The counterattack of traditional finance: Alliance chains are quietly reviving

Author: Chloe, ChainCatcher

In June 2026, a dozen of the largest banks in the United States jointly announced plans to build a shared tokenized deposit network by 2027, directly countering the erosion of deposits by stablecoins. This system has yet to be named; some in the industry call it "the bridge," while others refer to it as "the chain."

This reflects a concept that has been neglected by the market for years but is now quietly making a comeback: consortium chains.

Banks Form an Avengers Alliance

On June 5, 2026, The Wall Street Journal broke the news: a group of major U.S. banks led by JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Bank of America plans to create a shared tokenized deposit network by the first half of 2027.

Later that day, these banks issued a joint press release, expanding the list from four banks reported by outsiders to over a dozen. Wells Fargo is the initiator, followed by BNY, BMO, HSBC, PNC, TD, U.S. Bank, Truist, Citizens, Fifth Third, Huntington, KeyBank, Regions, and Santander.

The operator is The Clearing House, a payment company jointly owned by these banks. This system still does not have an official name; according to The Wall Street Journal, some in the industry call it the bridge, while others call it the chain.

In the past two years, the crypto community's focus has primarily been on general public chains, token issuance, and airdrops. However, the institutional funds and technologies that are quietly moving are heading in another direction: dedicated chains that are purpose-specific, led by certain institutions, and do not necessarily involve token issuance. This sounds familiar because it embodies the spirit of "consortium chains" from years ago, but this time, it may be serious.

What Banks Fear is Stablecoins Taking Deposits

To understand this counteroffensive, one must first know what traditional finance is defending against: stablecoins. According to DeFiLlama data, in June 2026, the total market capitalization of global stablecoins was approximately $316 billion. USDT alone accounted for about 62%, with a market cap of around $186 billion, while USDC was about $75 billion; together, they consumed around 80% of the entire market.

According to Bitrue, stablecoins processed approximately $46 trillion in transaction volume throughout 2025, more than 20 times that of PayPal and approaching three times that of Visa. By the first quarter of 2026, stablecoins accounted for about 75% of the overall crypto transaction volume; the stablecoin sector is no longer just a tool for speculation but a global payment and settlement pipeline that operates daily.

For traditional bankers, this pipeline touches their lifeblood: deposits. The amount banks can lend is based on how much deposit they have. Once customers get used to moving their money from bank accounts to stablecoins in crypto wallets, the foundation for banks to lend is hollowed out. Mark Monaco, global payments head at Bank of America, stated that this system is prepared for the day when demand truly arises.

What truly forces banks to take proactive actions is regulatory loosening. The U.S. GENIUS Act has been legislated, requiring stablecoins to have a 1:1 reserve and regular audits, with implementation details set to take effect on July 18, 2026. The impact of this bill lies not in constraining stablecoins but in legitimizing them. When stablecoins transition from a gray area to a licensed, audited, and bank-custodied legal tool, their substitutability for traditional deposits is no longer a hypothetical issue.

Banks are not suddenly in love with blockchain; someone has already laid the tracks at their doorstep, forcing them to lay down their own.

Bridge or Chain? What is This Network Really?

Returning to that unnamed chain. Its technical name is the Regulated Settlement Network (RSN). The approach is to convert bank deposits into tokens recorded on the blockchain, allowing for year-round, 24/7 real-time settlement without waiting for the next business day.

"Tokenized deposits" are not a new digital asset but rather a different accounting method for the same deposit. They carry the same credit risk, are subject to the same regulations, and remain within the bank system protected by deposit insurance. This is the fundamental difference from stablecoins: stablecoins move money out of the banking system, while tokenized deposits keep money within the system but gain the speed and programmability similar to cryptocurrencies.

David Watson, CEO of The Clearing House, mentioned that this is a significant move for banks, describing on-chain payments as heading towards a completely different future; Max Neukirchen, co-head of global payments at JPMorgan, offered a more pragmatic view, stating that to maintain a stable and resilient payment ecosystem, a regulated market infrastructure is needed to clear these tokenized deposits.

As of the announcement, the network has not yet determined which blockchain to use. The technology has not been finalized, and the name is still wavering between bridge and chain, but a dozen of the largest banks in the U.S. are already willing to print their names on the same press release. At this stage, what has been agreed upon is governance: who will operate it, who can enter, and who sets the rules. The answers to these three questions happen to encapsulate the entirety of what the term consortium chain meant back then.

Reviewing the Previous Failure of Consortium Chains

From 2016 to 2022, that was the first wave of enterprise blockchain enthusiasm. JPMorgan had experimented on Ethereum as early as 2016, later creating its private chain Quorum; IBM and the Linux Foundation promoted Hyperledger Fabric, and R3 led Corda, but they all nearly fell silent.

The reasons are not complicated. At that time, consortium chains were stuck on two issues: first, there was no pressure to cooperate; each bank built a closed chain that did not interconnect, ultimately becoming a bunch of isolated islands; second, permissioned ledgers in many scenarios were, to put it bluntly, just a database with added cryptography, where technology was developed first and then problems were sought. By 2020, the market narrative had shifted entirely towards public chains, DeFi, and liquidity mining, and consortium chains were labeled as "on the chain but not in the right place," gradually fading from the center of discussion.

Reflecting on this past, it draws a contrast line for today. Consortium chains did not fail due to technology; they failed because no one really needed them. What has brought them back into view in 2026 is precisely the missing piece from back then: real, urgent, and regulatory-backed demand; back then, technology sought scenarios, but this time, scenarios are looking back for technology.

From the Data: Institutional-Level Consortium Chains Are Quietly Operating

The tokenized deposit network is not an isolated event. Over the past eighteen months, multiple dedicated chains led by institutions have accumulated quantifiable usage scale, with the most complete data being from the Canton Network.

Canton, developed by Digital Asset, is a publicly permissioned blockchain that uses Daml to write smart contracts, designed to allow competing financial institutions to share the same settlement infrastructure while preserving privacy. Its super validators include Visa, Nasdaq, and BNP Paribas.

In terms of usage scale, as of the end of 2025, over 700 institutions had connected to Canton. The largest application on the network, Broadridge's Distributed Ledger Repo platform (DLR), processes approximately $4 trillion in tokenized U.S. Treasury repos monthly, equivalent to about $280 billion daily, and this figure doubled from $2 trillion per month within 2025.

In December 2025, the U.S. securities depository DTCC announced a partnership with Digital Asset to tokenize U.S. Treasuries it holds on Canton, with plans to scale up in the second half of 2026. DTCC is the core institution for clearing and settlement in U.S. equities and fixed income, and its participation means that institutional-level chains have extended to the underlying infrastructure of the U.S. market.

Data at the level of individual banks is equally specific. JPMorgan's blockchain division Kinexys has been processing institutional payments on its private chain using JPM Coin since 2020, currently handling over $5 billion daily. Citigroup's Token Services has launched, supporting real-time cross-border transfers between New York, London, and Hong Kong. BNY also launched a tokenized deposit service for institutions in January 2026.

Combining this data, the positioning of the tokenized deposit network is as an interoperability layer that connects existing projects of various banks, rather than another entirely new chain. The driving force is not technology providers but banks that have already accumulated real transaction volumes, looking back for a common standard that can connect with each other.

The Line Between Public Chains and Consortium Chains is Being Erased by Insiders

A closer look at JPMorgan's layout reveals that while it is deeply cultivating its private chain Kinexys, it also moved the JPM Coin deposit token (JPMD) onto Coinbase's public chain Base in June 2025. Not long after, in January 2026, it deployed JPMD natively on Canton, becoming the second chain to carry this type of institutional digital cash after Base.

The same bank is betting on private chains, publicly permissioned chains, and public chains all at once.

Earlier, Singapore's DBS Bank and Kinexys also agreed in November 2025 to develop an interoperability framework that allows tokenized deposits to transfer between each other's chain ecosystems. What the industry truly cares about is no longer a binary choice of "consortium chain or public chain," but how "permissioned issuance" can interface with "cross-chain settlement."

For banks, public chains are channels to reach funds and users, while consortium chains are the underlying settlement layer that meets privacy and compliance needs; the two are not competitors but rather two segments of the same route, one after the other. The "revival of consortium chains" is not the old consortium chains of 2018 that were closed and disconnected; it is returning with its governance soul: purpose-defined, institution-led, and rule-first. The difference is that this time, this soul has taken on a new body that can interface with public chains.

Conclusion: The Real Contest is Whose Infrastructure is Under Which Name

The mainstream narrative of the past few years has been "decentralization will eventually replace traditional finance." However, what is unfolding in 2026 is another version: traditional finance has not been replaced; it has simply extracted blockchain technology from the public chain, token issuance, and DeFi narrative, and reconnected it to its most familiar track: regulated, licensed, and institution-led logic.

The difference between this logic and that of consortium chains back then is that this time it carries the verified real demand of stablecoins, the regulatory runway paved by the GENIUS Act, and the actual transaction volumes generated by Canton and Kinexys, no longer just a technical proposition but a set of facts that are already in operation.

Whether public chains win or consortium chains win has never been the point. As tokenized deposits and stablecoins have no significant functional distinction, the competition's endpoint is no longer the product but whose infrastructure is first regarded as the default option. The true stakes at this card table are whose name the financial infrastructure of the next decade will hang under.