Three months ago, we wrote an article titled 'When Banks Choose Consortium Chains: Why Is the Mainstream's Entry Into Crypto So Awkward?'. Our judgment at the time was: When major banks like JPMorgan, BoA, and Citi pushed the tokenized deposit network through The Clearing House, it essentially meant that banks acknowledged blockchain's efficiency but intended to keep control within the banking system—the crypto world got the mainstream entry it was waiting for, but it got a "bank version, controlled version, regulated version" of the blockchain.
Looking back three months later, that judgment is not only not outdated, but is accelerating its realization.
From August 25th to 26th, 2026, four things collided almost on the same day:
- 39 U.S. state banking associations jointly established the "BankChain Alliance," planning to launch a nationwide, bank-owned and governed blockchain network in 2027 for stablecoins, payments, and tokenized deposits.
- Market maker Citadel Securities endorsed LayerZero's trading infrastructure, while the U.S. securities clearing hub DTCC and ICE, the parent company of the NYSE, simultaneously explored institutional-grade applications.
- Crypto custodian ZeroHash, after being rejected, submitted a second application to the OCC for a trust bank charter; Meanwhile, Copper's custody business, reportedly once valued at $2.5 billion, now has potential buyer offers far below its $500 million asking price.
- The stablecoin USD1, issued by licensed trust bank BitGo Bank & Trust (under World Liberty Financial), natively deployed on the Canton network.
Putting these four events together, a clear signal emerges: the main battleground for tokenization competition has shifted from "who lists the asset first" to "who controls the tracks"—the settlement layer, custody layer, and licensing layer.
This is not just another "banks are coming again" news story—this is a transfer of pricing power.
Judgment from Three Months Ago, The Great Change Three Months Later
Let's first review the core argument of our analysis article from June this year:
We said back then that banks chose consortium chains not because they didn't understand DeFi, but because they understood they couldn't operate like DeFi—banks want clear answers to questions like "who can join, who can see the data, who is responsible for KYC/AML, and who is liable when something goes wrong."
The appeal of consortium chains lies precisely in what the crypto world sees as "not open enough, not decentralized enough, not crypto enough."
Looking at today, three months later, this logic hasn't changed, but the tier of participants has.
In June, the protagonists were "a few major banks"—G-SIB-level institutions like JPMorgan, BoA, and Citi, advancing through The Clearing House, a payment company they co-own.
In August, the protagonist became "the lobbying group of the entire banking industry"—39 state banking associations representing thousands of community banks. The BankChain Alliance is not a joint pilot by a few big banks, but an attempt by the banking industry as a sector to institutionalize control of the chain in its own hands.
The distinction is important:
- A pilot by major banks might just be a strategic option for a few players;
- State banking associations building their own chain means the "default option" for the entire banking system is being rewritten—community banks don't need to individually assess whether to go on-chain; they are being led by the lobbying group directly into a bank-owned network. From "pilot by major banks" to "industry infrastructure"—this is the first layer of escalation in the battle for the tracks.
Clearing Hubs and Market Makers Enter the Fray: The Second Layer of the Track Battle
If the BankChain Alliance is the banking side's "build-your-own-track," then the moves by LayerZero × Citadel Securities, DTCC, and ICE represent the market infrastructure side's "build-your-own-track."
What does each of these three parties represent?
- DTCC: The "track layer" for U.S. securities settlement, handling tens of trillions of dollars in securities trades daily. Reports of it exploring institutional-grade onchain applications mean the "clearing" aspect of tokenized securities is being preemptively claimed by the traditional clearing hub.
- ICE: Parent company of the NYSE, representing the integrated traditional power of "exchange + clearing."
- Citadel Securities: One of the world's largest market makers. Its endorsement of LayerZero's trading infrastructure means that "market making," the element determining liquidity, is also leaning towards institution-owned tracks.
The combined implication of these three events is: the entire value chain of tokenized securities—from "listing the asset" to "settlement, clearing, and market making"—is being claimed piece by piece by the nerve centers of traditional finance.
The crypto world used to believe the value of tokenization lay in the act of "going on-chain" itself; but it is now increasingly clear that the truly valuable parts of tokenization—settlement certainty, clearing efficiency, market-making liquidity, regulatory interfaces—are precisely what traditional finance already holds.
Is Custody Being Re-priced?
This is the most brutal of the four news items.
ZeroHash, after being rejected, applied a second time to the OCC for a trust bank charter. Why is it knocking on the door again? Because the custody business is being re-priced from "who has better technology, better on-chain capabilities" to "who has the license, who can provide bank-grade custody."
The story of Copper is the counterexample: According to CoinDesk, this crypto custodian was once valued at $2.5 billion. Now, investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald is reportedly seeking buyers for it with an asking price of around $500 million, and buyer offers are far below that number. The same custody business has seen its valuation shrink by over 80%. Why? The answer is simple: because the value of custody is no longer determined by the "technology moat," but by the "license moat."
Bank-grade custody means: regulatory backing, a clear responsible entity, a complete audit trail, and the ability to assign liability when things go wrong. These are precisely the things hardest for crypto-native custodians to acquire—they have the technology, but not the banking license; whereas banks have the license and are acquiring the technology.
ZeroHash's second application for an OCC charter shows that crypto-native players themselves have figured it out—at this table, the license is more valuable than the technology.
The Issuance Power of Stablecoins is Also Converging Towards Licensed Trust Banks
The fourth item is the native deployment of USD1 on the Canton network.
But what's truly noteworthy about this news isn't "another stablecoin deployed on which chain," but who is issuing it.
According to Cointelegraph, USD1 (market cap ~$4.05B, the sixth-largest stablecoin) is issued by BitGo Bank & Trust—this licensed trust bank manages USD1's reserves and handles minting and redemption. World Liberty Financial, a crypto venture company with Trump family ties, is the brand and operational party for USD1.
This structure itself is another footnote for the "license moat": a crypto project associated with a former president ultimately chose to assign the core financial functions of stablecoin issuance, reserve management, minting, and redemption to a licensed trust bank.
Now look at the deployment network. Canton is described by its operator as a public blockchain for institutional finance, but its core selling point is "privacy and permission controls"—enabling USD1 to atomically settle with tokenized assets in the same transaction while maintaining the permissions and visibility boundaries required by institutions.
In other words, the "cash leg" of USD1 lands on a network that prioritizes "institutional control" as a primary design principle.
This validates a statement we buried in our June article: The key to RWA is not "whether assets can go on-chain," but "how the cash leg and trust structure form a closed loop."
When the issuance power of stablecoins begins to converge towards licensed trust banks, and when the cash leg begins to land on institutional networks emphasizing permission control, "the banking of stablecoins" is no longer an industry slogan, but a verifiable fact happening transaction by transaction.
This Isn't "Banks vs. Crypto" Opposition, It's "Who Defines the Tracks"
Combining the four events, EX.IO Research's judgment is:
The decisive factor in tokenization competition has shifted from "who lists the asset first" to "who controls the tracks"—the settlement layer, custody layer, and licensing layer. And these three layers are being systematically claimed by the traditional finance system of banks, clearing hubs, market makers, and the licensing framework.
But this doesn't mean "the crypto world lost."
More accurately, the division of labor is solidifying:
- Open public chains will continue to host open finance, DeFi, global stablecoin liquidity, and developer innovation;
- Bank consortium chains and institutional networks will host bank deposits, corporate treasury, institutional settlement, and privacy-sensitive transactions;
- Tokenized funds will host yield-generating cash management;
- Regulated custody will host licensed, accountable asset safekeeping.
What is truly being rewritten is the "right to define the tracks."
Three months ago, we said banks were "writing another script." Three months later, not only is the script written, but the cast has expanded to include the entire banking industry, clearing hubs, and market makers.
For market participants, the most important thing is no longer "whether this asset goes on-chain," but "which chain it goes on, who controls that chain, and whose license backs it."
Based on the above analysis, we can also draw three core judgments:
First, the battle for the tracks has entered the "industry infrastructure" stage. The upgrade from pilot projects by major banks to a self-built chain by 39 state banking associations means the banking system is making "owning the tracks" the default option.
Second, custody is being revalued by "licensing." ZeroHash's second attempt at an OCC charter and Copper's valuation collapse indicate that the moat of the custody business is shifting from technology to licenses.
Third, the issuance power of stablecoins is converging towards licensed trust banks. The fact that USD1 is issued by BitGo Bank & Trust validates that the "cash leg + closed-loop trust structure" is the real key to tokenized finance—and the key to the closed loop is a license backing it.
The tracks are often the key. We also often say that Web2 + Web3 can lead to a better future, including more assets on-chain, etc. However, when banks accelerate building their own consortium chains, Web3 may lose the crucial "tracks." As for the next steps—how to leverage its own advantages—perhaps this circle needs to wait for the next real, market-attracting narrative and a genuinely successful case study.
🔗 Sources (Based on public media reports; related project progress, timelines, and commercial arrangements are subject to 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 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, with Citadel Securities backing;https://www.coindesk.com/business/2026/08/25/layerzero-unveils-trading-infrastructure-for-crypto-and-tokenized-markets-zro-surges
CoinDesk — Zerohash back for second effort 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 way below its $500M asking price(Original: "Once valued at $2.5 billion"https://www.coindesk.com/business/2026/08/25/crypto-custody-firm-copper-has-potential-buyers-but-offers-are-way-below-its-usd500-million-asking-price
Cointelegraph — World Liberty Financial launches USD1 natively on Canton Network(Original: 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 for general market information and educational reference only and does not constitute investment advice, legal advice, compliance advice, trading advice, solicitation, or recommendation. Digital asset prices are highly volatile, and past performance is not indicative of future results. Readers should not base trading, product, licensing, or other business decisions solely on this content. For legal, compliance, tax, or investment judgments, consult qualified professional advisors.
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, provide, or support any specific tokenized deposit, RWA, custody, payment, securities, or banking-related product/service. Discussion of third-party institutional plans herein does not constitute endorsement of their products, safety, compliance status, or future implementation.
This content is based on public sources and may contain errors, omissions, or delays. Statements involving future plans, expectations, or trends are forward-looking statements subject to uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially from those expressed herein. This content is not an advertisement, solicitation, or offer for any regulated activity (including securities, collective investment schemes, or virtual asset-related services).
