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 the CLARITY Act yield fight is the wrong war for banks, and why FX — not deposits — is the prize sitting unclaimed. 

📰 Stories You Can't Miss: Mastercard turns on always-on card settlement across six stablecoins and eight chains; Paxos wins the first SEC clearing-agency nod to put stock and cash on one ledger; the CFTC governs perps as a category, approving Kalshi's domestic contract while routing US flow to Deribit; and Deel issues its own dollar on Stripe's rails, going after the paycheck before it ever leaves the app. 

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 yield fight in the CLARITY Act has been framed as a fight to the death — Jamie Dimon on one side, Brian Armstrong on the other, banks and stablecoins locked in a zero-sum cage match where one only wins if the other loses. I find that framing intellectually dishonest and unhelpful. Stablecoins benefit all parties, and the banks most of all. The instinct to grow a closed-loop network as large as possible — and invite others into it — is powerful, and the perverse incentives are real. But it's the wrong game.

Start with the thing the banks already got right. JPM Coin is a phenomenal product. It dwarfs the entire stablecoin industry in settlement, having moved more than $3 trillion in real payments volume to date. The best estimate of real stablecoin settlement — from McKinsey and Artemis — sits around $300 billion. One closed loop, ten times larger than the biggest open loop in the world. So the zero-sum reading almost writes itself: if stablecoins win, banks lose, and there's the non-trivial question of what happens to deposits that become stablecoins.

That's a distraction. The biggest banks in the world are succeeding because of their payments franchises. JPMorgan included. Yes, it leans on deposits too, but payments has been its engine room of growth for the past decade and the reason it clears more than $10 trillion per day. Trillion with a T.

Payments is a great business, and payments is about money that moves — not money that stays still. Stablecoins are money that moves. Deposits are money at rest: hold them, fund lending against them, keep them from leaving for as long as possible. A stablecoin might earn you some yield and you might hold it a while, but that yield doesn't fund lending the way a deposit does, and it usually isn't nearly as profitable. So the deposits the industry is fighting to protect were never the engine anyway.

Three things follow for banks weighing whether to leave the closed loop.

1. FX is the prize, and it's sitting unclaimed. Stablecoin FX spreads today are nowhere near wholesale market FX. For some people, in some corridors, some of the time, they beat what a retail customer gets in correspondent banking — but no serious payments player has a reason to look at them yet. A bank that connected its liquidity to stablecoins could be an off-ramp in a local market with liquidity that dwarfs anything available today, and win an enormous share of new FX business in a market growing week by week. That's one product line. I know of one very large bank actively looking at exactly this.

2. The yield fight is the wrong battlefield. Banks will have many business cases for stablecoins, and they'll be net accretive. Treating yield as the decisive front mistakes a distraction for the war.

3. Waiting for a CBDC is betting against gravity. "We'll run our closed loops until central bank digital currency arrives" is pushing gravity backwards, or hoping it no longer exists. CBDCs are 10 to 15 years away at best. Payments want to be real-time. Hyperliquid exists. The genie is out of the bottle. 24/7 settlement is needed now — not in five, ten or twenty years.

So squashing stablecoins doesn't win the game. It just makes it far more expensive to buy back in when the market inevitably chooses them. And look at this week — MoneyGram, Deel, and plenty of others. The market has already spoken.

Editor's Note: Simon Taylor, co-creator of Tokenized, works at Tempo. Two stories in this edition — Mastercard's onchain settlement rollout and Deel's DLUSD launch — involve Tempo directly. The analysis in both reflects the views of Tokenized's other editorial contributors and does not reflect Simon's perspective or involvement.

Card settlement between issuers and acquirers has always taken weekends and holidays off - a Friday transaction can become a Tuesday payout after a long weekend. Somebody funds that gap: capital parked as collateral, earning nothing, waiting for the banks to reopen.

Mastercard is now offering a way to close it: settlement that runs through the weekend, onchain, in regulated stablecoins.

Key Points:

The Tokenized Take:

The money is what a treasury team feels first. That idle collateral sitting against a three-day settlement gap isn't just inefficient - it's capital you can't touch until Monday, or Tuesday after a long weekend. If you run settlement around the clock, it goes back to work immediately. For a cross-border player like ARQ, which carries FX risk across closed banking calendars, the drag costs even more to hold. That's the problem the US and Latin America launch is designed to fix first.

The easy read here is "Mastercard catches up to Visa." It's the wrong one. Visa switched on weekend settlement in December with one stablecoin on one chain - USDC over Solana. Mastercard opens with six stablecoins across eight chains, issuer-agnostic from day one. Both networks now offer always-on settlement; the contest has moved from whether they'll do it, to how broadly. Mastercard chose breadth.

One open question. When Mastercard agreed to buy BVNK for up to $1.8 billion in March, we said the test would be whether that orchestration capability surfaced at the network level, inside member-bank offerings. This is that - but the deal hasn't closed, and the release credits Mastercard's own blockchain team, not BVNK. The more likely read is that the capability already existed and BVNK deepens it. The thesis is executing ahead of the acquisition, not because of it. Whether BVNK becomes the engine underneath is the thing to confirm through 2026.

The release is careful with its language - 'plans to,' 'expected to be among the first,' USDC 'already' live in select markets. This is general availability, not full deployment. Back in December we called instant stablecoin settlement becoming table stakes for banks before end of 2026. With both major networks now offering it, that's landed to a good extent. So, the number that matters through 2026 is activation: whether those LatAm corridors move from expected partners to real settlement volume. Until then, the always-on network is still a roadmap.

For four editions we've ended the same way: tokenized delivery, not tokenized settlement. Nasdaq, NYSE and DTC are all pushing equities toward tokenized infrastructure, but none has fully solved the cash leg yet. Nasdaq’s approved model still settles through DTC on T+1. DTC’s tokenization pilot moves the security onchain, but not the payment. NYSE has promised instant settlement and stablecoin funding, but that is still a plan, not a live venue.

Paxos is different because it just got a regulatory green light to put both the security and digitized cash on the same ledger.

Key Points:

The Tokenized Take:

Paxos didn’t just file an intent to build - it tested the model in a live pilot, spent years in regulatory process, and now has the SEC’s approval for a controlled rollout. That puts it in a different category from Nasdaq’s approved-but-DTC-settled model and NYSE’s still-pending plan. Its newly registered clearing agency is built to record the security and digitized cash on one ledger and swap them bilaterally. And the SEC has now blessed that design.

Before anyone declares the thesis done, four constraints matter. First, PSSC isn't operating yet - the SEC approved the design and the firm's capacity to run it, not a live system. Second, the registration is temporary: 18 months, with statutory carve-outs, and the SEC retains inspection and enforcement authority. Third, the model is bilateral DvP between pre-arranged counterparty pairs - narrower than the multilateral netting DTCC runs, and DTCC's own comment letter pressed exactly on netting, corporate actions, and wind-down. Fourth, and most structurally: it depends on DTC. Securities enter through DTC custody, and the whole thing is contingent on DTC approving Paxos as a participant. This is a parallel track that wires back into the incumbent, not a bypass.

DvP needs two legs: securities and cash. Most of the firms building this layer only own one. DTCC has the securities leg and the industry relationships; the cash leg is still being assembled around it. This week’s order has Paxos start with digitized bank cash, not a stablecoin. Paxos is still better positioned than most to evolve that leg over time: it now has temporary clearing-agency registration, stablecoin infrastructure across USDP, PYUSD and USDG, and a trust-company footprint. That gives it a credible path to a tokenized-dollar settlement leg down the road, where others may need to assemble one through partners. To be clear, this order does not authorize any of that - it is latent optionality, not a feature.

The question we've carried shifts. It used to be: when does DTCC turn on digital-cash settlement? Last week DTCC named one of the chains and its date (Stellar, H1 2027) for moving DTC-custodied equities and Treasuries onchain. That's still mostly the delivery half. Paxos is the one now approved to test the integrated securities-plus-cash design. The real question now is whether a working, probationary competitor changes that clock.

If PSSC clears its DTC participant approval, goes live, and converts the 18-month window into permanent registration with real volume, 2027 stops being the only timeline that counts. If it stalls on netting or wind-down, it still leaves a working blueprint for how the cash leg can function onchain inside a regulated frame.

Perpetual-style futures already traded onshore: Coinbase has offered CFTC-regulated contracts to US customers since July 2025, though 5-year expirations rather than true perps. What changed on May 29 is that the CFTC stopped treating perps as an edge case and started governing them as a category, with four coordinated actions issued the same day. Two of them point in opposite directions: one approves a perp built domestically, the other clears a path to one routed in from abroad.

Key Points:

The Tokenized Take:

The most fascinating thing about May 29 is that the CFTC governed the same product through two different instruments. Kalshi's domestic perp came through a binding Commission Order; the Coinbase route, because it points at a foreign venue, could only come through a staff no-action letter. That's a function of where each path sits in the rulebook, not a verdict on which the CFTC prefers. What matters for the reader is durability: an Order survives staff turnover and shifts in posture; a no-action letter is discretion, and it can be withdrawn.

The bridge carries a cost the domestic path doesn't. To make the Deribit route work, the letter explicitly permits customer crypto and stablecoins posted as margin to be re-used by the foreign affiliate. The CFTC's own term for it is 'right of re-use.' For a treasury or risk team, that reframes the diligence question. This isn't bare offshore exposure — the relief comes wrapped in conditions: caps on how much margin can move to the affiliate, a requirement that the venue hold net liquidating equity at a New York-chartered trust, and a rule that every entity in the chain stay inside a US public reporter's structure. The practical question is no longer 'can we trade perps now.' It's: where does our collateral sit if we route through Coinbase to Deribit? Who can re-use it, and what does recourse look like if something breaks across those affiliates rather than inside a US framework? The protections aren't identical to a domestically cleared contract, and the relief is conditional and revocable rather than settled law.

Step back and the logic holds together. Rebuilding Deribit's liquidity onshore would take years; the foreign-futures route imports it now. The CFTC appears to have weighed liquidity-now-with-collateral-risk against liquidity-later-with-fuller-protection, and leaned toward keeping US flow inside a US-supervised perimeter rather than watching it drift fully offshore. The policy statement then sets the terms for everyone else: perps beyond Bitcoin-like assets go through Commission review. That favors venues with the capital and legal bandwidth to absorb a review cycle (Coinbase, Kalshi, the CME-adjacent incumbents) over smaller challengers, and it shrinks the grey area that offshore-only venues have relied on.

This also slots into the jurisdictional arc we've tracked since the SEC's March interpretation. The CFTC's authority over crypto derivatives was never in doubt — it's cleared Bitcoin futures since 2017. What's new is the threshold: the letter scopes the whole interpretation to perps referencing a "digital commodity," and defines that term by pointing directly at the March SEC–CFTC joint guidance. The March line now decides which perps qualify.

If the policy statement templates as expected, and a CME or ICE brings its own perp through Reg 40.3, the offshore venues start to lose their access moat — the pull of being the only place a US trader could reach deep perpetual liquidity. Higher leverage ceilings and broader, faster listings may still favor offshore; it's the access edge specifically that erodes. Should that play out, the no-action bridge may end up looking less like permanent infrastructure and more like a transitional step — useful while the onshore book is still filling out, less essential once it can stand on its own.

Card networks have spent two years fighting over the payout — the last mile, where money leaves the system. Deel just went after the part that matters more: the inflow. Every month, salaries land for 1.5 million workers across 150+ countries, and in Deel's new design, that dollar stays inside the app — converted into DLUSD, earning rewards, and eventually spent via card without the contractor ever leaving. That's the most valuable position in the stablecoin wallet race. Deel is claiming it through payroll.

Track the sequence in 2026: MoonPay payouts in February, stablecoin salaries on Polygon for US and Eurozone employees in May, and now its own dollar DLUSD for contractors, live in Argentina from June 3. The split is what makes it interesting: employees ride existing Polygon infrastructure, while the own-brand coin needed Bridge's issuance and Tempo to exist at all.

Key Points

The Tokenized Take

The headline says Deel. The more interesting read is Stripe. Bridge issues the coin and Privy holds the keys — both Stripe acquisitions — while Tempo, the payments chain Stripe incubated with Paradigm, settles the transactions. Stripe says Deel is the first to combine all three. Deel brings the distribution. Stripe brings the rail underneath all of it.

That distribution is the whole point. The salary recurs every month, and because DLUSD is a captive balance, the dollar has nowhere to go — it's held, earned on, and spent inside the same app. That's a stickier, more predictable float than anything a card network captures at the payout stage. Who actually banks that float is the open question: Bridge manages issuance and reserves, so depending on a commercial split that hasn't been disclosed, a meaningful share of the economics likely sits with Stripe, not Deel.

Then there's the Earn leg, arriving while Congress is still arguing over exactly this. GENIUS blocks issuers from paying yield on a stablecoin directly. CLARITY draws a finer line — passive yield out, activity-based rewards potentially in. A one-tap opt-in to accrue rewards on an idle salary balance lands exactly on that boundary. The likely off-ramp is that most Deel contractors aren't US persons, so the US rules may not reach them. But a Stripe-owned issuance stack wiring yield into a salary wallet in the same quarter lawmakers are litigating that structure is a tension worth watching, not waving past.

The pressure lands on firms that built businesses around moving worker money after it has already been earned. Wise and Payoneer are not outside this flow — both handle business payouts and worker balances — but Deel has a different advantage: it sits closer to the employer relationship. If the paycheck is born inside Deel and converted into DLUSD before the worker ever chooses an off-ramp, the financial relationship starts shifting upstream.

One honest caveat: 'the dollar never leaves the rail' is also the risk. If salary value sits inside Deel, workers gain convenience but also inherit platform controls. That's not the same as the Circle/Zama freeze, but it rhymes. In both cases, users learn that programmable dollars still depend on someone's permission layer.

If Deel can show contractors leaving balances parked rather than cashing out, every payroll and gig platform with cross-border inflow starts to look like a stablecoin distributor. Then, the question stops being "why issue your own?" and becomes " why hand your paycheck relationship to someone else?"

Thanks so much for reading the Tokenized Newsletter!

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

Disclaimers