Banks Move Toward 24/7 On-Chain Finance as Franklin Templeton and SWIFT Outline Blockchain Future

TheNewsCryptoPublished on 2026-02-11Last updated on 2026-02-11

Abstract

Top executives at Consensus Hong Kong 2026 outlined a future where banking operates 24/7 using blockchain technology. Franklin Templeton is focusing on tokenizing money market funds to enable round-the-clock trading and reduce administrative costs. SWIFT is developing a system to convert traditional bank balances into digital tokens to expedite settlements and eliminate cutoff times. While tokenized finance remains small compared to traditional markets, the industry is building early infrastructure. Key barriers like regulation and private key security need addressing for broader adoption. The future is expected to be hybrid, blending decentralized services with traditional intermediaries, as major financial institutions push for secure, continuous blockchain-based systems.

Speaking at the Consensus Hong Kong 2026, top executives from the traditional finance and crypto firms said that the future of banking will run 24/7 with assets issued directly on blockchain. Their message was clear that the financial system could soon be working continuously without shutting down.

Franklin Templeton said that it will be focusing on the money market funds in the blockchain infrastructure. By putting funds on the blockchain, they can allow the investors to buy or sell anytime, which also reduces the paperwork and admin costs. An executive explained that taking the existing financial products and making them cheaper and easier using blockchain.

From the Swift side, it is working on ways banks can turn normal account balances into the digital token. Their goal is to expedite the settlements and have no cutoff times. Executives say that payments in Swift are quick, but they want instant availability at any time.

Traditional Finance Moves Toward 24/7 On-Chain

Despite the rapid growth in tokenized finance, it is relatively small when compared to the traditional markets. While there are a billion dollars in the stablecoin and a billion in the tokenized securities, this is very much minor compared with the trillions managed across the global banking system. So executives called it an early infrastructure.

Two barriers, such as regulations and security, are repeatedly coming up in the discussions. Banks and institutions need clear rules about accounting and compliance. Crypto requires managing the private keys. For institutions, managing the private keys and ensuring access control should meet the enterprise standards for broader adoption.

Speakers believe that the future will be hybrid, with some of the services becoming decentralized and some remaining intermediate. The tone of the conversation shows a clear sign that big finance wants blockchain to run 24/7 with more security.

Highlighted Crypto News:

‌Ethereum Slips Toward $1,900 as Selling Pressure Intensifies

TagsFranklin Templeton

Related Questions

QWhat is the main vision for the future of banking as outlined by executives at Consensus Hong Kong 2026?

AThe main vision is that the future of banking will run 24/7 with assets issued directly on blockchain, allowing the financial system to work continuously without shutting down.

QWhat specific financial product is Franklin Templeton focusing on in the blockchain infrastructure?

AFranklin Templeton is focusing on money market funds in the blockchain infrastructure.

QWhat is SWIFT working on to improve the banking system?

ASWIFT is working on ways for banks to turn normal account balances into digital tokens to expedite settlements and eliminate cutoff times, aiming for instant availability of payments at any time.

QWhat are the two main barriers mentioned that are hindering broader adoption of on-chain finance?

AThe two main barriers are regulations and security, including the need for clear rules on accounting and compliance, and the challenge of managing private keys to meet enterprise standards.

QHow does the current size of tokenized finance compare to the traditional global market?

ATokenized finance, with about a billion dollars in stablecoins and a billion in tokenized securities, is relatively very small compared to the trillions of dollars managed across the global banking system.

Related Reads

From Survival to Accelerated Growth: The Journey of Zcash's Three-Year Rise as Told by the Founder of ZODL

**From Survival to Accelerated Growth: Zcash Founder Details the 3-Year Rise** Three years ago, Zcash (ZEC) was a struggling pioneer in privacy technology, with a price near $30, low shielded supply (11%), and a community mired in governance disputes. Today, ZEC trades around $600, with over 31% of its supply (~$3B) in user-controlled shielded pools. This transformation resulted from breaking key constraints. First, **governance shackles were removed**. The old model guaranteed funding to two entities (ECC and ZF) regardless of performance, creating a monopoly. In 2024, ECC rejected further direct funding, forcing a change. The NU6 upgrade ended direct funding, allocating 8% to community grants and 12% to a protocol-controlled treasury for retroactive rewards, expiring in 2028 unless renewed by overwhelming consensus. The entities also relinquished their trademark-based veto power, freeing community governance. Second, the **product focus shifted** from pure cryptography to user growth. Previously, engineering excelled at privacy tech but failed to attract users. In early 2024, the team (later ZODL) pivoted to building products users wanted, like the Zodl wallet (default privacy, hardware support, cross-asset swaps). This drove shielded supply to grow over 400% in ZEC terms, with 86.5% of recent transactions being shielded, representing real user adoption. Third, the **narrative evolved** from the limiting "privacy coin" label to "unstoppable private money." This clarified Zcash's value proposition: a Bitcoin-like monetary policy with verifiable private payments via advanced cryptography. This structural narrative—protocol (Zcash), asset (ZEC), gateway (Zodl)—enabled broader exchange listings, institutional interest, and ETF filings. Finally, **organizational constraints were broken**. In early 2026, the ECC team left its non-profit structure after disputes over control, forming Zcash Open Development Lab (ZODL). ZODL raised $25M from top VCs (Paradigm, a16z, etc.), gaining the capital and agility of a startup to scale consumer products. Current metrics show strong momentum: social discussion volume for ZEC surged 15,245% in a year, with 81% positive sentiment. The focus is now on enhancing user experience (Zodl wallet), scalability (Tachyon project targeting Visa-level throughput with 25-second blocks), and post-quantum security (quantum-recoverable wallets coming soon). Zcash is positioned to become faster, more usable, scalable, and quantum-resistant.

marsbit8m ago

From Survival to Accelerated Growth: The Journey of Zcash's Three-Year Rise as Told by the Founder of ZODL

marsbit8m ago

Five Counterparty Risk Architectures: A Settlement-Layer Methodology for Classifying TradFi Models in Crypto Exchanges

**Summary:** This companion piece reframes the five TradFi-on-crypto exchange architectures, previously classified by "architectural fingerprint," through the lens of counterparty risk. The core question is: whose balance sheet bears the loss first in a stress scenario, and has it historically done so? Each of the five models corresponds to a distinct risk holder with its own documented failure modes. * **Model 1 (Stablecoin-Settled CEX Perpetuals):** Risk is held by the stablecoin issuer (e.g., reserve composition, bank connectivity) and the CEX's own book. History includes Tether's banking disconnections (2017) and reserve misrepresentations (CFTC 2021 Order). * **Model 2 (CFD Brokers):** Risk resides on the broker's balance sheet (B-book model). Regulatory differences (e.g., ESMA's mandatory negative balance protection vs. Mauritius FSC's lack thereof) define loss allocation rules, as seen in the 2015 SNB event (Alpari UK insolvency). * **Model 3 (Off-Chain Custody & Transfer Agent Chain):** Risk lies with the off-chain custodian/platform. User asset recovery depends on Terms of Use and corporate structure, exemplified by the Celsius bankruptcy ruling (2023) where Earn Account assets were deemed property of the estate. * **Model 4 (DEX Perpetual Protocols):** No single balance sheet bears risk. Loss absorption relies on a protocol's insurance fund and Auto-Deleveraging (ADL) mechanism, as demonstrated in the GMX V1 (2022) and dYdX v3 YFI (2023) incidents. * **Model 5 (Regulated CCP - DCM-DCO-FCM):** The most institutionalized model concentrates risk in the Central Counterparty (CCP). However, history shows CCPs can employ non-standard tools under extreme stress, such as mass trade cancellation (LME Nickel, 2022) or enabling negative price settlements (CME WTI, 2020). The report argues that regulatory choices and counterparty risk structures are co-extensive, not in an upstream-downstream relationship. It concludes with five separate observation checklists (not predictions) for monitoring the structural vulnerabilities of each risk model.

marsbit25m ago

Five Counterparty Risk Architectures: A Settlement-Layer Methodology for Classifying TradFi Models in Crypto Exchanges

marsbit25m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片