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: Kraken × MoneyGram isn’t a partnership headline — it’s an exchange choosing distribution over the “everything app,” and proving the off-ramp is becoming the real battleground. 

📰 Stories You Can't Miss: A stablecoin-yield compromise that’s “ban the savings layer, allow the payments layer,” Coinbase treating layoffs as an operating model, Rain forcing Visa and Mastercard to compete for stablecoin card volume, and Securitize/DTCC moving tokenized securities closer to a regulated, end-to-end market structure (with custody, transfer agency, and real dates)

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.

The Kraken-MoneyGram partnership is fascinating. New world digital asset business meets — dare I say it — old world money transmission business. And it's live. It's in production.

MoneyGram's reinvention around their new core app is making them a compelling off-ramp partner for digital assets businesses. Kraken, one of the largest and longest-tenured exchanges, has a solid retail user base — especially in Europe — and can now potentially enable that user base to access a remittance product, a payments product, a payouts product at scale. This is a combination of two brands you wouldn't have imagined just four or five years ago.

And it points to a strategic choice worth paying attention to. We went through a cycle two or three years ago where exchanges were trying to be all things to all people — the "everything app." Kraken is going quite a different route. It is launching its own consumer-facing app, it is going institutional, but it is also partnering. That's an interesting spread bet versus suddenly trying to do prediction markets and suddenly trying to do everything else.

This is a mechanism I've not seen one of the major exchanges exploit before. If you start to scratch at it, you wonder what other partnerships are out there between traditional businesses that have distribution and some of the newer digital assets businesses.

The months-long stablecoin yield deadlock — the one we've tracked through the CEA study, the ABA counterattack, and at least two collapsed markup dates — appears to have a resolution. Whether both sides actually accept it is a different question.

Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) released compromise text on Friday that draws a single line: no crypto firm may pay yield on stablecoin balances that is "economically or functionally equivalent to the payment of interest or yield on an interest-bearing bank deposit." Rewards tied to "bona fide activities or transactions" (i.e., trading, payments, staking, platform participation) are permitted. Federal regulators get one year to write implementing rules.

Circle jumped ~18-20% Monday. Coinbase rose ~7%, based on sources. Polymarket odds for CLARITY Act passage in 2026 jumped nine points in a single day. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott said he's targeting a May markup with a June or July floor vote.

Both sides claim victory, and both sides have reasons to be unhappy - which is how you know it's an actual compromise.

Key Points:

The Tokenized Take:

The compromise draws a line exactly where we described it emerging in April: banks keep the savings layer, stablecoins get the payments layer. Senator Alsobrooks told ABA members in March that "all of us will probably walk away just a little bit unhappy." That's the equilibrium the text delivers.

One voice absent from the opposition: the Electronic Payments Coalition (EPC). The EPC —(Visa, Mastercard, and the major credit card issuers' lobbying arm) exists to fight competitive threats to the card market. The compromise explicitly allows cashback on stablecoin transactions. If that were the existential threat banks have framed it as, the EPC would be lobbying hard. Their silence tells us something. Credit card issuers appear confident enough in their own product - annual fees, revolving interest, interchange revenue. That stablecoin payments rewards don't register as a competitive concern. Also, we covered Mastercard paying $1.8B for BVNK in March. The card networks aren't fighting stablecoins. They're buying or partnering with the infrastructure.

The banks' real concern was always the savings layer, and they got that banned. But the activity-based rewards carve-out may concede more than they realize.

The bill leaves every hard definitional question — what counts as "economically or functionally equivalent," where loyalty programs end and deposit products begin — to regulators tasked with writing implementing rules. Two years ago, agencies had wide latitude to interpret language like this. Post-Loper Bright (which means - courts now judge for themselves), they don't. Any aggressive interpretation faces immediate legal challenge, and the vagueness of the statutory text gives challengers real ammunition. The ambiguity that made the deal politically possible may make it legally unenforceable.

And even if the definitions hold, the payments carve-out is how stablecoins get into people's hands. Once firms establish stablecoins as payment instruments with transaction-linked rewards, the infrastructure follows: wallets open, rails get built, user behavior forms. The passive yield ban protects deposit pricing power today. It does nothing to stop the payments layer from making the savings layer contestable again in the next Congress.

Bank of America's equity research team, notably, sees the deal differently from the trade groups. Analyst Ebrahim Poonawala called the compromise a net positive across bank sub-sectors — alleviating deposit flight concerns, reducing regulatory uncertainty, and letting banks engage with digital asset infrastructure on more controlled terms. The analysts modeling bank earnings aren't worried. The lobbyists defending deposit pricing power are.

The immediate risk is the calendar. The ABA coalition's promise of "detailed suggestions" in "the coming days" tells us: if those land as proposed amendments during markup, each one becomes a procedural opportunity to delay. Galaxy Digital pegged the odds of passage at roughly 50-50 in April, citing the sheer number of unresolved questions under severe time pressure.

And as we've covered extensively: every week of delay is another week the existing regime runs with no yield restrictions at all. The banks' own fallback is worse than the compromise on the table.

The memo Brian Armstrong posted to X yesterday wasn't just about the layoffs. It was about what Coinbase is becoming. Cutting 14% of the workforce (~ 700 people) is the news. The blueprint underneath it is the story.

Armstrong described a company being rebuilt as an "intelligence with humans around the edge." Org hierarchy capped at five layers. No pure managers - every leader has to be a working contributor. Teams shrinking to single people, supported by AI agents doing the coordination work that used to require a department. The framing is: this isn't a cost cut that reverses when the market recovers. It's a permanent restructure.

Key Points:

The Tokenized Take:

Coinbase isn't the first to do this. In February, Jack Dorsey cut nearly half of Block's workforce (~4,000 people) citing AI, and the stock jumped 24% after hours. Block was targeting $2 million gross profit per head, four times its 2019 benchmark. The market didn't just accept the rationale; it rewarded it. Every CEO watching that moment learned something: Wall Street now prices AI-driven headcount reduction as a sign of strength, not distress.

That's the context Armstrong is operating in. And it matters for how you read his letter.

The dual justification of a) market cyclicality and b) AI productivity, is doing two different jobs. The market argument explains the timing. The AI argument explains why the headcount doesn't come back. Coinbase isn't saying it will rehire when crypto recovers. It's saying the company that emerges will be structurally smaller by design. That's a harder commitment to walk back, and it's the part worth watching.

The real question for anyone building or competing with Coinbase on stablecoin rails, custody, or Base infrastructure is what this cost structure looks like in 18 months if the model holds. A financial services firm running one-person pods on AI agents has fundamentally different unit economics than one running traditional team structures. Traditional banks can't replicate that quickly – they have compliance, governance, and regulatory requirements, which make it structurally difficult. Firms like Coinbase and Block are tech companies first. That's always been the structural advantage; AI just made it visible on the balance sheet.

There’s a broader pattern we can see in the market: AI productivity gains pressure boards to cut headcount, markets reward the cuts, which pressures more boards to follow. Whether the underlying economics fully justify it or the narrative is partly self-fulfilling, the signal is consistent. Coinbase and Block are tech-native fintech firms, but the template they're running is spreading across sectors. The firms that haven't yet had this conversation internally are simply later in the queue.

Rain becoming a Mastercard Principal Member sounds like a network expansion. It may prove to be a negotiating reset for many issuer clients on Rain’s platform.

Until this week, brands launching stablecoin card programs through Rain were on Visa by default. Now they pick. Both networks cover 210+ countries, so this isn't about acceptance reach: it's about the fact that Visa and Mastercard now have to compete for Rain's volume. That changes the terms both networks offer.

Key Points:

The Tokenized Take:

Rain isn't a program manager in the traditional sense - it's the issuer. That distinction controls more of the program economics than anything else in the stack. As the issuer, Rain owns the BIN, sets the risk and compliance architecture, and determines how interchange flows back to the program sponsor. The brand is Rain's client, not its co-pilot.

Compare that to how Bridge or a traditional program manager operates: the issuing bank sits above them and holds the real leverage. It's the same structural problem that has plagued Marqeta - a processor/issuing platform, but not the issuer, which means economics and continuity can be shaped by partners above them and a handful of key clients. When Marqeta’s relationship with Block shifted, customer concentration risk immediately became as a core investor concern. Rain doesn’t carry the same sponsor-bank-above-you exposure.

When Rain adds Mastercard principal membership, the value isn't a second acceptance footprint. It's a second bidder. Visa and Mastercard compete hard for issuer programs: BIN sponsorship terms, co-marketing dollars, preferential interchange structures for high-volume programs. Rain's clients now have leverage they didn't have yesterday.

The moat Rain holds today: issuer license, dual principal membership, stablecoin settlement plumbing, and API middleware for global platform companies, can take 12 to 24 months to replicate. Galileo, Marqeta, and i2c are all building stablecoin-adjacent capabilities, but they do not occupy the same position in the stablecoin issuing stack that Rain is targeting. Within that window, the differentiation moves to vertical specialization and institutional treasury integration.

The infrastructure lead Rain has built is real. The question isn't whether the category catches up. It's whether Rain uses this window to go deep in specific verticals before the window closes.

This week, Securitize didn't make one move. It made two — and together they close a loop that the tokenized equity market has been missing since the beginning (issuance → custody → settlement → distribution).

Key Points:

The Tokenized Take:

Let's start with the Computershare deal, because it's the one that changes the conversation at the corporate level.

The standard objection from any IR or treasury team when tokenized equity comes up has been: "What does it require us to change?" The honest answer used to be: quite a lot. New filings, new infrastructure, new rails for shareholders. Now the answer is: call Computershare, the same firm already handling your corporate actions, and add ISTs alongside your existing shares. Shareholders who want to hold tokenized can. Those who don't, don't. Nothing in your capital structure moves.

That's not a small thing. Computershare processes corporate actions for the majority of S&P 500 companies. When the world's largest transfer agent makes tokenized shares a standard option rather than a special project, the friction cost of not offering them starts to rise. The first few issuers who do this will be seen as forward-thinking. Within two years, the ones who haven't will be fielding questions about why.

There's a competitive implication worth naming directly. In January, we covered Superstate raising $82.5M to become the transfer agent for tokenized securities .

Their pitch was to crypto-forward issuers willing to adopt new infrastructure. Computershare's pitch is to every S&P 500 company that already uses them — which is most of them. That's a harder room to walk into when the incumbent just added the same feature.

Now the FINRA approval. The "conventional membership structure" detail is the one to focus on. Previous tokenized custody arrangements have relied on no-action letters, pilot frameworks, or purpose-built entities. This is a standard broker-dealer doing standard custody — just for tokenized securities. That matters because it creates a replicable template. Every other broker-dealer now has a regulatory path to follow, not a waiver to apply for.

The atomic settlement piece compounds that. When a single regulated entity can custody a tokenized security and settle it against a stablecoin in the same transaction, the settlement gap disappears. That gap — the time between trade execution and final settlement — is where prime brokers and custodians currently earn financing revenue. It's not the end of that model, but it's the first proof that the model is compressible.

One caveat worth flagging for any risk team reading this: the stablecoin leg of that atomic swap is not a solved problem. Which stablecoin, regulated under which framework, and what happens to an in-flight settlement during a de-peg event are questions that don't yet have standardised answers.

Securitize has added transfer-agent infrastructure to the stack, including its March 2026 role as NYSE’s first digital transfer-agent partner, and now via Computershare, distribution to the majority of the US listed equity market. That's not a series of partnerships. That's a stack. The question every custodian and prime broker should be asking is whether they want to be part of that stack, or whether they're building their own answer before they have to.

The scope hasn't changed since December's no-action letter: Russell 1000, major ETFs, Treasuries. What has: DTCC now has hard dates and a named working group that reads like a market structure census

Key Points:

The Tokenized Take:

The dates matter. But the participant list may matter even more. When Nasdaq and NYSE are both inside the same working group — alongside every major custodian, market maker, and asset manager — the parallel exchange story we've been tracking converges. These firms can compete at the venue layer. At clearing, they're standardizing together.

That convergence extends to the TradFi-DeFi bridge. Circle, Ripple Prime, and Ondo sitting alongside Goldman and State Street suggests the digital cash settlement conversation is already forming around the same table — because the missing piece hasn't moved. As we noted in our March 25 edition, what launches in October is tokenized delivery, not tokenized settlement. Securities still settle against fiat through NSCC on a T+1 timeline. Instant settlement — the operational transformation institutional treasuries actually want — requires a digital cash leg that doesn't exist yet.

The open question for the July pilot: which chains make the cut? Canton Network's creators are in the room. So is LayerZero, whose Zero chain DTCC backed in February.

Chain selection will determine who builds the interoperability layer for US capital markets. And the firms already in that working group have a head start on the answer.

Thanks so much for reading the Tokenized Newsletter!

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

Disclaimers