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 – Figure bought Kiavi for $538M, and on paper it's a clean lending deal. Look closer and it's a tokenization playbook: buy a vertical, drop it onto blockchain rails, keep the margin a growth company would envy.

📰 Stories You Can't Miss: America's biggest banks draw the line in the deposit-vs-stablecoin fight with a shared tokenized network; Janus Henderson plants itself on both sides of Ethena's stack at once; and Coinbase quietly moves to sit on both ends of a stablecoin payment - and keep the spread.

This newsletter is sponsored by M0!

Most stablecoin platforms give you one stack, one issuer, no choices.

M0 is modular. Choose your regulated issuer. Design how your stablecoin behaves. Change anything as your business evolves.

Your stablecoin, your stack, built around your business.

Learn more at m0.org.

Figure just bought Kiavi, the #1 residential transition loan lender. Cagney's framing: a $538 million cash transaction with roughly a four-year unlevered payback. On a lender that did over $250 million of revenue and over $100 million of EBITDA last year, that's a deal most CFOs would sign in a heartbeat. So good for them, right?

Here's the part that doesn't fit the lending box. That $538 million is Figure's own cash contribution — funded through a $600 million senior unsecured notes issuance — inside a $717 million total price, where a joint venture between Figure and Sixth Street takes Kiavi's balance-sheet loans and Figure takes the technology and operating platform. Figure is buying the engine, not the assets. And the reason that math works is tokenization, not lending.

Many of you will know Figure is not just any lending business. It's a lending business that built their own blockchain called Provenance, and they use that blockchain to tokenize all of their loans, and then they built a platform called Democratized Prime so that all of those tokenized loans could be resold and repackaged in a really efficient, low-cost manner. Kiavi alone is expected to add more than $7 billion in annual first-lien volume to Figure Connect and more than $100 million of monthly flow onto Democratized Prime.

And what that does is it keeps them asset-light, high-margin, and massively reduces their internal operating costs, making them an incredibly efficient lending business. They told the market exactly this: Kiavi's flow will be integrated faster and at lower operational cost than traditional financial infrastructure platforms — and that's what's reflected in the reaffirmed 60% EBITDA margin target. And now they can go acquire businesses in new loan verticals and run them on this exact same back-end platform.

So, Mike Cagney, former co-founder of SoFi, a lending business, now Co-Founder and Executive Chairman of Figure, has built a model here and a playbook that's really interesting. We have a public market company that tokenizes loans, holds an EBITDA margin a growth company would envy rather than a lending-like one, because tokenization enabled that. And now they can do M&A and deploy that all back into growing their business. Kiavi is the proof of concept: buy a vertical, drop it onto the tokenized rails, keep the margin.

This is really quite rare that you see this in the physics of financial services, but our tokenization platforms power unique capabilities that enable this sort of future. So you should be paying attention to these sorts of things that just look like TradFi guy did a TradFi thing. TradFi guy used tokenization to do something that would make the eyes bleed for almost anybody who's tried to do it before.

The banks just drew the boundary line in the deposit-versus-stablecoin fight. The useful read is not "Wall Street declares war on stablecoins." It's the opposite. By moving commercial bank deposits onto a shared ledger, JPMorgan, Citi, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and others are defending the turf they're best positioned to keep: interbank settlement and corporate treasury. The open-loop, crypto-adjacent edge goes to someone else. This is a perimeter defense, not an invasion.

Key Points:

The Tokenized Take:

The architecture reminds us of the Regulated Liability Network (RLN) - conceived by Citi - though no one is calling it that. And the release doesn't claim to be commercializing RLN. The New York Fed ran an RLN proof of concept in 2022, with findings published in July 2023. Several of the same names appear on both rosters: Citi, BNY Mellon, HSBC, PNC, TD, Truist, U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo, though JPMorgan and Bank of America, two of the four leads here, weren't in that pilot. The point is in the scope: the 2022 PoC tested commercial bank money plus a central-bank-reserve settlement leg. This launches with the first half and leaves the second for Washington.

The closest precedent isn't American. It's Qivalis, the European bank consortium we've been following since October 2025. The instruments differ: Qivalis is open-loop e-money/stablecoin, this is closed-loop deposits, and conflating them invites an avoidable correction. But the shape is identical: a dozen-plus banks, a neutral operator, a defensive posture, and a similar gap between announcement and deployment. We said of Qivalis that "signing up isn't showing up". Mark Monaco's demand admission makes the same point here. This is supply-led infrastructure. The demand-pull is on the stablecoin side. The American version could be the stronger one - for a specific reason. Qivalis must license a brand-new operator through De Nederlandsche Bank. These banks plugged into The Clearing House, whose rails already settle in central bank money through accounts at the Fed. This isn't greenfield plumbing. It's extending infrastructure TCH already runs - which de-risks one of the hardest problems in any consortium. 

Two questions now define the ceiling. First: how do tokens settle to par across different issuing banks? Second: does the Fed leg ever get added? They're linked. Par-fungibility is a settlement-asset problem,  and the central-bank-reserve tier from the 2022 PoC isn't part of this launch. Add it back and this becomes the shared-ledger settlement layer the industry has discussed for a decade. Leave it out and the ceiling is the member-bank perimeter: a better pipe between banks that already trust each other, and nothing for the open-loop dollar. The vendor pick and the entity name are the next signals. That's the move from signing up to showing up.

When BlackRock disclosed a UNI purchase in February, the contrast looked like gesture versus commitment. It's better read as depth. BlackRock listed its product on Uniswap and took a token stake. Two legs, its first real DeFi move.

Janus Henderson went further. It put its product inside Ethena's balance sheet as reserve backing, added an ENA governance-token position, a treasury allocation, and a distribution pipeline. Four legs. The $480 billion manager didn't just back Ethena - it positioned itself on both sides of Ethena's stack at once, as a buyer of the product and a manufacturer of what backs it.

Key Points:

Of the four legs, the reserve allocation may be the one that surprises least. Tokenized JAAA as onchain collateral already has a track record - Sky's Grove allocated $1 billion to it last summer, and Resolv integrated $100 million of JAAA into its collateral and yield framework through Aave Horizon in February. Ethena is the third protocol to pull it in. What's harder to find a precedent for is the manager taking a governance-token position in the same protocol that's buying its product.

The Tokenized Take:

It's worth tracing what actually flows back to Janus here. It collects the management fee on the CLO fund, it holds ENA and the upside that comes with it, it shares in the economics of any USDe and ENA products the two firms build, and it gains as reserve inclusion grows the fund's onchain assets. Reserve demand grows the fund. The distribution pipeline grows USDe. A bigger USDe pulls in more reserves. Janus earns on every turn.

Which is fine when credit markets are calm, and more complicated when they aren't. USDe was built on a delta-neutral basis trade, and AAA CLOs are a different animal. Picture a quarter where corporate defaults tick up and buyers for leveraged loans thin out - the kind of week where prices that normally barely move suddenly do. In a stress scenario, Janus would be the firm manufacturing the reserve asset, holding the protocol token, and selling the product - while also being the one a treasury team calls to ask whether JAAA is under pressure. That's a real conflict. Raise it before treating USDe as a cash equivalent, not after.

None of this makes the structure unworkable. It may be the fullest expression yet of something that's run through the whole year: asset managers moving past passive token tickets toward owning the rails, the reserves, and the distribution in a single relationship.

Janus's appetite looks settled. The harder question is whether USDe can survive a registered ETP wrapper at all. It's not a GENIUS-style payment stablecoin - it's a yield-bearing synthetic dollar, and a regulated product built on that yield sits in uncertain territory under CLARITY. The H2 2026 launch is what turns this into a channel reaching pensions and insurers. Or what reveals the wrapper's limits.

Coinbase shipped two products in a week. The first, built with Cardless, is a secured credit card that lets a holder pledge USDC as collateral and spend against a credit line. The second, with Checkout.com, switches on stablecoin acceptance across 1,000+ enterprise merchants, who keep settling in dollars while their customers pay in USDC.

Two different audiences, easy to file as routine product news. Put them side by side and the outline of a fuller payment loop comes into view: Coinbase is moving to sit on both sides of the payment: the consumer's spend and the merchant's receipt, in the same dollar it earns reserve income on through its Circle agreement.

Key Points:

The Tokenized Take:

We tracked Coinbase's talks to buy BVNK last November; in March, Mastercard bought BVNK instead. BVNK was the processor-orchestration layer serving names like Worldpay and Flywire - the merchant-acceptance category Coinbase wanted to own. The Checkout.com deal is Coinbase serving that same category through partnership rather than acquisition: a major PSP now runs Coinbase's in-house acceptance stack instead of a layer Coinbase would have bought. One proof point - not a retired thesis. But it's the first evidence that losing BVNK didn't cost Coinbase the acceptance business it wanted.

The thread that ties the card, the loans, and the acceptance deal together is not a product strategy. It's a balance strategy. As of today, Coinbase earns 100% of reserve income on USDC held on its own platform, versus 50% on USDC held elsewhere. So the design incentive across these products runs one way: keep dollars, and the assets behind them, inside Coinbase rather than at a bank. The card locks USDC collateral on-platform. The Morpho loans move a user's pledged crypto onchain to a Morpho smart contract. The resulting USDC lands in the user's Coinbase account - not at a bank. And the Checkout.com deal routes a major PSP's stablecoin acceptance through Coinbase's rails - merchants still settle in dollars, but the consumer-side payment runs on USDC and USDT that Coinbase processes. On the card, the economics are simple: Coinbase collects reserve income on the locked collateral, pays the user's USDC rewards rate, and keeps the spread.

The architecture chain people will draw from the press releases - issuance to credit to spending to acceptance - is real, but it's the support, not the story. The fascinating part is balance retention: each product gives a user one more reason to keep USDC and crypto collateral on Coinbase. Worth watching: the Circle reserve-share agreement comes up for renewal in August — and the same economics are already under pressure from distribution deals like Hyperliquid's.

Note who the credit layer serves at both ends. Cardless hands a secured card to the thin-file, credit-invisible crypto holder; the Morpho loans hand seven-figure liquidity to the crypto-rich. Same collateral logic — don't sell your crypto — feeding the same on-platform balance.

Which is where the regulatory line gets interesting. Coinbase won conditional OCC approval on April 2 for Coinbase National Trust Company - a charter covering custody, related transactional services, and access to affiliate products like Prime Financing. No retail deposits. No fractional-reserve banking. The ICBA is already opposing it on National Bank Act grounds.

The charter stops there. The deposit-, credit-, and payment-like economics (the card, the loans, the acceptance flows, the USDC balances) run outside it, through First Electronic, Morpho, and Circle. The OCC drew the line short of deposit-taking. Coinbase's most bank-like products sit just on the other side.

The conditional-to-final conversion turns on compliance build-out, hiring, and examinations - not on whether those adjacent products are bank-like. The sharper question is structural: if GENIUS implementing rules treat stablecoin rewards as a form of yield, the balance-retention economics underneath all three products get complicated. That's the one worth watching.

Thanks so much for reading the Tokenized Newsletter!

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

Disclaimers