Banking Giants Battle in the Tokenization Arena: Who Will Take the Lead?

Foresight NewsPublicado em 2026-06-17Última atualização em 2026-06-17

Resumo

**Banking Titans Battle in Tokenization: Who Leads the Pack?** Four major banks—JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, and BNY Mellon—are heavily investing in tokenization infrastructure but have adopted distinct strategic paths. This analysis compares them across four key dimensions: verified transaction volume, product breadth, regulatory compliance, and underlying infrastructure model. JPMorgan's Onyx network stands out with over $1 trillion in cumulative cleared transaction volume, focusing deeply on niche areas like tokenized collateral management and intraday repo settlement. However, its closed private network limits market reach. Goldman Sachs Digital Assets Platform (GS DAP) leads in product diversity, having executed tokenized bond issuances for sovereign entities and supranational organizations, and launched tokenized money market funds. It is also a founding member of the Canton Network, a shared ledger for institutions, though its overall cleared volume is less publicly disclosed than JPMorgan's. HSBC's Orion platform carves a niche in cross-border tokenized securities and sustainable finance, exemplified by its tokenized gold product and its role in large-scale digital green bond issuances for the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. Its global network provides a unique advantage in Asia and emerging markets. BNY Mellon, as the world's largest custodian, plays a fundamentally different role by providing essential custody and asset servicing infrastructure for digita...

Written by: Taioo

Compiled by: Luffy, Foresight News

Currently, four major banks dominate the vast majority of institutional on-chain business with substantial operational scale, each following a significantly different strategic layout and development path.

JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, and BNY Mellon have all made significant investments in tokenization infrastructure, yet they differ in their strengths, product philosophies, and market positioning. This article provides a horizontal comparison of these four institutions across four dimensions: transaction volume, breadth of product coverage, regulatory compliance framework, and underlying infrastructure model, aiming to clarify the real competitive landscape in the institutional tokenization race.

Evaluation Framework: Four Criteria

To assess institutional tokenization business, this article adopts a pragmatic evaluation standard: prioritizing practical implementation over conceptual promotion. The entire evaluation system consists of four core dimensions:

Verifiable transaction volume processed by live production systems.
Diversity of tokenized asset products across all categories.
Completeness of regulatory licensing and compliance system construction.
Underlying infrastructure model (self-built private network, participation in public blockchain networks, or a dual-track approach).

These dimensions correspond to different strategic advantages:

Transaction Volume: Rewards institutions that commercialize their systems first and seize business opportunities.
Product Breadth: Institutions capable of serving diverse institutional clients and covering the full spectrum of asset classes hold an advantage.
Compliance Qualifications: Institutions that establish compliance frameworks ahead of the finalization of global regulatory details build first-mover barriers.
Infrastructure Model: Directly reflects the institution's long-term strategic view on the future structure of the institutional blockchain market.

The following analysis breaks down each of the four banks according to this framework.

JPMorgan Chase's Kinexys: The Undisputed Leader in Transaction Volume

The most critical metric for evaluating institutional blockchain infrastructure is the scale of actual transactions processed, and JPMorgan Chase has left its peers far behind on this front.

Its Kinexys system has cumulatively cleared over $1 trillion in transactions, with core businesses focused on tokenized collateral management and intraday repo settlement.

$1 trillion is a key threshold. Exceeding this scale prompts regulators, counterparties, and institutional asset managers to view this financial infrastructure as a mature commercial tool rather than an experimental project.

JPMorgan's product strategy is deliberately refined. Kinexys focuses on three primary scenarios: JPM Coin cash settlement, collateral management, and repo clearing. The advantage of deepening a single vertical is extremely comprehensive functionality within that niche, rather than superficially covering a wide range of assets without depth.

JPMorgan's weakness lies in its closed, private network model. The Kinexys ecosystem is accessible only to JPMorgan's own institutional clients. Counterparties without an existing banking relationship with JPMorgan cannot access its clearing system. Although the transaction volume within the existing network is impressive, the overall addressable market space has a clear upper limit.

Goldman Sachs Digital Assets: Leader in Product Breadth

Among the four banks, Goldman Sachs' institutional blockchain business covers the widest array of product categories.

The Goldman Sachs Digital Asset Platform (GS DAP) has already completed tokenized bond issuances for multiple sovereign institutions and supranational organizations, including the European Investment Bank and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. It has also launched tokenized money market funds for corporate treasury management and is a founding core member of the Canton Network, co-building a shared network with other major financial institutions.

This diversified product portfolio aligns with Goldman's client base: serving various capital market participants such as sovereign issuers, corporate treasury departments, and asset management firms. As an investment bank covering the broadest range of institutional capital clients, Goldman needs infrastructure that can support various types of tokenized asset businesses, rather than being limited to deepening a single application scenario.

The Canton Network builds a shared underlying layer for licensed financial institutions. As a founding member, Goldman Sachs can influence the network's development while benefiting from the liquidity pool brought by other institutional participants.

Compared to JPMorgan Chase, Goldman's shortcoming lies in publicly verified transaction volume. Although GS DAP has executed several real bond issuances, the overall clearing volume of its blockchain infrastructure has not been fully disclosed like JPMorgan's Kinexys.

HSBC's Orion: Frontrunner in Cross-Border Business and Sustainable Finance

Leveraging its Orion platform, HSBC has differentiated itself by focusing on cross-border tokenized securities issuance and sustainable financial products.

In November 2023, HSBC launched a tokenized gold product, "HSBC Gold Token," for institutional clients, backed by physical gold in London vaults. In March 2024, this product was extended to the Hong Kong retail market.

The Orion platform has repeatedly executed landmark tokenized bond projects. Representative deals include the Hong Kong Monetary Authority's digital green bonds issued in February 2024 and November 2025, with the latter being the world's largest digital bond issuance by size at the time.

HSBC's global geographical advantage is a natural barrier not possessed by New York or London-based domestic banks. Its long-established client resources in Asia, the Middle East, and emerging markets provide natural distribution channels for tokenized securities, precisely in regions where digital asset regulatory systems are rapidly maturing.

The HSBC Gold Token is a unique innovation, extending tokenized business from institutional clearing infrastructure to ordinary retail users.

Overall, HSBC's institutional blockchain business scale may not match JPMorgan's, and its product completeness may be less than Goldman's. However, its global network footprint creates a unique competitive moat in overseas markets where the other three banks have less penetration.

BNY Mellon: The Custodian and Underlying Infrastructure Provider

BNY Mellon's positioning in the institutional tokenization race is entirely different from the other three banks. The other three are primarily investment banks or large commercial banks with extensive institutional lending businesses, whereas BNY Mellon is primarily a custodian and asset servicer.

The world's largest custodian entering the digital asset custody space is highly significant for institutional RWA adoption. For institutional asset managers to hold tokenized assets in compliant accounts, robust underlying custody infrastructure is essential.

BNY Mellon participates in the Canton Network alongside Goldman Sachs, providing the underlying custody support for all transactions within the network. For example, when a Goldman client issues a tokenized bond via GS DAP and other Canton institutions participate in the subscription, BNY Mellon can provide custody services for the holdings. Regardless of which institution initiates a transaction, BNY Mellon can consistently earn stable custody fees.

BNY Mellon's weakness lies in its focus on underlying infrastructure support; it does not actively launch front-end products. It has not rolled out large-scale front-end businesses like tokenized bond issuances or tokenized money funds as Goldman has.

Its core competency resides in its custody and asset servicing foundation, a layer of service indispensable for all compliant institutional accounts holding tokenized products.

Conclusion

A horizontal comparison of the four banks yields the following results:

Transaction Volume: JPMorgan Chase's Kinexys leads significantly, with verified total clearing volume exceeding $1 trillion. Goldman Sachs, HSBC, and BNY Mellon have not publicly disclosed complete transaction data on a similar scale.
Product Breadth: Goldman Sachs leads by a wide margin, having executed sovereign tokenized bonds, tokenized money funds, and co-built the Canton Network. JPMorgan has fewer products but extreme depth in specific scenarios. HSBC uniquely offers a gold token, bridging the retail market. BNY Mellon focuses solely on underlying custody and does not issue front-end products.
Regulatory Compliance: All four have proactively built compliance frameworks ahead of finalized global regulatory details. JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs have the deepest engagement with regulators across various jurisdictions. HSBC, rooted in Hong Kong, holds a geographical advantage in Asian digital asset regulation.
Infrastructure Model: JPMorgan built a closed, private network. Goldman Sachs follows a dual-track approach: its own platform plus a shared network. HSBC and BNY Mellon primarily join shared networks and have not extensively built their own exclusive underlying networks. The shared network model reduces infrastructure investment costs but sacrifices the exclusive differentiation that a private network can offer.

The most crucial finding from this comparison is that the institutional tokenization market will not converge into a single infrastructure model. Instead, multiple development paths will coexist, each catering to different institutional client needs.

This parallel development harbors the risk of market fragmentation. If various institutional blockchain infrastructures operate as isolated islands with insufficient cross-network interoperability, rather than forming a unified, interconnected clearing system, the efficiency gains from blockchain technology will be confined within single-bank client ecosystems and fail to benefit the entire market.

The future level of industry fragmentation risk depends on two key variables: the progress in implementing interoperability standards between Canton and other institutional networks, and the speed at which unified regulatory frameworks for tokenized securities are perfected across countries.

My fundamental view is that over the next 5 to 10 years, major institutional networks will gradually enhance interoperability. There is a commercial incentive for institutions to interconnect liquidity pools, but the path toward comprehensive interoperability will be long and uncertain.

Each of the four institutions has forged a distinct strategic path: JPMorgan Chase holds the lead in transaction volume, Goldman Sachs boasts the most comprehensive product matrix, HSBC leverages its unique global positioning, and BNY Mellon dominates the underlying custody track. In the institutional tokenization race of the next decade, who will build the most enduring competitive moat? We shall wait and see.

Perguntas relacionadas

QBased on the article, which bank leads in terms of verifiable transaction volume in the institutional tokenization race?

AJPMorgan leads significantly with its Kinexys system, having cleared over $1 trillion in cumulative transaction volume.

QAccording to the assessment framework, what are the four core dimensions used to evaluate the banks' tokenization businesses?

AThe four core dimensions are: verifiable transaction volume of live production systems, breadth of tokenized asset product offerings, completeness of regulatory qualifications and compliance systems, and the underlying infrastructure model (private network, public network, or hybrid).

QWhat is the Goldman Sachs Digital Assets Platform's key strength compared to its competitors, as highlighted in the article?

AGoldman Sachs Digital Assets Platform (GS DAP) leads in product breadth and diversity, having facilitated tokenized bond issuances for sovereign entities and launched tokenized money market funds for corporate treasuries.

QHow does HSBC's Orion platform differentiate itself in the market, according to the article?

AHSBC's Orion platform differentiates itself by focusing on cross-border tokenized securities issuance and sustainable finance products. It leverages its global network, especially in Asia, and has uniquely extended into the retail market with products like the HSBC Gold Token.

QWhat is BNY Mellon's primary role and strategic positioning in the institutional tokenization landscape, as described in the article?

ABNY Mellon primarily acts as a custody and underlying infrastructure service provider. Its strategic position is to offer essential custody services for tokenized assets on networks like Canton, rather than actively issuing front-end financial products.

Leituras Relacionadas

Full Debut Q&A! Fed Chair Wash: Firmly Adhering to 2% Inflation Target, Establishing Five Special Task Forces, Personally Did Not Submit Dot Plot

Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh delivered his first FOMC press conference, maintaining the federal funds rate at 3.5%-3.75% and emphasizing the Committee's unanimous and explicit commitment to achieving its 2% inflation target. Key announcements included significant changes to Fed communication and operations. The policy statement was significantly shortened and, notably, forward guidance was removed. Chair Warsh broke from precedent by declining to submit his own economic forecasts and "dot plot." He announced the immediate formation of five special working groups focusing on: Fed communication, the balance sheet, data sources, productivity and employment (including AI's impact), and the inflation framework. These groups, which will include external experts, are tasked with recommending improvements by year-end. One key group will review the Fed's $6.7 trillion balance sheet to assess the roles of interest rates versus balance sheet tools in monetary policy. Warsh characterized the current restrictive stance of policy as "uneven," noting its effect on housing but questioning its impact on financial markets where conditions appear less restrictive. He expressed a desire to move away from a "Fed-speak" driven market, arguing that markets should react to economic data rather than Fed commentary to provide better informational signals. On inflation, he stated there is no need to reconsider the 2% target until the Fed re-establishes its commitment and capability to achieve it. Economic projections (SEP) from other officials showed a split on the rate outlook for 2024, with half expecting at least one hike and half forecasting unchanged or lower rates. The median projection saw the federal funds rate at 3.8% by year-end 2024. Following the announcements, risk assets sold off sharply, Treasury yields rose, and the dollar strengthened.

marsbitHá 11m

Full Debut Q&A! Fed Chair Wash: Firmly Adhering to 2% Inflation Target, Establishing Five Special Task Forces, Personally Did Not Submit Dot Plot

marsbitHá 11m

Full First Q&A! Fed Chair Warsh: Sticks to 2% Inflation Target, Establishes Five Special Working Groups, Personally Did Not Submit Dot Plot

The Federal Reserve, under new Chair Kevin Warsh, held its first FOMC meeting, maintaining the federal funds rate target range at 3.5% to 3.75%. The central bank issued a significantly shortened policy statement, explicitly removing forward guidance. Chair Warsh delivered a strong, unified commitment to achieving the 2% inflation target, stating the FOMC has the "capability and the commitment" to restore price stability and sees no need to review the target itself at this time. Warsh announced the immediate formation of five special working groups to examine and propose improvements in key areas by year-end: Fed communication, the balance sheet (including a review of the $6.7 trillion portfolio and its role in policy), data sources and methodology, productivity and employment (including AI's impact), and the inflation framework. In a break from tradition, Chair Warsh did not submit his own economic projections or "dot plot." The submitted Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) showed a split among other officials: half anticipate at least one rate hike this year, while half expect rates to remain steady or fall. The median projection sees the federal funds rate at 3.8% by year-end 2026. Warsh characterized the current policy stance as "uneven," noting restrictive effects in sectors like housing but less so in financial markets. He emphasized a desire to move away from a market dynamic overly focused on Fed signaling, advocating for markets to react more to economic data. On AI, he called it potentially the most significant economic change in his adult life, driving clear demand but with uncertain timing and scale on the supply side, creating a "race" between the two.

链捕手Há 14m

Full First Q&A! Fed Chair Warsh: Sticks to 2% Inflation Target, Establishes Five Special Working Groups, Personally Did Not Submit Dot Plot

链捕手Há 14m

The DeepSeek Financing Story

DeepSeek's financing round, totaling approximately 3 billion USD, concluded recently, revealing details about the process and key investors. The round was initiated around April with strict initial terms: a minimum commitment of 5 billion RMB, no syndication, and a pure RMB structure. These were later relaxed, with the minimum ticket size reduced to 1.5 billion RMB. A pivotal four-hour online investor meeting in mid-May served as the primary interaction for many backers with DeepSeek's founder, Liang Wenfeng. Despite not being a naturally eloquent speaker, Liang's philosophy deeply resonated. He consistently emphasized the company's singular focus on AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), the principle of "less is more," extreme caution in spending, and the paramount importance of team stability. His notable quotes included describing the team as "ordinary people doing extraordinary things" and stating that "AGI is a big enough thing; everything else is just process." The final investor list featured 10 entities, but underlying fund structures indicate participation from nearly 100 institutions and individuals. Notable lead investors include Monolith Capital (increasing its commitment from 1.5 to 3 billion RMB), Zhenxingu Capital, IDG Capital, and state-affiliated investors like Guozhitou. Conspicuously absent were major firms like Sequoia China and Hillhouse Capital, despite earlier speculation about their involvement. A core condition set by Liang Wenfeng for all investors, whether corporate or venture capital, was a strict prohibition against poaching DeepSeek employees or encouraging them to leave to start ventures. The financing process highlighted DeepSeek's unexpected openness to external capital, surprising many in the investment community. The company's low-profile nature, combined with its ambitious AGI vision and principled approach, fostered a sense of reverence among participating investors, many of whom were reluctant to discuss the deal publicly, preferring to maintain its discreet and purposeful ethos.

链捕手Há 21m

链捕手Há 21m

The DeepSeek Fundraising Story

"The DeepSeek Funding Story: Insights from the $2.15 Billion Round" This article details behind-the-scenes narratives from DeepSeek's recent massive funding round. Key highlights include the legendary four-hour online investor meeting where CEO Liang Wenfeng, despite not being a charismatic speaker, impressed attendees with his focus on AGI and team stability. He emphasized the philosophy of "ordinary people doing extraordinary things" and a steadfast commitment to solely advancing intelligence. The fundraising process, initiated in April, saw initial demands for a minimum investment of 5 billion RMB, no syndication, and a pure RMB structure. These terms were later adjusted to a 1.5 billion RMB minimum to accommodate more investors. A notable absence was the lack of participation from major VC firms Sequoia China and Hillhouse Capital, despite early rumors, making IDG the only established VC in the final lineup. The investor list, while showing 10 entities, actually involved nearly 100 underlying institutions and individuals upon closer examination. Significant participants included Monolith Capital, which doubled its commitment to 3 billion RMB, and Zhenxingu Capital, an unexpected entrant. Liang Wenfeng's paramount condition for all investors was a strict agreement not to poach DeepSeek employees. The article reflects on DeepSeek's unexpected openness to funding and the mix of strategies—synergy, insight, brand alignment, and persistence—that secured investors a stake. The overarching sentiment among participants is one of pride and a shared belief in DeepSeek's potential to become a landmark Chinese company, driven by a profound sense of purpose in the AGI race.

marsbitHá 23m

marsbitHá 23m

DAT Companies Take on Side Businesses

The article details the strategic shifts of Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) companies amid a prolonged market downturn. Initially popularized by firms like MicroStrategy, the DAT model—where companies hold cryptocurrencies on their balance sheets—has faced significant pressure as crypto ETFs eroded their investment thesis and bear markets strained finances. Key players are adapting in several ways. Some, like ETHzilla, have abandoned the model entirely. Others are pivoting towards becoming active, revenue-generating participants in the crypto ecosystem rather than passive holders. This evolution is taking two main paths: 1. **Transformation into Institutional Crypto Asset Managers:** Companies like SharpLink Gaming and GameSquare are leveraging their holdings to generate yield, moving beyond simple storage. They employ strategies like 100% ETH staking or using machine learning to optimize DeFi yields, positioning themselves as platforms offering institutional-grade crypto yield products. 2. **Becoming Blockchain Infrastructure Operators:** This is prominent in the Solana ecosystem. Firms like DeFi Development and SOL Strategies are acquiring validator businesses, issuing liquid staking tokens (e.g., dfdvSOL, fwdSOL), and integrating them into DeFi protocols. They generate fee-based revenue from these operations, building network effects. The article notes that successful转型 hinges on building operational expertise and defensible business models around crypto assets, such as technical advantages or deep ecosystem integration. However, these new paths carry risks like smart contract vulnerabilities or ecosystem dependence. Ultimately, this collective shift signals a maturation phase for the DAT movement. It highlights that in crypto, sustainable value is increasingly tied to active participation, cash flow generation, and providing real utility, rather than speculative capital allocation alone.

Foresight NewsHá 26m