The RWA payment system is fragmenting into four distinct payment models. Payment engineers building crypto asset platforms must choose between public stablecoins (USDC, USDT), crypto commercial bank deposits (JPM Coin, Fnality, Partior), central bank retail cryptocurrencies (mBridge, Project Agora), and emerging hybrid rails. Each model offers different guarantees regarding credit risk, payment process accuracy, speed, cost, and governance. This article compares all four of these models along key factors for real-world asset tokenization (RWA).
The final order system for dispute resolution
Before we compare the models, we need a common psychological model for the final orientation of a transaction – the point at which a transfer becomes irrevocable and has legal value. Not all “immediate” transactions are the same.
Diagram - Settlement Finality Hierarchy Pyramid
The organizational structure has four levels:
Level 1: Central bank money (retail CBDC) The final legal status under the law. No credit risk – liability lies on the central bank’s balance sheet. Example: mBridge pilot transaction, Project Agora (retail CBDC) design. Payment is finalized as soon as the central bank’s ledger is updated.
Level 2: Commercial bank money (asset-backed by tokens): Has final legal status through banking laws and payment system regulations. Credit risk exists but is limited by deposit insurance programs and prudential regulations (Basel III loose financial coverage). Examples: JPM Coin, Fnality USC, Partior asset-backed tokens. The tokens are a claim on the issuing bank, which can be redeemed 1:1 for central bank reserves.
Level 3: Privately managed stablecoins (fully supported) Only the final legal status. The issuer (Circle, Tether) commits to a 1:1 redemption. Credit risk = issuer's ability to pay + reserve structure risk + regulator intervention risk (e.g., USDC is blacklisted). No deposit insurance, no central bank backing. Examples: USDC, USDT, PYUSD.
Level 4: Stablecoin not supported / by algorithm No guarantee of final outcome. Not suitable for RWA payments. Not included in this analysis.
Why is this important for RWA? Managed securities (typically standardized as bonds, funds, and repos) often require Tier 1 or 2 settlement to meet the expectations of managers and regulators. Tier 3 may be sufficient for less-managed assets (commodity markets, private credit) when counterparties accept the issuer's risk.
Figure 1: Stablecoin (USDC, USDT)
Architecture
Public stablecoins operate on unlicensed blockchains (such as Ethereum, Solana, Polygon, Tron, and Arbitrum). USDC and USDT dominate with a combined trading volume of approximately $140 billion (as of 2024). Both claim to be backed by USD at a 1:1 ratio, but there are significant differences in reserve composition and transparency.
Credit Risk Profile
| Number of factors | USDC | USDT |
|---|---|---|
| Reserve components | ~100% cash and US Treasury bills (Circle Reserve Fund, managed by BlackRock) | ~85% cash/equivalent; ~15% secured loans, corporate bonds, precious metals, other items |
| Confirmation frequency | Month (_Deloitte) | Dear (_BDO_) |
| Access to rewards | Circle Account owner (institution); retail through exchanges | Firstly, through exchanges; direct payments of over USD 100,000 |
| Regulatory Status | Money remittance license (US); MiCA compliant (EU) | Money transfer license (US); MiCA is in the process of transition |
| Blacklisting feature | Yes (compliant with (OFAC) standard, smart contract level) | Yes (Tether controllers) |
Key takeaway: The simplicity of USDC's reserves (T-bills + cash) makes credit risk analysis easy. USDT's opaque "collateralized loan" group poses unmeasurable counterparty risk – who are the borrowers? What is the collateral? NYAG's 2021 settlement shows that USDT is not fully backed at all times.
The speed and finality of resolution
The finality is probabilistic and depends on the chain:
There are no atomic DvP/PvP transactions on the chain. Stable transfer and asset transfer are separate transactions. Atomicity requires the use of smart contract assurance services (e.g., ERC-7540 vault, Hashflow RFQ), which increases complexity and gas costs.
Cost structure
- Gas fee: 0.50 USD - 50 USD+ depending on the chain and congestion
Trajectory specified
- US: Stablecoin legislation (Lummis-Gillibrand, McHenry-Waters) is pending approval – may require federal licensing, 1:1 reserves, FDIC insurance for issuers
Decision for RWA: Lowest barrier entry (no license required, immediate liquidity), but weakest final collateral. Suitable for: cryptocurrency market funds (BUIDL, FOBXX), privately issued credit funds that carry risk, cross-border payments/receipts. Not suitable for: securities regulated under laws that require final collateral under law, assets that are eligible collateral for central banks.
Model 2: Encrypted deposit accounts (JPM Coin, Fnality, Partior)
Architecture
A tokenized deposit is a permitted liability of commercial banks, recorded on a separate/shared ledger. It preserves the "single function of money" – a deposit tokenized at JPMorgan is economically and legally equivalent to the balance in a JPMorgan deposit account.
Flowchart - Tokenized Deposit Models Comparison
Top deployment
JPM Coin (JPMorgan)
- Ledger: Onyx (formerly Quorum), has access
Fnality International
- Ledger: DLT (permissioned, BFT consensus)
Partior
- Ledger: Peer-to-peer network (with consensus, IBFT)
Credit Risk Profile
| Number of factors | JPM Coin | Fnality USC | Partior |
|---|---|---|---|
| Support | JPM's deposit account (which can be used as the Fed's reserve) | Commercial banks' deposit accounts + central bank's aggregate account | Savings accounts of commercial banks in each member |
| Deposit insurance | Up to USD 250,000 (FDIC) / GBP 85,000 (FSCS) | Same (depending on the bank receiving the deposit) | Same thing. |
| Risk of distraction | Single Bank (JPM) | Distribute to shareholders | Distributed across network banks |
| Regulatory Oversight | OCC/Fed (JPM) | BoE (GBP), Fed (USD), ECB (EUR) | MAS (Singapore), together with domestic regulatory authorities |
**Key Key: The central bank aggregate account of Fnality is a unique account, which upgrades commercial banks' money into central bank money for settlement purposes, reducing systemic risk concentration.
The speed and finality of resolution
- All three types: From a few milliseconds to a few seconds, native atomic DvP/PvP
Cost structure
- Network fees: Basis points (Partior: ~1-2 bps FX; Fnality: tiered by volume)
Trajectory specified
- Considered as a commercial bank deposit under current banking laws
Conclusion for RWA: Best fit in terms of organizational structure. Legal certainty, regulatory transparency, atomic DvP/PvP, 24/7 operation. Suitable for: securitized government bonds, re-investment, foreign exchange payments, registration/receipt of funds from funds. Barriers: permitted participation process, alliance governance.
Model 3: Wholesale CBDC (mBridge, Project Agora, Project Stella)
Architecture
A CBDC (wCBDC) is a direct responsibility of the central bank, issued on a DLT platform that is only allowed to be used by financial institutions. It is not intended for consumers – there are no consumer wallets.
Diagram - Wholesale CBDC Projects Landscape
Manage projects
mBridge (Multi-CBDC Bridge)
- Central banks: HKMA, Bank of Thailand, PBoC, Central Bank of the UAE + BIS Innovation Center
Agora Project ((BIS + 7 central banks)
- Central banks: Bank of England, Bank of Japan, Bank of Canada, ECB, Federal Reserve, Swiss National Bank, Swedish Riksbank + BIS
Project Stella (ECB + Bank of Japan)
- Focus: Resolving securities transactions (DvP) with wCBDC versus the traditional RTGS method
Credit Risk Profile
- Zero credit risk for holders of wCBDC (central banks cannot go bankrupt in their own currency)
The speed and finality of resolution
- Automatic, legally binding when the central bank updates its accounting records
Cost structure
- No fees per transaction (central bank's public assets)
Trajectory specified
- CPMI-IOSCO "Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures" are applied
Conclusion for RWA: The "gold standard" for transaction finality. No credit risk, legal finality, public infrastructure. Timeline: mBridge pilot phase → production ~2026-2028; Agora → prototype 2025, pilot phase 2027+. There is currently no RWA platform for production, but current architectural decisions should anticipate integration with wCBDCs.
Model 4: Hybrid and emerging rail
Tokenized assets + stablecoin payments/deposits
- BlackRock BUIDL / Franklin FOBXX / WisdomTree MAPS: Crypto market funds on Ethereum/Stellar/Polygon
Broadridge DLR (Distributed Ledger Repo)
- Transaction volume: $1 billion per year
SWIFT CBDC Gateway
- Pilot: 2023 with 18 central banks + 30+ commercial banks
Payment image/source
- Focus: Issuance and payment for blockchain origin
Comparison model: credit risk, speed, cost, regulations
Comparison Matrix - Four Settlement Models
| Size | Public stablecoins | Account is tokenized | Wholesale CBDC | Hybrid/tokenized assets |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Credit risk | Issuer + reserve structure | Bank account (insurance coverage) | Zero (central bank) | Asset risk + rail risk |
| Final speed/characteristics | Depending on the time (minutes - seconds) | Immediate atom (with privileges) | Immediately (central bank) | Depending on the railway |
| Cost | Purchase tax + fees for payment by electronic money | Network fees + FX spreads | Infra-amortized (near-zero marginal) | Platform fee + railway |
| Rules | Money transmitter / MiCA | Commercial bank money / Basel III | Guidance from central banks/CPMI-IOSCO | Securities Law + Payment Law |
| Access | No need for permission | Right (authority) | Right (only for financial institutions) | Have rights |
| Interoperability | Diverse chains, links | Specifically for the Consortium | mBridge/Agora (different platforms: CBDC) | Development Trends (_ERC-3643, CAIP) |
| DvP/PvP Native | No (guarantee service required) | There is | There is | Depending |
| 24/7 Operation | Yes | Yes | Design goal | Varies |
| VN Relevance | High (USDT dominant) | Growing (VN banks in consortia) | SBV pilot announced | VSD tokenized bond pilot |
RWA-specific Decision Framework
Payments engineers should match asset class requirements with settlement rail guarantees:
Decision Tree
Is the asset a regulated security (bond, fund, equity)?
Vietnam Environment: The Significance of This for Vietnamese Engineers
Diagram - Vietnam RWA Payments Landscape
- Stablecoins: USDT dominates in Vietnam’s cross-border transaction (deposit receiving, trade) sector. USDC is developing through Circle’s Vietnam entity. The legal area is not clearly defined – SBV has not issued licenses for stablecoin issuers.
FAQ
Question: What is the finality of a transaction and why is it important for RWA? A: Settlement finality is the point at which a transfer becomes irrevocable. For RWA (Securities Standard), regulatory authorities and custodians require legal finality (Level 1/2) – probabilistic finality (Level 3) is not sufficient.
Question: How does JPM Coin differ from USDC? A: JPM Coin is a commercial bank deposit security (Tier 2 platform) on a licensed ledger with immediate legal effect. USDC is a private stablecoin (Tier 3 platform) on public blockchains with probabilistic issuance results and credit risk.
Question: Is USDC a cryptocurrency savings account? A: No. USDC is a debt obligation of Circle (a non-bank issuing entity), not a savings account at a commercial bank. It does not have savings insurance, the convertibility of a central bank, or banking regulations.
**Question: When will CBDC retail services be available for RWA payments? A: The mBridge pilot project is ongoing (20+ banks). It is expected to be ready for production in 2026-2028. The Project Agora prototype in 2025. Follow updates from the BIS Innovation Center.
**Question: Can I use multiple payment channels at the same time? A: Yes. Build a payment abstraction layer by asset type, counterparty, and jurisdiction. For example, T-bills are settled through JPM Coin (during the day) or USDC (24/7 for individual customers); cross-border foreign exchange through Partior; futures with CBDCs through the mBridge connection.
**Question: What is "monetary singleness" and why does the BIS emphasize it? A: Monetary singleness means that one unit of commercial bank money = one unit of central bank money, which can always be exchanged. Tokenized deposits preserve this; stablecoins break it (USDC ≠ legal USD). The BIS warns that fragmentation undermines monetary policy transmission and financial stability.
Conclusion
The RWA payment stream is being tiered. Public stablecoins provide liquidity without the need for permission, but have weak finality. Tokenized deposits (JPM Coin, Fnality, Partior) provide finality that meets current institutional standards. Retail CBDCs (mBridge, Agora) will become the optimal payment layer. Hybrid rails serve as bridges.
Payment engineers should not bet on a single payment rail. Design for payment choice: abstract the payment layer, deploy adapters for each payment rail, and route based on asset type, partner, and legal requirements. Winning platforms will be those that view payment as a configurable tool, rather than a fixed option.
Number of words: ~2,650