If you're reading this and still haven't signed up, click the subscribe button below!

Pssst. We also have a podcast… find that here on your favourite podcast player or here on YouTube 🙏

Welcome to the Tokenized newsletter, brought to you by the creators of the Tokenized Podcast. Written by Simon Taylor of Fintech Brainfood and Shwetabh Sameer of Molten Ventures.

We are the newsletter for institutions that need help preparing for a Tokenized future.

We run through the headlines every week, what it means for you and a market readout. Always with an institutional, business-focused perspective. 

Join us every week as we meet your Tokenization needs.

💬 Simon's Market Readout : Why European banks are taking the lead on stablecoins — and what StableCon EMEA, Qivalis, and Money 20/20 tell us about the bank-fintech balance heading into 2027 

📰 Stories You Can't Miss: Brussels reopens MiCA while 37 banks line up behind Qivalis; the Bank of England blinks on holding caps and joins the FCA on wholesale tokenization; Trump signs the broadest fintech EO yet and the Fed answers in 24 hours; and Standard Chartered absorbs Zodia, revealing the G-SIB playbook for digital assets.

This newsletter is sponsored by M0!

Stablecoins are becoming global financial infrastructure.

Brands partner to issue their own stablecoins with regulated issuers.

Stablecoin issuers want to issue for the most valuable brands.

Both need robust tech.

M0 is the only platform where issuers and brands get together to build stablecoins.

Make your own money. m0.org.

I had a great week at StableCon EMEA in Amsterdam. It was really interesting to see the European industry — banking, payments — come together and advance the stablecoin conversation in a market that looks quite different to the US.

I shared the stage with Sabih Behzad, the managing director at Deutsche Bank, and he explained that his clients — across PSPs, across tech-forward companies, and indeed digital assets businesses as you'd expect, but even some corporate treasuries — are very keen to use stablecoins in exotic currencies. And they're looking to their banks to help them do it. I don't think that would have been true for a European bank to be hearing pre-GENIUS Act and pre-MiCA. But we have those now. The regulatory floor is in place, and it's changed what banks are hearing from their corporate clients.

And the proof point landed while we were there. The Qivalis group of banks announced 25 additional financial institutions have joined the consortium. We've been tracking Qivalis since October 2025 — from the initial consortium formation, through the December naming, the Fireblocks infrastructure selection in April, BBVA and DZ BANK joining as members eleven and twelve. This is the latest beat in that arc, and it's a significant one. The European stablecoin context looks quite different to the US, in that the banks are actually taking a much more leading role. And that's a bit counterintuitive.

So it's going to be fascinating rolling into Money 20/20 this year, thinking about what the balance looks like and how fintechs and crypto-native firms partner with banks who potentially play a much bigger role — yes as on-ramps, but also in corporate treasury.

And I think it's really starting to land now that stablecoins and tokenized deposits are not competitors. They coexist. They do different things for different people. Stablecoins are open-loop — they can go anywhere, they can go quickly, all you need is compatible software. The tokenized deposit can only live inside the bank. But the tokenized deposit can attract yield, it can offer better lending rates, and there are advantages to both. That conversation is maturing in a good way.

I'm very interested to watch the work of the European Commission and see how they begin to advance the stablecoin conversation even further. Optically, Europe isn't necessarily a big fan of losing monetary sovereignty. But Euro-denominated stablecoins represent an opportunity to make a real play in the opposite direction. That's the tension to watch — and Money 20/20 will be the next venue where it plays out.

Two things happened in Brussels and Amsterdam this month that need to be read together. On 20 May the European Commission opened public consultation on the MiCA review — formally a scheduled Articles 140 and 142 exercise, politically an admission that the world's first comprehensive crypto framework was built for a competitive landscape that no longer exists. The day before, Qivalis announced it had tripled its bank count from 12 to 37 across 15 European markets, putting a substantial share of the Eurozone's systemically important banks behind a euro stablecoin that Christine Lagarde, 2 weeks days earlier, said Europe would rather not need.

You can't separate these. The review will have to grapple with an operating reality the consortium just made concrete. And the firms most exposed to whichever way it lands are the ones that already moved.

Key Points:

The Tokenized Take:

The thing to understand about the MiCA review is that the Commission isn't running it because MiCA failed. It's running it because the calendar said it had to, and because the world MiCA was drafted for (pre-GENIUS Act, pre-federal trust charter race, pre-Hong Kong stablecoin regime, pre-UAE full-stack licensing) doesn't exist anymore. The review is on schedule. The competitive landscape it's reviewing into is not. The awkward sequencing is that firms made licensing and structuring calls before the scope of the review’s pressure points became visible.

What makes the Qivalis timing so striking is that it inverts the political assumption the review was built on. The implicit theory of MiCA (and of the digital euro project running in parallel) was that if Europe didn't act, dollar stablecoins would dominate by default and a public alternative would be needed to defend monetary sovereignty. Two years in, the dollar stablecoins are dominating (Lagarde herself put the share at roughly 98%), the digital euro is not expected to enter circulation before 2029, and the actual sovereignty defence is being built by the supervised commercial banks using the e-money licence the framework already provides. Lagarde's preferred answer is now competing with a bank-led market solution Qivalis inside the same European policy architecture. That's the subtext of every paragraph of the consultation, even where the document is too polite to say so.

Start with multi-issuance, because that's the part of the review where actual euros are at stake. Circle today issues EURC and USDC into Europe through an EU-licensed entity, with a separate non-EU issuer serving the rest of the world. How those linked entities share reserves, redemption obligations and supervisory oversight is one of the clearest questions MiCA didn't fully resolve, and exactly what EU supervisors have flagged for the review. The Commission's existing technical guidance has been read as accommodating to the current arrangement; the EBA and ESMA's joint reports point in a stricter direction. The review is where that gap gets closed, in one direction or the other.

A year ago, settling it the stricter way would have materially constrained EURC - the only euro stablecoin operating at scale. There was no alternative to point to. That's no longer true. Qivalis has 37 bank issuers and a deposit-backed model lined up behind a euro stablecoin targeting H2 2026. And it's not the only one in Europe. Société Générale-FORGE's EURCV, Banking Circle's EURI and Quantoz's EURQ are all live today. Though none has achieved meaningful float, together they prove the regulatory pathway works. The political cost of moving against Circle's structure has dropped materially.

What Qivalis brings that the existing issuers don't is distribution. EURCV, EURI and EURQ are products in search of a corporate user base. Qivalis arrives with 37 banks' worth of corporate and SME relationships already in place — the moment DNB approval lands, those flows have an obvious distribution path. Spain is the cleanest illustration. It's simultaneously Qivalis's largest national bloc with seven banks and, according to Brighty’s published data, a leading retail market in Europe for Circle’s EURC. Whichever way the review lands on multi-issuance, somebody in Madrid is rebuilding a stack.

The third item on the watch list is the one we should care about most, and it's getting the least attention. The consultation asks a deceptively dry question: when a token is issued in one EU country, held in custody in another and sold to a buyer in a third, which country's law governs what? Today there is no common answer. Each Member State applies its own private law to questions of ownership, transfer and what happens if something goes wrong. Take a concrete example. A tokenized bond issued in Luxembourg, custodied in Frankfurt, transferred to a buyer in Milan. If the issuer defaults or the custodian fails, whose courts decide who owns what, and on what basis? Right now the honest answer is "it depends, and the lawyers will bill you to find out." That uncertainty is the one of the main reasons institutional tokenization in Europe runs slower than the press releases suggest.

Every piece of European tokenization infrastructure that matters sits on top of this question. Kinexys, Clearstream's D7, the ECB's Pontes and Appia wholesale settlement trials, the tokenized funds Luxembourg sponsors keep launching - all of them run into the same cross-border legal ambiguity until it gets answered. If the review delivers a workable conflict-of-laws rule, European tokenization gets unstuck. If it doesn't, the infrastructure keeps shipping into legal ambiguity, and adoption stays where it is.

The review mandate also reaches DeFi, staking, lending and a floated certification scheme for protocols. This is worth watching for who shows up to write the consultation responses, but unlikely to produce binding rules this cycle. The more immediate question is timing. Member State recommendations land in June, the Commission's formal report by mid-2027 and Level 1 amendments not before 2028, but the supervisory practice that actually governs CASPs day-to-day (how ESMA and national authorities treat multi-issuance, where they draw the MiFID II boundary, what they require in licensing files) will shift much sooner through guidance, Q&As and individual decisions. The window where firms can meaningfully shape that practice closes in the next few quarters, not when the legislative text appears.

So the question for any institution operating in or into Europe is not "what will MiCA 2.0 look like in 2028." It is "what are we telling the consultation right now, and what are our peers telling it?"

Qivalis already answered. Whether the rest of the market lets the bank consortium write the next version of European stablecoin policy by default is the actual story of the next six months.

Sarah Breeden, the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England for Financial Stability, indicated that the Bank is actively reconsidering the individual holding limits proposed in its November 2025 consultation (the £20k individual limit that drew six months of industry pushback) with aggregate issuance caps on providers emerging as the clearest alternative. The economics of the proposed 60/40 reserve model remain a live issue for industry, though this week’s clearest regulatory softening was on holding limits rather than reserve composition.

She called the original proposals "overly conservative”. Two days earlier, the FCA and BoE jointly published a Call for Input on wholesale tokenization, their clearest joint articulation yet of how UK wholesale tokenisation should develop.

Taken together, this is the acknowledgement that the old design wasn't working, and the signal of what replaces it. The draft rules land in June, with final systemic stablecoin rules targeted by year-end 2026.

Key Points:

The Tokenized Take:

The individual caps of £20k were defensible as temporary prudential guardrails - we said as much in November when RTGS access and the gilt allocation made them satisfactory. What six months of feedback exposed is that "temporary" needed an exit mechanism the BoE hadn't designed, and wallet-level enforcement doesn't work for borderless assets in practice. Aggregate issuance caps may offer the BoE a more workable way to manage deposit-flight risk, a model that looks more familiar. They also open the door for UK banks: if the constraint sits at the issuer level, a bank running a sterling stablecoin operation faces the same kind of supervisory architecture it already manages for deposits. The operational translation is familiar, which accelerates adoption.

The joint FCA/BoE authorship matters more here. The November 2025 framework underdelivered partly because conduct and prudential supervision ran on different clocks. Co-publication makes the end-2026 timeline is timeline look more serious than aspirational, though execution still matters.

And the synchronisation service is the under-discussed commitment. For treasury teams and clearing desks, central-bank settlement infrastructure purpose-built for tokenized assets, alongside 16 firms already in the DSS, tells you the BoE isn't just permitting tokenization. It's building the rail. The EU's DLT Pilot Regime opened in 2023 and attracted a handful of small platforms. The UK version is opening with Euroclear, HSBC and LSEG.

This week is the regulator conceding that caution alone is not a strategy if it prices the UK out of the market. The June draft rules are the test: if aggregate issuance caps land at levels that let UK sterling stablecoins reach institutional scale, this was a genuine reset. If they're calibrated like the holding caps were, it was a rename.

The interesting thing isn't the executive order. It's the 24-hour gap.

Trump signed two EOs on Tuesday. The Fed published its "skinny" master account proposal on Wednesday. That sequencing tells you the Fed had this ready, the EO gave it political cover, and the master account question that's been deferred since Custodia sued in 2022 just stopped being deferred. The logjam has been cracking since Kraken's March approval. This week it entered formal policy development.

Key Points:

The Tokenized Take:

The most under-covered line in the EO is the one asking the Fed to report on whether independent Reserve Bank action on master accounts is legally permissible. For a decade, the Fed's defense of regional autonomy has been "that's how the Act works." Asking Treasury and the Fed to publicly opine on the question is a quiet but pointed move. If the report concludes the Board needs consistency authority, Custodia's core procedural argument (that twelve regional gatekeepers produced arbitrary outcomes) gains real weight, and Kraken's Kansas City approval becomes the template rather than the exception. The Fed will almost certainly try to satisfy the EO by pointing at the skinny account proposal as the consistency policy. Whether that's enough depends on what the 120-day report says.

Then there's the BaaS line. The EO explicitly targets guidance that "favors incumbents at the expense of innovators" - language aimed directly at the third-party risk enforcement wave that followed Synapse. Sponsor banks have lived under consent orders since 2023, and embedded finance programs have been under heavy constraint, repricing, restructuring, or shutting down entirely. Some, like Cross River, kept building (including stablecoin rails). Most slowed. An EO that names this guidance for formal review signals the supervisory posture is shifting. Embedded finance teams should be reopening the sponsor bank conversations they shelved last year. The parallel AML order keeps the bar high - this is a reset, not an amnesty.

The scope is where this breaks from prior EOs. Biden's 2022 digital assets order and Trump's January 2025 stablecoin order were both siloed to crypto. This one treats blockchain services as just another category of financial activity — same as lending, brokerage, custody, or underwriting — and tells regulators to apply the same innovation review to all of them. That reframing has M&A implications. The EO's definition of fintech now maps directly onto the activities bank holding companies are already permitted to acquire. It doesn't eliminate supervisory review, but it lowers the regulatory ambiguity that's kept Tier 1 banks watching rather than buying. If JPMorgan, BNY, or Citi want to acquire a custodian or stablecoin infrastructure firm, the pathway just got shorter. Expect that to show up in 2026 deal flow.

What the EO doesn't do is what makes it durable. It doesn't override the Federal Reserve Act, doesn't grant master accounts to exchanges directly, doesn't preempt state money transmitter regimes. That discipline makes an APA challenge harder to win, and turns the skinny account into a moat for onshore charter holders rather than a giveaway to exchanges.

The charter race we covered in October isn't obsolete. The prize just got bigger. Watch the 120-day Fed report - that's where the Reserve Bank legality question gets answered, and where the next round of winners gets named.

Rumored for weeks, confirmed Monday. But the absorption isn't the story - the playbook is. Standard Chartered just demonstrated, in one transaction, how a G-SIB takes a crypto business from regulatory sandbox to balance sheet without breaking either side. Every bank still running a digital assets venture should be reading the deal structure.

Key Points:

The Tokenized Take:

The interesting thing isn't that Standard Chartered absorbed Zodia. It's how they did it - and what it tells you about the operating model G-SIBs are converging on for digital assets.

The structure is a clean bifurcation. The regulated, balance-sheet-adjacent business - client custody - goes inside the bank, a preferred model once the rules are clear and the revenue is real. The software platform stays outside, as an independent venture with other banks as investors and customers. SC gets the client relationships and the recurring custody fees on its P&L. Zodia Solutions keeps the optionality of becoming the infrastructure layer for every bank that doesn't want to build its own.

Call it sandbox-to-balance-sheet, with the software layer left behind as a venture. It's a more replicable model than what JPMorgan did with Kinexys or BNY with Wove: both built in-house from day one, but possible because those banks had the crypto-native engineering bench and a single dominant regulatory home. SC has neither, and the JV was the workaround. The more interesting signal is on the other side of the cap table: Northern Trust co-founded the business in 2020 and is now being bought out as SC doubles down: a divergence worth watching, even if the motives on either side are not yet fully public. Worth watching which read the rest of the industry follows.

We've covered these pieces separately: SC as BUIDL custodian, Anchorpoint's HKMA license, Zodia as a Tempo validator. Under one banking group, we have six layers: Custody, trading, market making, prime brokerage, tokenization, stablecoin issuance, deep in the two regions (APAC and the Middle East) where tokenized asset demand is moving fastest. This is one of the most complete publicly visible stack among G-SIBs. HSBC is close on stablecoins and custody but lacks the prime brokerage and market-making piece. JPMorgan has the deposit-token and tokenization rails but isn't a third-party custodian at scale. Citi has the FX and correspondent banking footprint but is further behind on the crypto-native infrastructure. The third-party custody alternatives: BNY, State Street, Anchorage, now have a G-SIB competitor that also ships them a software platform.

This is what a money center bank for tokenized money looks like. In traditional finance, money center banks sit at the intersection of FX, correspondent banking, custody, and settlement: JPMorgan, Citi, and HSBC for dollars. SC is building the equivalent for digital assets. The proof point is already on the page: the same bank that's one of three institutions authorized to print physical Hong Kong dollars is now one of two licensed to mint the digital version. The bank that runs correspondent banking for emerging market dollar flows wants to run the custody and settlement layer when those flows tokenize.

So, if you're a regional bank, a mid-tier asset manager, or a treasury team, whose custody do you end up using? SC just made its pitch, and the pitch comes with a software platform you can license. We can expect more banks to follow the sandbox-to-balance-sheet path over the next 24 months, particularly in jurisdictions where regulation arrived late and JV structures gave incumbents cover while it caught up. The model has now been proven once at G-SIB scale. The second and third examples have a template and will move faster.

Thanks so much for reading the Tokenized Newsletter!

Please share this edition or share it with your colleagues if you enjoyed it!

Disclaimers