TheRollupCo2 min read
Swift's Avalon Ingram: tokenized bank deposits won't compete with stablecoins
Swift's digital assets lead explains why its blockchain ledger treats tokenized deposits and stablecoins as separate tools, not rivals, for banks moving toward 24/7 settlement.
AI summary of “Avalon Ingram: Tokenized Bank Money Is The Future Of Global Finance (Full Interview)”
Key takeaways
- Avalon Ingram describes Swift's ledger as going live with banks transacting as an interbank liability registry.
- She argues stablecoins and tokenized deposits serve different use cases rather than competing with each other.
- Ingram describes the ledger separating payment execution from settlement, with banks netting liabilities before settling via correspondent banking or RTGS.
- She calls the current system an MVP and says onchain settlement venues are still missing for true 24/7 settlement.
Stablecoins and tokenized deposits serve different purposes, not a rivalry
Avalon Ingram, Swift's Digital Assets Business Lead, tells the host she sees no real intersection between stablecoins and tokenized deposits today. She frames it as each serving a different use case: stablecoins are often activated through consortia and discussed as a settlement asset, while a tokenized deposit is "a liability of a singular bank" and therefore not interchangeable, acting as "a bit of a walled garden." Swift's own ledger, she says, is closer to commercial bank money than a traditional tokenized deposit, since banks tokenize funds on a private ledger without necessarily offering a tokenized product to their own customers.
Ingram expects the financial world to stay hybrid, with multiple forms of value and systems coexisting rather than one replacing another. She also flags a regulatory asymmetry: commercial bank money has broad agreement on prudential treatment, while stablecoin rules vary by jurisdiction.
"The way in which we look at stable coins from jurisdiction to jurisdiction does actually differ." — Avalon Ingram
Swift's ledger as an interbank registry, with settlement venues still missing
Ingram describes Swift's role as acting as "an interbank liability registry," recording what banks owe each other without the tokens themselves changing hands. She stresses this is an MVP meant to move the industry "out of sandbox pilot" and into real-world learning, with future shape depending on regulation around deposit tokens, e-money tokens and even CBDCs.
On architecture, she explains banks still reuse Swift's existing messaging layer, with blockchain recording value, currency and parties, then netting exposures before a bank initiates settlement via correspondent banking accounts or RTGS as it does today. She says what's missing is onchain settlement venues, which she calls one of the inhibitors to banks' goal of settling interbank liabilities 24/7.
"What we clearly need is unchained settlement venues." — Avalon Ingram
Written by AI from the video's transcript. It can compress, misattribute or miss context — the original video is the source. Not investment advice.
