The Most Promising Cross-Border Rail Is Also the Least Explored – Here's Why

When we partnered with FinanceX Magazine on The Real Pace of Change, our survey of more than 50 senior payments executives, I wanted to know whether the intense public conversation about cross-border payments, new rails, stablecoins, tokenized deposits, everywhere you look in the media and at conferences, matches what the people who actually make these infrastructure decisions are doing. The honest summary is that it doesn't, quite. The gap between the two is what this post is about.

Two findings have stayed with me.

1. What Institutions Actually Value

The first is what institutions actually value. If you read the headlines, the story is speed, and yes, faster settlement topped the list of benefits in our survey. But speed is rarely the deciding factor in the real conversations we have with banks and payment providers. What dominates those conversations is predictability and the cost of capital tied up in the system. In traditional cross-border set-ups, institutions are required to provision prefunding across markets resulting in locking up high amounts of liquidity, and that trapped liquidity is expensive. It is why 80% of the executives we surveyed rate reducing pre-funding and trapped liquidity as important or critical. Capital efficiency, not raw speed, is the quieter and arguably stronger driver.

2. High Interest, Almost No Action

The second finding is the more striking one. We asked about tokenized deposits, bank deposits represented on distributed ledger technology, which keep the same legal status as ordinary bank money. Roughly half of respondents said they see the same potential as stablecoins, but that they are simply less known. And when we asked how likely they would be to explore tokenized deposits if offered through a regulated financial institution, 77% said likely or very likely. Yet almost none are actively exploring them today. Demand is high in principle, but activity is close to zero.

Tokenized Deposits vs. Stablecoins

The reason is not the technology, nor skepticism about the model. More often, it is a lack of clarity around what tokenized deposits actually are and how they differ from stablecoins. Stablecoins have demonstrated the value of faster, more transparent digital payments, but they remain crypto assets. For regulated financial institutions, this can raise practical questions around compliance and market acceptance. In addition, converting stablecoins into local fiat currency typically adds cost, particularly in emerging markets where local offramping infrastructure may be limited. Adding to that, stablecoins still has unclear regulatory status in several markets and are even prohibited in certain markets

Tokenized deposits take a different path. They represent bank money on distributed ledger technology, keeping the legal and institutional characteristics of ordinary deposits while enabling faster settlement. That distinction matters: tokenized deposits remain within the banking system and can build on existing AML, KYC, and regulatory oversight routines.

Single-Bank Tokens vs. the Network Model

There is also an additional dimension – the distinction between single-bank tokens and network-based tokenized deposits. A single-bank token only works inside one bank’s own ecosystem. A member-based network, where multiple regulated institutions share permissioned infrastructure and use bank-agnostic tokens that move directly between members, can deliver the interoperability cross-border payments actually need. The willingness is already there. What is missing is a clearer picture of what is on offer, especially in emerging markets where stablecoins face regulatory restrictions.

Sequencing, Not Speculation

None of this points to overnight transformation. The survey is clear that adoption is measured and conditional, gated by regulatory clarity, ecosystem maturity, and organizational readiness far more than by the technology, which increasingly works. The near-term story will be written by a smaller group of faster movers, whose early deployments create the proof points everyone else waits for. The question is no longer whether alternative rails matter. It is sequencing: which institutions move first, in which corridors, with which partners.

That is the gap this whitepaper maps: the gap between interest and action, between narrative and reality. These are decisions our members and peers across the industry are weighing now, and the full findings are worth reading in detail.

The Real Pace of Change: Institutional Views on Alternative Payment Rails, produced by FinanceX Magazine with support from Centiglobe, is available to download now.