypto-native world. Instead, it is a payment infrastructure jointly owned by banks, a permissioned ledger, a consortium chain, and an institutional network where only transaction participants and authorized regulators can see the details.

At the same time, the DeFi world is experiencing another narrative pressure: security incidents continue to remind the market of the risks of on-chain finance, and ETH and the overall crypto market are also under significant pressure.

Thus a more pointed question emerges:

If mainstream finance eventually also uses blockchain, but they choose consortium chains and controlled settlement networks, how should the narrative of "open, transparent, permissionless" from the past few years in the cryptocurrency circle be reinterpreted?

This article does not evaluate ETH or any digital asset price performance, nor does it constitute any buy, sell, or hold advice for any digital asset. The discussion focuses on market structure and technology adoption paths.

1. The cryptocurrency circle waits for mainstream entry, but what arrives is a consortium chain

"Mainstream finance entering the market" has been one of the favorite stories told in the crypto market.

In the early days, this story usually looked like this:

Banks would be transformed by DeFi, Wall Street would connect to open public chains, traditional assets would be tokenized, and global finance would migrate to a transparent, open, permissionless network.

This imagination is very appealing.

Because it is not just a technical narrative, but also a value narrative: old finance is closed, slow, expensive, and opaque; new finance is open, fast, cheap, and composable. Given enough time, the latter would replace the former.

But now, the answer given by big banks is not so romantic.

According to CoinDesk reports, large American banks like JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Citi plan to establish a shared tokenized deposit network, operated by The Clearing House. The Clearing House itself is a payment company jointly owned by banks.

This means that banks are not saying "we want to join DeFi."

Instead, they seem to be saying: we acknowledge the efficiency of blockchain, but we want this efficiency to be integrated back into the banking system; we recognize that on-chain settlement is valuable, but participant permissions, data visibility, and accountability boundaries must be controllable.

This is the awkward part: the cryptocurrency circle has welcomed mainstream entry, but what mainstream finance brings is not a victory declaration for open public chains, but a bank version, controlled version, and regulatory version of blockchain.

2. Why consortium chains? Because banks are buying certainty, not faith

Many crypto-native readers may instinctively dislike consortium chains.

In the context of the cryptocurrency space, consortium chains often imply "not open enough," "not decentralized enough," "not crypto enough."

But from the banks' perspective, the appeal of consortium chains comes precisely from these "not enough."

The questions that banks and institutional settlements need to answer are not "is this chain cool enough?" but:

• Who can join the network?

• Who can see the transaction data?

• Who is responsible for KYC/AML?

• How do regulators obtain necessary information?

• Who takes responsibility in case of an error?

• Will sensitive customers and fund flows be publicly exposed?

Open public chains assume many things are publicly available; bank business assumes they are confidential.

Open public chains emphasize permissionless access; bank business must know who each participant is.

Open public chains believe in code and market self-correction; bank business needs accountability, audit trails, and regulatory interfaces.

So, banks choose consortium chains not because they do not understand DeFi, but because they understand they cannot operate like DeFi.

3. Under DeFi security pressure, banks are even less likely to embrace "complete openness" directly

Recently, the DeFi world has not been calm.

In public news, Radiant is closing down due to an inability to recover from a hack in 2024[6][7]; at the same time, the crypto market has recently experienced significant volatility, with assets like Bitcoin and Ether showing marked pullbacks. Such incidents continuously remind the market: open on-chain finance still faces challenges regarding security, resilience, and institutional risk management.

These events do not imply that DeFi lacks value, nor do they indicate that open public chains have failed.

But they will change institutions' perception of risk.

For retail investors, a single exploit might be considered "the project's problem."

For banks, an exploit is a matter of board accountability, legal issues, regulation, customer compensation, and reputational risk.

These security incidents will make some institutions more inclined to choose controllable, auditable, and accountable permissioned rails. Banks do not want to lose on-chain efficiency, but they do not want to expose their core payment and deposit systems to an environment they cannot explain, control, or hold accountable.

Thus, while DeFi is still proving it can be safe enough, banks will naturally choose another path: leveraging blockchain efficiency while retaining control over the banking system.

4. The pressure on ETH makes the issue more glaring: Does mainstream on-chain really equal a victory for public chains?

First, let's clarify the boundaries: This article does not discuss ETH's price nor judge the investment value of ETH or any digital asset.

However, in the context of ETH and the overall crypto market being noticeably under pressure, the emotional tension on this issue is stronger[7].

When the market is rising, all narratives appear correct: DeFi will expand, L2 will prosper, RWA will enter public chains, and institutions will come to the open ecosystem.

When the market falls, the questions become harsher:

If mainstream finance really begins to go on-chain but they choose consortium chains;

If banks genuinely start offering tokenized deposits while cash legs remain in the banking network;

If Visa truly tests private stablecoin settlements but happens on permissioned ledgers like Canton;

Then what part of mainstream financial benefits has the open public chain gained?

The answer may not be "none."

Open public chains like Ethereum will still play an important role in DeFi, stablecoin liquidity, open developer ecosystems, and crypto-native innovation.

But the answer is also no longer "all."

Mainstream finance going on-chain may not be a story where everyone migrates to the same open network, but rather a divergence: open public chains do open finance, bank consortium chains manage institutional settlements, tokenized funds handle yield-based cash management, and stablecoins provide global liquidity.

This is where the faith is questioned.

It is not that open public chains have no future, but that they may no longer have all futures.

5. Stablecoins have forced banks into "on-chain deposits"

Why are banks moving now?

Because stablecoins have already asked the question very clearly: why can't the dollar move 24/7, cross-border, and with low friction?

In the crypto market, stablecoins have become the default cash tool. Exchanges use them for pricing and settlements, DeFi uses them as collateral, market makers use them to transfer liquidity, and cross-border payment companies use them to test new channels.

CoinDesk quotes a JPMorgan report stating[1][4] that, although tokenized money market funds have yield advantages, they currently only account for about 5% of the stablecoin universe; the report believes that stablecoins still maintain stronger liquidity advantages in crypto trading, collateral management, settlement, cross-border payments, and liquidity management.

What is really impressive behind this is not the price stability of stablecoins, but their dominance in the cash leg of the on-chain world.

Once the cash leg is occupied by stablecoins, transactions, collateral, payments, settlements, and fund management will grow around it.

For banks, this is not a change that can be observed from the sidelines for a long time.

Tokenized deposits are the banks' response: if users want the speed of on-chain dollars, can banks provide a version that does not leave the banking system?

6. Visa and Canton: What institutions need is on-chain efficiency, not a public spectacle

Cointelegraph reports[3] that Visa is testing private stablecoin settlement in collaboration with Brale and Canton Network. Canton is characterized by permissioned ledgers: only transaction participants and authorized regulators can see specific transaction data while supporting atomic settlement between tokenized assets, cash-like instruments, and financial contracts.

This news aligns with the banks' tokenized deposits.

Institutions do not want to avoid blockchain.

What they want is:

• Faster settlements;

• Lower operational friction;

• Better fund scheduling;

• Programmable financial contracts;

• But at the same time, privacy, permissions, audit, and regulatory interfaces are retained.

In other words, institutions want "on-chain efficiency," not necessarily "a public spectacle."

This may make crypto-native readers uncomfortable, but it is very close to the real needs of banks and payment networks.

7. The next phase of RWA: It is not about who is on which chain, but who controls the cash leg

In the past, when discussing RWA, the market liked to ask: which assets can go on-chain?

U.S. Treasury bonds, funds, private credit, real estate, stocks, bonds could all be answers.

But this round of banks' tokenized deposits has changed the question:

Asset tokenization is just the first step; cash leg tokenization is the key to market structure.

Whether a tokenized bond is meaningful does not only depend on whether the bond can go on-chain, but also on:

• What cash is used for settlement?

• Who is responsible for the redemption mechanism?

• Which investors are allowed to hold it?

• How are transfer restrictions enforced?

• How is secondary liquidity formed?

• How to handle abnormal transactions?

A viewpoint article from CoinDesk compares tokenization to a market structure revolution similar to ETFs[5]. The value of an ETF is not "just re-packaging assets," but rather that creation/redemption, arbitrage mechanisms, continuous trading, and secondary liquidity together change market structure.

If tokenization is to grow truly, it requires a similar market structure.

And the core of market structure is never just the name of the chain but rather cash, redemption, market making, permissions, and responsibilities.

8. EX.IO Research viewpoint: This is not a technology route struggle, but a trust structure struggle

EX.IO Research believes that the most noteworthy aspect of banks choosing consortium chains is not "consortium chains are back," but it exposes underlying divisions in blockchain adoption.

The crypto-native world believes: the more open, the more trustworthy.

Banks and institutional finance believe: the more controllable, the more trustworthy.

These two trust structures will not automatically merge just because they both use blockchain.

The future of tokenized finance is likely not a single path but multiple paths:

• Open public chains will support open finance, DeFi, global stablecoin liquidity, and developer innovation;

• Consortium chains and permissioned rails will handle bank deposits, corporate treasury, institutional settlements, and privacy-sensitive transactions;

• Tokenized funds/treasuries will handle yield-based cash management;

• Stablecoins will continue to bear the cash leg of the crypto-native world.

Therefore, mainstream finance entering the market is not awkward.

The awkward part is that the cryptocurrency circle thought mainstream finance would follow its script, but mainstream finance is writing another script.

After reading this, take away three judgments

First, banks are not suddenly embracing crypto. They are responding to stablecoins' challenges to payment entry points, deposit relationships, and on-chain cash standards.

Second, consortium chains are not simply the revival of old concepts. In the context of institutional settlement, permissioned networks may be precisely the premise for banks willing to use blockchain.

Third, the key for RWA will shift from "can assets go on-chain?" to "how to close the loop on cash legs and trust structures." Settlement cash that is not accepted by institutions, no matter how well-packaged the tokenized asset is, is still just packaging.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。