Thirty-nine US state banking associations have formed the BankChain Alliance, aiming to launch an industry-owned blockchain network for banks by 2027. The group says the system is designed to help regulated institutions develop and deploy onchain financial services such as smart payment tools, tokenized deposits, stablecoin-related capabilities, and automated settlement.

The alliance’s initial announcement emphasizes interoperability with other blockchains and states that BankChain is selecting a technology partner. It also says it will invite banks across the country to take ownership stakes in the network. However, the public release did not outline how governance or funding would work, nor did it name specific banks that have already agreed to participate.

Key takeaways

• BankChain Alliance brings together 39 state banking associations to build a shared, industry-owned blockchain network for banks, targeting 2027.
• The network’s intended use cases include smart payments, tokenized deposits, stablecoins, and automated settlement.
• BankChain says it aims for interoperability with other blockchains and is selecting a technology partner.
• The announcement does not yet detail governance or funding, and it does not name specific banks committing to join.

A bank-led path: tokenized deposits instead of “unbacked” onchain money

BankChain’s stated direction fits a broader shift within US finance toward shared blockchain infrastructure built and controlled by regulated institutions. A core distinction in this approach is the treatment of tokenized deposits. According to The Clearing House’s June announcement, tokenized deposits are claims on individual banks and are intended to retain their status as commercial bank money rather than functioning like independently issued stablecoins.

In practice, that structure matters for adoption because it allows banks to use programmable, near-real-time settlement while keeping customer funds on bank balance sheets. The model is designed to reduce some of the regulatory and operational questions that have surrounded stablecoin issuance, while still delivering many of the workflow advantages that motivate onchain payments.

BankChain joins a growing US consortium ecosystem

BankChain is not the first effort aimed at moving deposits and payments onchain within the regulated banking system. Since late 2025, multiple initiatives have been announced or advanced—spanning large, regional, and community banks—each exploring shared infrastructure and coordination.

In June, The Clearing House announced an “onchain money” initiative backed by major institutions including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citi, BNY and Wells Fargo. The proposal is described as clearing and settling tokenized deposits between banks, while connecting onchain activity to existing payment systems.

Regional lenders have also pursued their own bank-governed direction. Through Cari, which was developed with Huntington, First Horizon, M&T Bank, KeyBank and Old National, participants have been working toward a separate network. Cari launched a minimum viable product in March and, according to the reporting referenced in the source article, had attracted more than 30 participating banks by July.

At the community bank level, the DTX Consortium was formed through the Independent Bankers Association of Texas. In June, IBAT stated its membership had surpassed 50 banks as the group prepared a tokenized-deposit pilot.

Taken together, these projects point to an emerging pattern: instead of building a single, universal network from scratch, US banks appear to be testing multiple frameworks—often consortium-based—that allow participants to move value onchain while retaining governance, compliance, and risk controls inside the banking perimeter.

Stablecoin interest remains, but governance questions are still central

BankChain’s announcement signals ambition beyond tokenized deposits. It lists stablecoins among the targeted capabilities the network would support. Still, the public details provided do not clarify how stablecoin functionality would be handled, whether it would be mediated through bank-issued or bank-controlled mechanisms, or how it would interact with tokenized deposits and existing settlement rails.

The uncertainty around governance is notable across the broader landscape, not just within BankChain’s release. BankChain said it would invite banks nationwide to take ownership stakes, but it did not describe who would set rules for upgrades, risk management, participation standards, or how decisions would be made if institutions disagree. For investors and builders, these questions are often as important as the technical architecture, because they determine how quickly a network can evolve and how disputes are resolved in real deployments.

Meanwhile, stablecoin ecosystem initiatives are also leaning into consortium structures. In June, Open Standard named more than 140 payments, banking, technology and crypto companies in connection with Open USD, a dollar-backed stablecoin expected to launch later in 2026. The project, according to the referenced source material, planned fee-free minting and redemption for businesses while distributing reserve earnings among participating companies.

That contrast—between bank-controlled onchain deposit frameworks and broader consortium-led stablecoin efforts—may shape how liquidity and payment use cases ultimately converge. The key question for market participants is whether these systems will interoperate cleanly enough to support common workflows across different types of “tokenized” value.

What to watch before 2027

BankChain says it is selecting a technology partner and plans for interoperability with other blockchains, but the announcement leaves major implementation details unanswered, including governance and funding. Over the coming months, market participants should look for concrete information on how ownership stakes translate into decision-making power, how the network will connect with regulated payment infrastructure, and which pilot institutions—if any—will be involved early.

With several US bank-led onchain initiatives now underway at different scales, the outcome may hinge on execution: the ability to deliver compliant settlement performance at scale while sustaining a governance model that banks can trust over time.

Thirty-nine U.S. state banking associations announced the formation of BankChain Alliance on Aug. 25, with plans to launch an industry-owned blockchain network during 2027.

The proposed network will support tokenized deposits, stablecoins, smart payment tools and automated settlement, according to the alliance’s official announcement.

BankChain targets smaller and regional banks

The participating associations represent thousands of financial institutions across 39 states. A published membership list includes banking groups from Florida, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Washington and several rural states.

BankChain said banks of every size would be invited to acquire ownership interests. The structure is intended to give smaller institutions access to blockchain infrastructure without requiring each bank to develop a separate network.

Kathy Kraninger, president and CEO of the Florida Bankers Association, serves as BankChain’s interim chair. She previously led the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

BankChain is “targeting a 2027 launch,” according to the alliance. It has not disclosed a firm activation date, testing schedule or participating banks.

The announcement described the project as industry-owned, designed and governed. However, it did not explain voting rights, ownership limits, funding commitments or how the alliance would resolve disputes between participating institutions.

Technology and governance remain undecided

BankChain is selecting a technology partner and said the resulting platform would connect with other blockchain networks. It did not name finalists or specify whether the system would use a public, private or permissioned ledger.

The alliance also has not disclosed its consensus mechanism, transaction capacity, validator requirements or cybersecurity framework. Those details will determine which institutions control transaction validation and how customer information remains private.

The network’s proposed services include both tokenized deposits and stablecoins. These products can appear similar onchain but have different legal structures.

Tokenized deposits generally represent liabilities of individual banks and remain recorded on their balance sheets. Stablecoins are separate tokens backed by reserve assets and may be issued by banks, trust companies or other permitted entities.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has proposed treating eligible tokenized deposits consistently with conventional deposits. Banking groups argued that using blockchain for recordkeeping should not alter deposit-insurance status when existing legal requirements are satisfied.

BankChain enters a crowded banking market

The Clearing House announced a separate bank-led onchain money initiative in June. Its supporters include JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, BNY, Citi, Wells Fargo, BMO, HSBC and several regional lenders.

That project would enable interbank settlement of tokenized deposits and connect blockchain transactions with The Clearing House’s RTP and CHIPS systems. The organization’s existing payment networks clear and settle more than $2 trillion daily.

Other banks are pursuing narrower models. Custodia and Vantage have tested a token combining bank deposits and stablecoin functionality through the Hazel network.

BMO is separately preparing round-the-clock tokenized cash and deposit services using CME Group infrastructure and Google Cloud Universal Ledger.

What BankChain must complete before 2027

The alliance’s next step is selecting and announcing its technology provider. It must then establish governance rules, compliance controls, ownership terms and technical standards before onboarding banks.

BankChain will also need to determine how participating institutions issue tokenized deposits, verify customers and settle obligations between banks. Connections with public blockchains would require additional controls for privacy, sanctions screening and transaction monitoring.

No individual bank has publicly committed to using BankChain, and the alliance has not announced a pilot. The scale suggested by its 39 associations therefore represents potential reach rather than confirmed network participation.

A 2027 launch will depend on completing those decisions, securing bank commitments and satisfying federal and state regulatory requirements. Until then, BankChain remains an industry-backed development project rather than an operating payment network.

Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is moving closer to a formal regulatory pathway for spot Bitcoin and Ether exchange-traded funds (ETFs), shifting from high-level concepts to draft rules and inviting public feedback. In parallel, the regulator is revising how it approaches the use of foreign digital-asset custodians for funds that invest in crypto.

According to the Thai SEC, the agency is seeking comments on two separate consultation papers. One outlines draft regulations for Thai-listed spot crypto ETFs, while the other sets out the qualification principles for foreign digital-asset custodians used by mutual and private funds investing in digital assets. The consultation period runs until Sept. 20.

Key takeaways

• Draft Thai ETF rules would initially limit eligible underlying assets to Bitcoin and Ether only.
• Spot Bitcoin and Ether ETFs would trade exclusively on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET).
• ETFs would need to maintain an average net exposure of at least 80% of net asset value to the tracked crypto asset over each accounting year.
• The SEC’s revised custody approach keeps onshore custodians as the default in early stages, while allowing qualified foreign custodians only when the SEC deems it necessary and appropriate.

Draft spot Bitcoin and Ether ETF framework heads to consultation

In its Monday announcement, the SEC said it is progressing the framework for locally listed spot Bitcoin and Ether ETFs from earlier proposed principles to draft regulatory text. The draft ETF regulations build on an April consultation covering the broader framework, the SEC noted, saying most respondents supported the overall direction but raised concerns—particularly around custody arrangements.

Under the proposed structure, each Thai-domiciled ETF would track a single crypto asset—meaning a product tied to Bitcoin would be different from one tied to Ether. During the initial phase, the SEC would not allow alternative crypto-linked products that reference foreign ETFs, such as depositary receipts tracking them.

For investors, the emphasis on single-asset tracking is designed to keep the fund’s exposure focused and easier to monitor against the relevant benchmark. The SEC’s exposure requirement—minimum 80% average net exposure to the referenced asset over each accounting year—also signals that the regulator expects the funds to behave like straightforward spot trackers rather than multi-asset or structurally complex vehicles.

Where Thai ETFs would trade and how funds could access them

The draft rules specify that Bitcoin and Ether ETFs would trade exclusively on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET). This point matters for market participants because it concentrates secondary trading under a single venue and aligns the product with the mechanics of Thailand’s established exchange infrastructure.

The SEC also clarified how crypto ETFs could be used by other local investment vehicles. The draft rules would allow mutual funds and private funds to invest in Thai-domiciled crypto ETFs, in addition to foreign crypto ETFs that these funds are already permitted to hold under existing investment limits.

However, the SEC drew a boundary around what counts as eligible exposure during the opening phase. Even if foreign ETF access is otherwise permitted through existing rules, the SEC said it would not allow products based on foreign crypto ETFs—specifically including depositary receipts that track them—at least at the start.

Revised stance on foreign custody for mutual and private funds

The second consultation paper addresses custody, and the SEC’s wording reflects a more cautious approach than some market participants may have expected. The regulator said the revised approach would keep onshore digital-asset custodians as the primary custodians for crypto ETFs during the initial phase.

“Under the revised approach, crypto ETFs will continue to be primarily required to use onshore DA [digital asset] custodians, while the SEC may permit the use of qualified foreign DA custodians when necessary and appropriate in light of prevailing circumstances,” the SEC said.

That “necessary and appropriate” language effectively gives the SEC room to evaluate specific custody situations rather than automatically allowing foreign custodians. It also suggests the regulator is trying to balance institutional needs for operational flexibility with Thailand’s preference to anchor high-stakes crypto safeguards within its own regulatory perimeter—at least early on.

For mutual and private funds, the SEC’s separate foreign-custodian proposal adds additional requirements. Foreign custodians used for these funds would need to be supervised by a regulatory authority with legal powers. They would also have to operate under regulatory and investor-asset protection standards that the SEC considers adequate.

In practice, the SEC is setting a qualification test rather than a blanket approval system. This matters because custody is often the operational bottleneck for regulated crypto investment products: investors may accept a new regulatory wrapper for spot exposure, but they require credible safeguarding and compliance structures behind the scenes.

Why Thailand’s approach matters for institutions

Thailand’s SEC is positioning the ETF framework as part of the country’s ambition to become a global digital asset hub for institutions. The consultations show that the SEC’s priority is not only launching ETFs, but structuring them in a way that addresses the concerns most frequently raised in early stages of crypto product regulation: custody standards, product design, and limits on how crypto exposure can be packaged.

Notably, the SEC’s draft regulations also reflect lessons from the April feedback cycle. The regulator said most respondents supported the framework’s general direction, but custody-related comments pushed it to revise its approach—an important sign that investor protection remains the central theme as Thailand formalizes spot ETF rules.

Market participants should watch how commenters respond to the SEC’s custody stance. If the industry pushes for broader acceptance of foreign custodians, regulators may respond with clarifications on what “necessary and appropriate” will mean in practice and what evidence custodians must provide to meet Thai SEC adequacy expectations.

With both consultation papers open until Sept. 20, the next phase will determine how the SEC finalizes the ETF rulebook and what flexibility—if any—extends beyond Thailand-based custodians as product launches approach. Readers should focus on the custody requirements and how the exposure limits and product eligibility rules evolve in response to public submissions.