We have scheduled a panel titled “Rethinking Relevance in a World of Tokenised Assets and Virtual Currencies” for March 24 at The Banking Scene Conference 2026 Amsterdam. This is not the first time; we did the same at The Banking Scene Conference 2026 Luxembourg, with presentations by Thomas Douchez of Visa and Benny Lanoizele of Ascend7, and an excellent panel moderated by Bernard Nicolay, with panellists Guglielmo Manzoni of HSBC, Laurent Marochini of Standard Chartered, and Véronica Martinez, INED.

The January discussion on crypto and tokenisation focused on current institutional strategies rather than speculative future scenarios, since that perspective is outdated. The main point was not about disruption but about how financial institutions are positioning themselves, a crucial question they are actively exploring.

In short: how they can remain relevant in a world that is being reconnected through tokenised money and virtual currencies.

Thomas Douchez's opening presentation clearly demonstrated that Visa’s approach to stablecoins is about selectively integrating with them. I mean, why shouldn’t they? Banks are their primary customers.

Certain parts of the current payment infrastructure already use blockchain-based settlement, providing benefits such as faster cross-border transfers, reduced friction, and greater operational efficiency. The key point of this example is less about the technology itself and more about the behaviour it demonstrates. An established player is adopting new methods where they are beneficial, without waiting for complete industry agreement or ideological certainty.

Tokenisation, in this sense, does not need to replace existing systems to become relevant. It only needs to prove incrementally superior to what we knew yesterday.

A Structural Choice: Wholesale CBDC or Tokenised Deposits

The discussion quickly moved beyond stablecoins to a distinction that carries deeper consequences for banks: the difference between wholesale central bank digital currencies and tokenised deposits.

Wholesale CBDCs represent a potential evolution of central bank money for interbank settlement. Tokenised deposits, on the other hand, bring commercial bank money onto programmable platforms. They enable banks to stay actively involved in tokenised wholesale markets by transforming existing deposit money to fit distributed infrastructure, especially in areas like intragroup liquidity management, wholesale settlement, and tokenised asset servicing.

Concrete initiatives illustrate that this debate has already moved beyond theory. Some banks are experimenting with tokenised deposits to preserve the two-tier banking model while modernising their technical foundations.

Others have positioned themselves closer to crypto-native ecosystems through custody, trading and digital asset infrastructure. Rather than translating existing bank money into tokenised form, they are integrating institutional services into emerging digital markets.

These approaches reflect different strategic assumptions about where long-term relevance will reside. Banks are not converging on a single blueprint at this moment in time, based on their beliefs about how the market will evolve.

From Curiosity to Inevitability

It may not come as a surprise if you bring different evangelists around the table to discuss tokenised assets: tokenisation has moved from curiosity to inevitability. Distributed ledger technologies and tokenised instruments are already operational in specific use cases. Not yet at a systemic scale, but with enough maturity, it helps non-involved parties decide whether to invest in it.

For years, banks could monitor developments in crypto and DLT from a safe distance, conducting proofs of concept while preserving optionality. Today, postponement carries a cost. Institutions that remain passive risk losing internal competence, forfeiting influence over emerging standards and becoming dependent on infrastructures shaped by others.

There is Visa’s Stablecoin Settlement in Circles USDC, with initial partners Cross River Bank and Lead Bank in the United States. J.P. Morgan Asset Management launched a Tokenised Money Market Fund on the Ethereum Blockchain, called MONY. A few years earlier, that same bank announced that it had BlackRock and Barclays on its Tokenised Collateral Network, an application on its Onyx Digital Assets platform. In September, HSBC launched a new Cross-Border Tokenised Deposit Service to allow corporate clients to securely move currencies in real time with instant 24/7 settlement, supporting cross-border transactions. In July, Standard Chartered launched its Digital Assets Trading to institutional clients.

The list goes on and on. What I’m trying to say is that “wait and see” is no longer neutral. Not investing in it, not partnering with the front-runners has become a choice, just like partnering with them, investing in them is a choice.

The Uncomfortable Question of Necessity

Perhaps the most consequential undercurrent of the discussion was the implicit challenge to banks’ assumed centrality. Stablecoin initiatives demonstrate that issuance, settlement and value transfer can increasingly occur outside traditional banking rails while still interfacing with regulated institutions.

Stablecoins have effectively become the closest alternative to cash, residing outside the network of control of financial institutions. Tokenisation does not automatically remove banks from the system. But it removes the guarantee that they are required at every step.

Banks remain relevant only where they provide capabilities that alternative infrastructures cannot easily replicate. In Luxembourg, the responses were pragmatic. Banks continue to add value in custody, governance, legal clarity, risk management and the integration of legacy systems with new technological layers. They operate across jurisdictions and provide structured accountability.

These capabilities are not new. However, in tokenised environments, they become more explicit and subject to closer examination.

Trust, Accountability and Governance

An important nuance in the discussion concerned the nature of trust. Trust was not presented as an inherent privilege of regulated institutions. It was framed as something that must be continuously expressed through accountability and governance.

In traditional finance, trust is often assumed to rest on legal enforceability, supervisory oversight and balance-sheet strength (as if we completely forgot about the Global Financial Crisis, as if the industry didn’t read my book “A New Ethos in Banking” ;)). Yet history reminds us that trust is not a permanent asset. It is conditional.

In tokenised systems, part of the trust architecture shifts toward code: cryptographic validation, automated execution and programmable settlement. But technology does not resolve liability, absorb losses or mediate disputes. When governance failures or liquidity shocks occur, accountability cannot be decentralised away. It must reside somewhere institutionally credible.

That is where regulated banks remain relevant. They provide structured governance, legal clarity and the capacity to manage risk across jurisdictions. Clients may transact on new rails, but they still expect clarity on who stands behind settlement finality, regulatory compliance and operational resilience.

This is also why the debate focused less on ownership and more on governance. The question is not who owns the blockchain. It is who ensures that it operates within legal, regulatory and prudential boundaries. Relevance in tokenised markets will not come from controlling infrastructure. It will come from embedding institutional discipline where it is still indispensable.

Trust does not oppose innovation. It conditions it. Institutions that operationalise governance in tokenised environments strengthen their role. Those that rely on legacy credibility may discover that trust does not automatically migrate to new rails.

The Strategic Dilemma: The Cost of Waiting

If there was one implicit warning running through the panel, it was this: doing nothing is no longer risk-free. But the dilemma is not simply about speed or cost. It is about positioning.

Tokenisation does not need to achieve systemic scale to influence the financial system. It only needs to become sufficiently stable and operational to set expectations. Once programmable settlement, tokenised deposits or stablecoin-based liquidity management become “normal” in defined segments, the strategic ground shifts, the network grows, and adoption follows.

The panel made clear that banks face real choices. Do they extend commercial bank money onto new rails through tokenised deposits, or allow stablecoins to define the cash leg? Do they build custody infrastructure internally, acquire capability, or partner with specialised providers? Do they aim to shape governance frameworks, or adapt to them later?

Waiting is not neutral because standards evolve over time. Technical protocols, liquidity conventions, and governance norms are continually being influenced, often by payment networks, fintechs, and crypto-native institutions that operate quickly within specific mandates. When these norms become established, late entrants will not be creators but rather participants.

Relevance rarely disappears abruptly. It erodes when infrastructure becomes ordinary without you having influenced its design.

Why This Matters for Amsterdam 2026

This is precisely why the continuation of this debate at The Banking Scene Conference 2026 in Amsterdam is so timely.

With Sarah Liebing, Head of Market Infrastructure and Innovation at De Nederlandsche Bank, Anoosh Arevshatian, Chief Product Officer at Zodia Custody, Xavier MacDaniel, Innovation Lead Digital Assets at Rabobank, and Sander van Loosbroek, Director at BCG Platinum as the moderator, the conversation will move from conceptual framing to supervisory, operational and balance-sheet reality.

The question is no longer whether tokenisation will happen. It is how regulated institutions define their role when it becomes normal. Supervisors will shape the perimeter. Custodians will operationalise asset control and resilience. Banks will decide how programmable money integrates with prudential balance-sheet logic.

When new rails become ordinary, banks will hopefully not disappear. But they will only matter where they remain indispensable.

The challenge is to bring strategic clarity about where institutional value persists, and where it quietly migrates.

Andrew shared a few takeaways about the sessions in Luxembourg with Rik, who also caught up with Roel Van Noten, Associate Partner at Avantage Reply Capital Markets, who shared his insights on the topics in the second half of the episode.

As always, you can find us on your favourite podcast platform here if you prefer to listen while commuting, driving, at the gym, or walking the dog etc :)