Banks face $230bn payments revenue threat as Tokenised money goes mainstream

Banks could lose as much as $230bn in payments revenue as stablecoins, tokenised deposits and central bank digital currencies move from experimentation into commercial use, according to Capgemini’s latest World Payments Report.

Banks Face $230bn Payments Revenue Threat 

The consultancy estimates these forms of “accelerated intelligent money” could account for around 4% of global payments volume by 2030, putting pressure on some of banking’s most lucrative income streams, including foreign exchange spreads, correspondent banking, float and transaction-processing fees.

The threat is particularly acute in cross-border corporate payments, where dissatisfaction with existing infrastructure remains stubbornly high.

Corporate Payments Remain Slow and Expensive

Capgemini found that 74% of corporates regard cross-border payments as slow, expensive and unpredictable.

The end-to-end journey — from initiation through transfer, confirmation and reconciliation — takes around 3.5 days, while 57% of businesses lack real-time visibility over payment status, liquidity positions or pricing.

That friction comes at a cost. Capgemini estimates a typical cross-border B2B transaction can absorb costs equivalent to around 2% of transaction value.

The report argues that tokenised forms of money could reduce those inefficiencies by enabling 24/7 settlement, programmability and embedded rules, potentially releasing as much as $4tn currently locked in settlement and liquidity accounts.

Banks Still Have an Advantage — For Now

Corporates have not abandoned banks.

Some 71% say they would prefer a bank to a fintech for tokenised payment services where price and service quality are equivalent.

But that loyalty has limits. Nearly 60% would consider using a non-bank provider for stablecoin services if their bank fails to provide a competitive alternative, while 36% of corporate B2B payment volume already passes through non-bank providers.

That creates a strategic dilemma. Banks risk losing both transaction revenue and the deposits that underpin wider corporate relationships.

Tokenised Deposits Move to the Front of the Queue

Capgemini says banks increasingly see tokenised deposits as the most attractive near-term response because they remain bank liabilities, stay on balance sheet and fit more naturally within existing regulatory structures.

That view is broadly consistent with the direction of travel at the Bank for International Settlements. Project Agorá has already demonstrated that tokenised commercial bank deposits can be combined with tokenised central bank reserves for atomic, multi-currency cross-border settlement.

Yet only 21% of banks in Capgemini’s study are currently scaling at least one such instrument.

The risk for the remainder is increasingly clear.

Tokenised money is no longer simply a technology experiment. It is becoming a contest over who owns the payment flow, the customer relationship and, ultimately, the deposits themselves.