--- title: "BankThink 不要將穩定幣與銀行存款的代幣化混淆" description: "Noelle Acheson 討論了穩定幣和代幣化存款之間的區別，特別是在最近的 GENIUS 法案立法背景下。雖然像美國銀行和花旗銀行這樣的銀行正在探索穩定幣的發行，但 Acheson 強調，穩定幣是由現金支持的區塊鏈代幣，而代幣化存款是銀行發行的代表客户存款的代幣。這對銀行模型和貨幣演變的影響是顯著的，因為穩定幣作為法定貨幣的替代品，具有更廣泛的使用場景，而銀行代幣僅限於內部銀行交易，無法自由" type: "news" locale: "zh-HK" url: "https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/249990141.md" published_at: "2025-07-24T14:01:31.000Z" --- # BankThink 不要將穩定幣與銀行存款的代幣化混淆 > Noelle Acheson 討論了穩定幣和代幣化存款之間的區別，特別是在最近的 GENIUS 法案立法背景下。雖然像美國銀行和花旗銀行這樣的銀行正在探索穩定幣的發行，但 Acheson 強調，穩定幣是由現金支持的區塊鏈代幣，而代幣化存款是銀行發行的代表客户存款的代幣。這對銀行模型和貨幣演變的影響是顯著的，因為穩定幣作為法定貨幣的替代品，具有更廣泛的使用場景，而銀行代幣僅限於內部銀行交易，無法自由流通 With the GENIUS Act stablecoin legislation now signed into law, we can expect an acceleration of pronouncements in coming months from U.S. banks about how they are looking into issuing their own stablecoins. We've already heard words along these lines from Bank of America, Citi, Wells Fargo and others. And smaller, less headline-driving institutions around the United States will no doubt be fielding questions on the topic from shareholders as well as clients. Many of the banks will tout the greater speed, lower cost and superior client service of blockchain-based payments. And they'll be right. But most will be conflating stablecoins with a much more likely bank product: Tokenized deposits, also known as deposit tokens. Both are blockchain-based representations of fiat value. But there the similarities end. And the difference matters, not just for bank business models, but also for the evolution of money. To see how, let's start with some terminology: A stablecoin is a blockchain token backed 1:1 by cash or cash-like assets, used as a substitute for fiat in on-chain trade and other applications. Essentially, it is a tokenized dollar, relatively straightforward to conceptualize. A tokenized deposit is more complicated to define, largely because a "deposit" is not a tokenizable asset, but rather a contract between a client and a bank. A deposit could contain $1,000 or $10 million, and its value can swing significantly, even intraday. So, what does a "tokenized deposit" represent? For the purposes of this comparison, let's simplify the confusing vocabulary and assume that tokenized deposits are bank-issued tokens backed by dollars held in client accounts, with one token equivalent to $1. That may sound similar to a stablecoin, but the market impact is very different. To see how, let's dive into how each differs when it comes to transferring value. A stablecoin is created when an authorized issuer, typically an onboarded financial institution, exchange or wallet provider mints new tokens that correspond to deposited reserves. For example, let's say an FX trader works with Circle, issuer of the stablecoin USDC, and makes a $1 million transfer from its fiat account to Circle's fiat account. Circle receives the fiat transfer, adds it to reserves and mints 1 million USDC, which it transfers to the FX trader's on-chain wallet. Because most stablecoins currently in circulation operate on public blockchains, the FX trader can then use the USDC any way it sees fit, even sending it to individuals with self-hosted wallets. How does a tokenized deposit move? Similarly to how a fiat deposit moves — both involve state changes to centrally managed ledgers. Imagine that a bank has already set up on-chain accounts on its private blockchain for client A and client B, each of whom is in a different banking jurisdiction. Also imagine that client A wants to transfer $1 million to client B on a Saturday night. There are many ways this could function, but the most common is as follows: The bank subtracts $1 million from client A's fiat account, while the proprietary blockchain protocol mints $1 million worth of bank tokens and deposits them in the corresponding on-chain account. A transaction is then initiated on the private blockchain to transfer the tokens from client A's on-chain account to that of client B. The tokens are then "redeemed": The bank credits client B's fiat account with $1 million, while the tokens are "burned" and cancelled. This is not very different from simply following a traditional instruction to subtract from client A's account and add to client B's account — it saves some cross-border steps, but the ledger adjustment is still controlled by the bank, and the value transfer still ends up in the fiat accounts. So, which is more money-like, stablecoins or bank-issued deposit tokens? Stablecoins are on-chain dollar representations with a widening range of use cases: trade settlement, remittances, online purchases, collateral, savings and more. Essentially, they are a fiat substitute, accepted as money because they circulate freely and are fungible — a USDC, for example, has the same value in Chicago as in Mumbai. Bank tokens, on the other hand, are more like messages that trigger a fiat account adjustment. Use cases are evolving beyond simple fund transfers to include collateral, tokenized asset trade settlement and other financial services within the bank's network. But, for now, bank tokens are less a fiat substitute and more a representation of a client's deposit at a specific bank. They do not circulate freely as transfers can only be between accounts created by the bank or authorized partners. And they are not fungible, as they are only accepted within a tight network. Another way to see the difference in "moneyness" is in the backing assets. Stablecoins are backed 1:1 by neutral reserves, typically cash or cash-like assets such as money market funds and short-term government securities, that have not been created by the issuer. Bank tokens, on the other hand, are backed by client deposits, which are in part created by the bank and are in turn backed by its reputation and its balance sheet. What's more, the difference in backing reserves also shapes the tokens' purpose. When stablecoins move between on-chain accounts, the reserves are not affected because they are not the point of the action, they are merely there to keep the value stable. Put differently, the users do not want to move reserves, they want to move stablecoins. The reserves are not the main object of the transaction, the stablecoins are. With bank tokens, the opposite is true. Their value is kept stable by fiat deposits, but when the tokens change hands, a traditional deposit movement is usually the objective. Put differently, the traditional deposit transfer is the protagonist, and the tokens are the facilitator. This gets us closer to what is perhaps the key big-picture difference between deposit tokens and stablecoins. Deposit tokens improve banking services; they are about iterating on an existing business model. Stablecoins, on the other hand, represent a new form of money; they are about an entirely new marketplace. So, although stablecoins and tokenized deposits are often conflated, they have little in common when it comes to functionality and scope. When we hear banks talk about one or the other, we should double-check that they understand the difference. ### Related Stocks - [SES.US - SES AI](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/quote/SES.US.md) ## Related News & Research | Title | Description | URL | |-------|-------------|-----| | GSA Capital Partners LLP 减少了在 SES AI Corporation 的持股 $SES | GSA Capital Partners LLP 在第三季度将其在 SES AI Corporation 的持股减少了 52.4%，目前持有 860,461 股，出售了 948,993 股。其他投资者如先锋集团（Vanguard）和 AQR | [Link](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/276229814.md) | | 沃尔玛四季度财报超预期但盈利指引不及预期，CEO 称 “美国低收入家庭只能勉强维持生计” | 沃尔玛 Q4 营收超预期，新财年盈利指引（每股 2.75-2.85 美元）远低于市场预期的 2.96 美元，显示通胀压力下消费者支出不确定性犹存，拖累股价下跌 1.38%。财报印证 K 型” 分化：高收入家庭驱动增长，低收入群体 “钱包吃紧 | [Link](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/276398633.md) | | 谷歌突然发布 Gemini 3.1 Pro：核心推理性能直接翻倍 | 谷歌发布了最新的大模型 Gemini 3.1 Pro，其推理性能较去年发布的 Gemini 3 Pro 翻倍。在 ARC-AGI-2 评测中，Gemini 3.1 Pro 得分 77.1%，显示出强大的推理能力。新模型支持多源数据综合和复杂 | [Link](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/276396515.md) | | GRAIL｜8-K：2025 财年 Q4 营收 43.6 百万美元超过预期 | | [Link](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/276379877.md) | | 最高法裁决后特朗普动用替补选择：加征 10% 全球关税 | 美国总统特朗普在最高法院裁决后宣布将加征 10% 的全球关税，以补救被推翻的关税措施。根据《1974 年贸易法》第 122 条款，现有的关税将全面生效。最高法院裁定特朗普政府的部分关税措施缺乏法律授权。市场风险提示，投资需谨慎。 | [Link](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/276477629.md) | --- > **免責聲明**：本文內容僅供參考，不構成任何投資建議。