Three months ago, we published an article titled, “When Banks Choose Consortium Chains: Why Is the Mainstream Entry Crypto Has Been Waiting For Slightly Embarrassing?” At the time, we concluded that major banks like JPMorgan, BoA, and Citi, by launching a tokenized deposit network through The Clearing House, essentially acknowledged blockchain’s efficiency—but insisted on retaining control within the traditional banking system. Crypto had waited for mainstream adoption, only to see a “banking version, controlled version, regulated version” of blockchain arrive instead.
Looking back three months later, that judgment not only remained relevant but was even accelerated.
On August 25 to 26, 2026, four events converged almost simultaneously:
- Thirty-nine U.S. state banking associations have jointly formed the BankChain Alliance, planning to launch a nationally owned and self-governed blockchain network by 2027 for stablecoins, payments, and tokenized deposits.
- Market maker Citadel Securities endorses LayerZero’s trading infrastructure, while the U.S. securities clearinghouse DTCC and ICE, the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange, are jointly exploring institutional-grade applications.
- Crypto custodian ZeroHash has re-applied to the OCC for a trust bank charter after its initial application was rejected; meanwhile, Copper’s custodial business, reportedly valued at $2.5 billion, is now receiving offers far below its $500 million asking price.
- USD1, a stablecoin issued by BitGo Bank & Trust, a licensed trust bank under World Liberty, is natively deployed on the Canton network.
Putting these four things together, a clear signal emerges: the main battlefield of tokenization competition has shifted from “who lists the target first” to “who controls the infrastructure”—the settlement layer, the custody layer, and the licensing layer.
This is not another "the banks are back" headline—it's a transfer of pricing power.
A judgment made three months ago, a dramatic shift three months later
First, let’s revisit the core argument of our analysis article from June this year:
At the time, we said banks chose consortium blockchains not because they didn’t understand DeFi, but because they understood they couldn’t operate like DeFi—banks needed clear answers to questions like: Who can join? Who can see the data? Who is responsible for KYC/AML? And who bears responsibility if something goes wrong?
The appeal of consortium blockchains lies precisely in what the crypto world sees as "not open enough, not decentralized enough, not crypto enough."
Today, three months later, the logic remains unchanged, but the levels of participants have changed.
The stars of June were the "big banks"—institutions like JPMorgan, BoA, and Citi, which are G-SIBs, advancing initiatives through The Clearing House, their jointly owned payment company.
The star of August became "the entire banking lobby"—the 39 state banking associations representing thousands of community banks. The BankChain Alliance is not a pilot initiative by a few large banks, but rather the banking industry as a whole attempting to institutionalize its control over blockchain.
The difference between these is important:
- Large-scale pilot programs may only be a strategic option for a few participants;
- The state banking association building its own blockchain means the "default option" for the entire banking system is being rewritten—community banks no longer need to individually evaluate whether to adopt blockchain; instead, they are guided by lobbying groups directly into a bank-owned network. From "pilot projects by large banks" to "industry infrastructure," this represents the first level of escalation in the battle over standards.
Clearing House and Market Makers Enter the Arena: The Second Layer of the轨道War
If BankChain Alliance represents the "self-built track" on the banking side, then the actions of LayerZero × Citadel Securities, DTCC, and ICE constitute the "self-built track" on the market infrastructure side.
What do these three parties represent?
- DTCC: The "layer" for U.S. securities settlement, handling trillions of dollars in securities transactions daily. It is reportedly exploring institutional-grade on-chain applications, indicating that traditional clearinghouses are positioning themselves ahead in the tokenization of securities' clearing process.
- ICE: The parent company of the New York Stock Exchange, representing the integrated traditional force of "exchange + clearing."
- Citadel Securities: One of the world’s largest market makers, its endorsement of LayerZero’s trading infrastructure signals that market making—the function that determines liquidity—is increasingly moving toward institutional self-custody.
The combined implication of these three things is that the entire value chain of tokenized securities—from listing targets to settlement, clearing, and market making—is being gradually claimed by traditional finance's central hubs.
The crypto industry once believed that the value of tokenization lay in the act of "putting assets on-chain"; but it is now increasingly clear that the truly valuable aspects of tokenization—settlement certainty, clearing efficiency, market-making liquidity, and regulatory interfaces—are precisely the strengths that traditional finance already possesses.
Is custody being re-priced?
This is the harshest of the four news items.
After being rejected, ZeroHash has reapplied to the OCC for a trust bank charter. Why the second attempt? Because custody is being redefined—from “who has the best technology and strongest on-chain capabilities” to “who holds a license and can provide bank-grade custody.”
Copper’s story serves as a cautionary tale: according to CoinDesk, this crypto custodian was once valued at $2.5 billion, but is now seeking buyers through investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald at a price of approximately $500 million—with potential buyers offering far less. The same custodial business has seen its valuation drop by more than 80%. Why? The answer is simple: the value of custody no longer hinges on a “technology moat,” but on a “license moat.”
Bank-grade custody means: regulatory endorsement, clear accountability, complete audit trails, and the ability to hold parties responsible in case of errors. These are precisely the areas where crypto-native custodians struggle the most—they have the technology but lack banking licenses, while banks possess the licenses and are now catching up on technology.
ZeroHash has reapplied for an OCC license, indicating that native crypto players themselves now understand: on this table, a license is more valuable than technology.
The authority to issue stablecoins is also consolidating among licensed trust banks.
Article 4: USD1 is natively deployed on the Canton network.
But what's truly noteworthy about this news isn't "another stablecoin launched on which chain," but who is issuing it.
According to Cointelegraph, USD1 (with a market cap of approximately $4.05 billion, the sixth-largest stablecoin) is issued by BitGo Bank & Trust, a licensed trust bank responsible for managing USD1’s reserves and handling minting and redemption. World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency venture firm with ties to the Trump family, is the brand and operational entity behind USD1.
This structure itself is another testament to the “license moat”: a crypto project affiliated with a president ultimately chose to entrust a licensed trust bank with the most critical financial functions—issuing, holding reserves, minting, and redeeming the stablecoin.
Now consider the deployed network. Canton is described by its operator as a public blockchain designed for institutional finance, but its core selling point is "privacy and access control"—enabling USD1 to be atomically settled alongside tokenized assets in the same transaction, while preserving the privacy and visibility boundaries required by institutions.
In other words, the USD1 "cash leg" resides on a network whose primary design principle is institutional control.
This confirms a statement we made in our June article: the key to RWA isn't whether assets can be tokenized, but how the cash legs and trust structures form a self-sustaining loop.
As the issuance rights of stablecoins converge toward licensed trust banks, and as cash legs begin to reside within institutional networks emphasizing access control, the "banking of stablecoins" is no longer just an industry slogan—it is a tangible, verifiable reality unfolding in real time.
This is not a battle between "banks vs. crypto," but a struggle over who defines the轨道.
Combining these four factors, EX.IO Research concludes:
The key to winning the tokenization race has shifted from “who lists the target first” to “who controls the infrastructure”—the settlement layer, custody layer, and licensing layer. These three layers are being systematically claimed by traditional finance institutions: banks, clearinghouses, market makers, and licensing frameworks.
But this does not mean "the crypto world has lost."
More precisely, the division of labor is becoming entrenched:
- Open public chains continue to support open finance, DeFi, global stablecoin liquidity, and developer innovation;
- Bank consortium chain and institutional network, handling bank deposits, corporate treasury operations, institutional settlements, and privacy-sensitive transactions;
- Tokenized funds, designed for income-generating cash management;
- Regulated custody, providing licensed and accountable asset storage.
What has truly been rewritten is the right to define the轨道.
Three months ago, we said banks were writing another script. Three months later, not only has the script been written, but the cast has expanded to include the entire banking sector, clearinghouses, and market makers.
For market participants, what matters most is no longer whether an asset is tokenized, but which chain it’s on, who controls that chain, and who stands behind it with regulatory licensing.
Based on the above analysis, we can also draw three core conclusions:
First, the battle over blockchains has entered the "industry infrastructure" phase. The upgrade from pilot programs by major banks to 39 state banking associations building their own chains signifies that the banking system is making "self-owned blockchains" the default option.
Second, custody is being revalued through licensing. ZeroHash’s second attempt to obtain an OCC charter and Copper’s valuation collapse indicate that the moat in the custody business is shifting from technology to licensing.
Third, the issuance rights for stablecoins are converging toward licensed trust banks. USD1, issued by BitGo Bank & Trust, confirms that the true key to tokenized finance lies in the "cash leg + trust structure feedback loop"—and the critical element of this loop is regulatory licensing as the safety net.
The infrastructure is often crucial. We often say that Web2 + Web3 can lead to a better future, including more assets being tokenized on-chain. However, when banks accelerate the development of their own consortium blockchains, Web3 risks losing its critical "infrastructure." As for the next steps—how to leverage its strengths—it may depend on whether this ecosystem can produce the next authentic, market-attracting narrative and real-world success stories.
🔗 Sources (Based on public media reports; project developments, timelines, and business arrangements may change.)
CoinDesk — U.S. state banking associations plan to launch their own nationwide blockchain network (BankChain Alliance); https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2026/08/25/u-s-state-banking-associations-plan-to-launch-their-own-nationwide-blockchain-network
BankNews — Dozens of state associations unite to create a common blockchain network; https://banknews.com/chronicles/dozens-of-state-associations-unite-to-create-common-blockchain-network
CoinDesk — LayerZero unveils trading infrastructure for crypto and tokenized markets, backed by Citadel Securities; https://www.coindesk.com/business/2026/08/25/layerzero-unveils-trading-infrastructure-for-crypto-and-tokenized-markets-zro-surges
CoinDesk — Zerohash returns for second attempt at OCC trust bank charter; https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2026/08/25/zerohash-back-for-second-effort-at-occ-trust-bank-charter
CoinDesk — Crypto custody firm Copper has potential buyers, but offers are far below its $500 million asking price
Cointelegraph — World Liberty Financial launches USD1 natively on Canton Network (issued by BitGo Bank & Trust; Canton described as "a public, permissionless blockchain designed for institutional finance") https://cointelegraph.com/news/world-liberty-financial-launches-usd1-natively-on-canton-network
Disclaimer
This content is provided solely for general market information and educational purposes and does not constitute investment advice, legal advice, compliance advice, trading recommendations, solicitation, or endorsement. Digital asset prices are highly volatile, and past performance is not indicative of future results. Readers should not make trading, product, licensing, or other business decisions based solely on this content. For legal, compliance, tax, or investment-related judgments, consult a qualified professional advisor.
This article does not evaluate the price performance of ETH, BTC, or any digital asset, nor does it constitute a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any digital asset.
This article does not represent that EX.IO will launch, apply for, offer, or support any specific tokenized deposit, RWA, custody, payment, securities, or banking-related product or service. Discussions of third-party institutions' plans do not constitute endorsement of their products, security, compliance status, or future implementation.
This content is based on publicly available sources and may contain errors, omissions, or delays. Statements regarding future plans, expectations, or trends are forward-looking and subject to uncertainties; actual results may differ materially from those described herein. This content is not an advertisement, solicitation, or offer for any regulated activities, including securities, collective investment schemes, or virtual asset-related services.