Marcos Viriato, CEO and Co-Founder of Parfin, shares his view on how banks are approaching the next phase of digital money infrastructure. In an interview with CoinsPaid Media, he discusses the role of stablecoins and tokenized deposits, the institutional need for faster and more efficient settlement, the regulatory and operational hurdles banks still face, and why the future of bank settlement is likely to be defined by coexistence, interoperability, and use-case-specific rails.
Beyond the Stablecoin vs. Tokenized Deposit Debate
Some argue that the debate between stablecoins and tokenized deposits misses the point. From your perspective, what should institutions focus on instead, and why?
I would look at this through the lens of the specific use case. Both stablecoins and tokenized deposits can be useful, but the choice depends on what the bank or financial institution is trying to achieve. If a bank wants to modernize its own infrastructure, improve internal settlement, and start working with tokenized assets inside its own environment, it makes sense to move toward tokenized deposits. If the institution is more focused on external payments, cross-border transfers, or FX transactions, it’ll probably need a stablecoin route.
Even banks that issue their own stablecoins understand that their coin won’t always have enough liquidity outside their own ecosystem. For example, if a bank uses its own stablecoin X to pay an exporter in China, that probably won’t work directly. That creates a need for convertibility between the bank’s own stablecoin and a more widely accepted market instrument, such as USDT. Those are the 2 scenarios we’re seeing among financial institutions. Some say a tokenized deposit matters more because the goal is to improve internal infrastructure. Others process payments and FX transactions, so they need a stablecoin and the ability to interact with stablecoins.
What are tokenized deposits for banks: a new product, a new settlement channel, or a new form of balance-sheet infrastructure?
For a bank, a tokenized deposit is primarily a settlement layer, an internal settlement layer. It lets the bank launch tokenized assets and settle transactions against the tokenized deposit. In practical terms, a tokenized deposit is the internal representation of a client’s deposit at the bank.
Once the bank tokenizes that deposit, it can offer tokenized services and tokenized assets to clients, and settlement can happen on-chain through delivery versus payment and similar models. So I would say it’s much more of a settlement layer than a standalone new product.
Where is the practical line between a stablecoin as a crypto-native instrument and a stablecoin as an institutional settlement asset?
The practical line is use case and circulation. A tokenized deposit generally doesn’t move outside the bank. It stays within the bank as an internal settlement instrument. When a bank needs to process external payments outside its own control, it may use a stablecoin instead. Some bank-issued stablecoins will be accepted outside the bank. Others will remain in a closed loop, for example, for interbank settlement, where bank A transfers funds to bank B and vice versa. That could be an interesting use case for a stablecoin issued by a bank.
We’re also seeing some banks consider consortium models, where a stablecoin is created by a group of banks. That development is still at a very early stage, and there are pros and cons to that approach. But we’ll probably see more consortium stablecoins for interbank settlement in the coming months, or broader adoption of stablecoins issued by external providers. Competition is already intense. Payment companies such as Western Union and PayPal are also launching stablecoin initiatives. Banks and financial institutions are likely to respond by issuing their own instruments or forming consortiums.
What Banks Actually Need From Digital Money
Which features of money matter most to financial institutions today: the issuer, regulatory treatment, programmability, liquidity, redemption, or access to distribution?
I think it’s a combination of factors, but for many institutions the first priority is the efficiency of payment processing, especially for client payments. If a bank executes an FX transaction for a client through SWIFT, the payment may take 2 to 3 days to reach the recipient. With stablecoins, it can take seconds or minutes. So I would put efficiency first.
We’ve seen this especially in developing markets such as Brazil and Argentina, where the use of stablecoins for cross-border import and export payments grew a lot because those markets still have payment-infrastructure inefficiencies. Banks have to adapt. They can tell a client, “We’ll execute the FX transaction, but we’ll settle it for you using a stablecoin.
Going forward, financial institutions will look not only at efficiency and cost reduction but also at new on-chain services, such as on-chain FX. Imagine a non-dollar stablecoin in BRL being converted on-chain into a dollar stablecoin or another currency. That could create a huge efficiency gain. In today’s FX market, you work with pairs, such as dollar-real or dollar-peso. First, the trade is executed. Settlement happens later. You deliver pesos and receive dollars. With on-chain FX, that happens instantly. You deliver pesos and receive dollars right away. That improves efficiency, reduces counterparty risk, increases liquidity, and makes the market more transparent.
In 2025, the BIS wrote that a stable monetary system must preserve singleness, elasticity, and integrity. What do those criteria look like from the perspective of a commercial bank?
From the perspective of a commercial bank, I wouldn’t even frame this primarily as elasticity or flexibility. For banks, it’s more of a defensive move. If you look at the history, when asset managers started launching money market funds, there was a significant outflow of deposits from banks. Money moved into money market funds that paid yield. That industry grew to trillions of dollars, and banks lost part of their deposit base to asset managers.
Now we see hundreds of billions of dollars under management across Tether and Circle, and that money also isn’t sitting in bank deposits or under banks’ control. So the first move for banks is to launch their own stablecoin and somehow retain control of money, meaning client money, within their own environment. To me, that’s mainly a defensive move.
Once regulation is in place, we’ll probably see banks issue stablecoins to keep client funds under their control. Whether all of those stablecoins will have real practical utility is less obvious. Some banks will issue their own coins, but those coins won’t be accepted globally, and clients won’t be able to pay with them everywhere. Still, the bank retains the money internally and will most likely allow the client to swap the bank’s stablecoin into a more useful market stablecoin, such as USDT or USDC.
We recently did a similar project for a client. The client first issued its own U.S. dollar-based stablecoin. The next functionality we’re building is the ability to swap it into USDT or USDC for an external payout.
When you look at board-level discussions inside banks, what is doing the most to change attitudes toward digital assets: regulation, competition, back-office efficiency, or the fear of losing distribution?
I think a bank moves when there is regulatory clarity. The GENIUS Act in the U.S. and MiCA in Europe gave that clarity to stablecoin issuers. In a way, they created an operational and control framework in which the assets backing the stablecoin are protected. If the issuer goes bankrupt, those assets are also protected, which means stablecoin holders shouldn’t lose their money. Fraud can happen anywhere, of course, but now there is a clear framework for protecting client assets.
From there, trust and choice will evolve. Some people will say they would rather deal with a stablecoin from bank A than bank B because bank B is too small, even if protections exist on paper. It’s also important to remember that these stablecoins aren’t fully fungible. If you have $10 in bank A’s stablecoin and $10 in bank B’s stablecoin, that doesn’t mean you have a single $20 balance. You have $10 of one asset and $10 of another.
That creates a question of composability and interoperability. For example, if you have 10 units of stablecoin A and 10 units of stablecoin B, but you need to pay 15 units to a party that accepts stablecoin C, there has to be infrastructure for conversion. We already do some of this work around interoperability and swaps between different stablecoins. It’s not straightforward, but I think this is where the market is going. A user will be able to say, “My default stablecoin is X, and whenever I receive a payment in other stablecoins, it’s converted into X.” Or a user may have 2 preferred stablecoins. It’ll be interesting to watch that develop.
What still holds banks back from adopting stablecoins or crypto-processing infrastructure?
The main limitation is that banks’ internal infrastructure isn’t ready yet. They need to create wallet infrastructure, implement KYT controls, apply the Travel Rule, and put anti-money-laundering controls in place. If a bank wants to issue a stablecoin, it needs controls for issuance, reserves, and reporting. That takes time. Once a bank decides to launch a stablecoin, a realistic timeline is probably 6 to 12 months.
There is also the issue of integration with internal systems. A client sends money to a current account, sees the balance there, and then says, “I want to convert this into a stablecoin.” How does the bank make that conversion seamless? Integrating systems takes time for banks even under normal circumstances. Here, we’re talking about a new technology they aren’t used to. Compliance teams also need to understand the processes.
Today, bank teams are prepared to process payments through SWIFT or ACH. Now there is a 3rd element: a payment through stablecoin ABC. And it’s not just USDT on Ethereum. A client may want to use USDT on Solana, USDT on TRON, or USDT on another network. That adds complexity banks aren’t used to. They need to build the control framework and infrastructure before they can start offering those services. After regulation emerged in the U.S. and Europe, a lot of banks started rushing to implement these controls and internal infrastructure.
Stablecoins often have an edge in speed and global reach. Where do tokenized deposits offer a clearer institutional advantage, and where do they face structural constraints?
A tokenized deposit is simpler for a bank in some ways. The bank still needs infrastructure, but external KYT isn’t required because the tokenized deposit stays inside the bank and doesn’t move outside. The bank doesn’t need to validate an external address or check whether it’s a sanctioned address.
That’s why many banks begin the journey this way. First, they create an internal tokenized deposit. Then, if needed, they swap it into an external stablecoin, not necessarily their own. For example, bank A’s tokenized deposit settles internally. If the client wants to pay someone through a stablecoin, the bank allows a swap. Say $100,000 of tokenized deposits is swapped into USDT, and then USDT is paid out to an exporter in China or elsewhere in Asia.
But if a bank is highly focused on FX and payment processing, it may start directly with a stablecoin, even without a tokenized deposit. So it all depends on the nature of the bank’s services, its clients, and its region. I recently spoke with a regional bank in the U.S. They said, “We need to improve our internal infrastructure. We don’t do FX transactions, and we don’t process external payments.” In that case, the recommendation is clear: implement tokenized-deposit infrastructure. Banks that operate globally and process FX payments are more likely to lean toward stablecoins.
The Future Settlement Landscape
Which scenario seems more realistic to you: coexistence among stablecoins, tokenized deposits, and CBDCs, or consolidation around 1 dominant instrument?
I think every bank will eventually have a tokenized deposit. If we believe stocks, bonds, and funds will be tokenized, the easiest way to settle those transactions is to have a tokenized deposit. A client with a tokenized deposit can buy tokenized funds, tokenized stocks, and other assets.
Looking ahead, every bank in the world will have a tokenized deposit in some form. Some will move faster than others, but they’ll get there. Stablecoins are different. Some banks will issue them, and some won’t, because it won’t make sense for every bank. But banks will at least need interoperability with market stablecoins whenever a client wants to make an external payout.
Even if I’m a regional bank in the U.S. and I don’t process international payments, I may still need to use a market stablecoin so my client can pay another recipient. Most likely, the client will go into online banking and simply see payment options such as FedNow, ACH, stablecoin, and so on. The client will be able to choose the method seamlessly without thinking about the technology behind it. That’s how I see this evolution.
In 5 years, will we still be debating stablecoins versus tokenized deposits, or will the market have moved on to asking which rails are best suited to solving specific settlement problems?
They’ll coexist. Tokenized deposits will be needed by banks for internal settlement, and they’ll coexist with stablecoins, whether issued by the bank itself or by the market. Whenever an external payment is required, the bank will need either a third-party stablecoin or its own stablecoin.
I think there will be hundreds of stablecoins in the market, and that will add complexity. Existing instruments such as USDT and USDC may keep their dominance. But if a banking consortium such as Qivalis launches its own stablecoin, it could gain real traction because banks may say, “For settlement within this consortium, we’re not going to use a market stablecoin such as USDC or USDT. We’re going to use our own.” That could grow into a meaningful scenario. Overall, though, I expect coexistence and a large number of stablecoins in the market.
