IMF outlines key differences between stablecoins, tokenized deposits and CBDCs

How liabilities and backing set them apart

A bank stablecoin generally functions as a private token, designed to reflect the value of a fiat currency such as the US dollar or euro. Its stability depends on underlying reserves, specific redemption mechanisms, and the reliability of the issuing institution. Banks are increasingly looking to issue or support these digital tokens, with growing participation from major financial institutions.

In contrast, a tokenized deposit is a digital representation of a standard commercial bank deposit, recorded or transferred on a blockchain or distributed ledger rather than through traditional systems. The key distinction is that the holder’s claim remains on the bank itself, not on a separate stablecoin issuer. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) describes tokenized deposits as bank liabilities that are managed and transacted using distributed ledger technology.

This distinction has regulatory implications: qualifying bank deposits are typically covered by banking supervision and deposit insurance frameworks. Stablecoins, on the other hand, do not automatically confer the same protections, since they are not traditional bank liabilities.

CBDCs, or central bank digital currencies, offer another approach. Unlike tokenized deposits, CBDCs are direct liabilities of central banks, not commercial banks. CBDCs can take the form of a retail product, accessible to households and businesses, or a wholesale instrument supporting settlement between financial institutions.

The European Central Bank (ECB) defines the digital euro as an electronic form of central bank money for everyday use, while the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) states that central bank money can function as a trust anchor, complementing tokenized commercial bank money in a broader ecosystem.

Industry observers have suggested that these three models may operate side by side, serving different needs rather than competing for dominance. Pilot programs and projects within organizations such as SWIFT highlight active industry efforts to ensure interoperability between tokenized money and existing financial settlement infrastructure.

Risk, settlement and industry interest

For investors and businesses, the underlying question is not simply whether the digital asset utilizes blockchain technology. The critical factor is the nature of the liability: whether the digital token represents a claim on a private company, a commercial bank, or directly on a central bank. This aspect determines exposure to credit and operational risks, the asset’s redemption structure and how closely it can fulfill the role of traditional money in payments or settlement.

For digital currencies, understanding whose liability the asset represents is crucial in assessing its safety, regulation, and suitability for different use cases.

Regulatory definitions and protections for these instruments continue to evolve. As adoption expands, financial institutions and policymakers are tasked with clarifying frameworks to manage risk and enable seamless transactions across different types of digital money.

Mini dictionary: IMF (International Monetary Fund), a global financial institution that provides policy advice and financial support to its 190 member countries. IMF monitors the global economy and offers guidance on digital money frameworks.