Tokenised Deposits vs Stablecoins vs CBDCs: Three GCC Leaders, Three Verdicts

111

Which rail actually wins as institutions move money digitally, tokenised deposits, central bank digital currencies, or stablecoins, is one of the more contested questions in GCC fintech right now, tied directly to real, dated infrastructure: the UAE’s Digital Dirham and its mBridge cross-border links, the CBUAE’s April 2026 appointment of Vermeg to build a Digital Asset Securities Depository for tokenised government debt and sukuk, and a growing list of CBUAE-licensed bank stablecoins.

We put the same questions to three people looking at this from genuinely different vantage points: Adam Popat, chief executive of SettleMint, an enterprise tokenisation and blockchain infrastructure provider; Andrew Forson, president of Nasdaq-listed DeFi Technologies and chief growth officer of its regulated digital-asset ETP issuer, Valour; and Soham Jethani, founder and managing partner of Septten Advisors, a regulatory and licensing lawyer who has advised UAE banks directly on CBUAE regimes since 2023. None of them agreed on a winner.

The interview

If you each had to bet on which rail, tokenised deposits, CBDC, or stablecoins, becomes the default way institutions move money in five years, which would you pick and why?

Adam Popat: Based on what we are seeing in the markets we work in, I would put my bet on bank-issued tokenised deposits. The reason is primarily balance-sheet related. 

Tokenised deposits are a commercial bank liability, issued within the existing banking and regulatory framework, and they can continue to pay interest. 

That makes them a natural extension of the way institutions already hold and move money. 

Stablecoins will continue to be important, particularly in corridors and between counterparties where there is no existing banking relationship. 

Wholesale CBDCs, in my view, will play an important role in interbank settlement. 

Five years from now, I would expect tokenised deposits to be used widely for institutional money, stablecoins to remain important for broader reach and cross-border use cases, and central bank money to underpin parts of the settlement infrastructure.

Andrew Forson: Stablecoins will remain the dominant means of transferring electronic money between businesses due to their ease and capacity for international adoption. 

All other elements are tied to nationality as a security or CBDC. 

This severely limits the likelihood for broadest adoption.

CBDC and tokenized deposits also have a number of embedded limits and criteria which limits their fungibility.

Direct government backing and distribution is a feature that likely will repel, not create, demand.

Soham Jethani: If I had to take a bet, I would not choose one instrument for every part of the financial system. I think CBDCs are the most likely settlement rail for cross-border payments between participating jurisdictions. The UAE and India are already exploring a bilateral CBDC bridge. 

The commercial banks would still make the payments on behalf of their customers. The central banks would issue the digital currencies used for settlement. The customer-facing market is different. I think banks will increasingly offer either tokenised deposits or regulated stablecoins. 

A tokenised deposit remains a liability of the customer’s bank. A stablecoin is designed to circulate more freely. 

My overall bet is that CBDCs will become important for international wholesale settlement. I expect regulated, bank-linked stablecoins to compete for the on-chain payment market. Tokenised deposits will remain relevant within the banking system.

SettleMint sits in the tokenised-deposits and enterprise infrastructure space. The UAE just appointed Vermeg, running Delta Capita’s MACH DLT, to build a Digital Asset Securities Depository for tokenised government debt and sukuk. What does infrastructure like that actually need to get right for banks to trust it with real balance-sheet assets?

Adam Popat: A depository of this kind earns institutional trust when a bank treasury is prepared to recognise positions held on it as part of its normal operating and balance-sheet framework, which means the infrastructure has to satisfy the same standards of control, finality and accountability that apply elsewhere in the institution. 

Transaction finality is one of the first requirements. With DALP, for example, the platform records the transaction outcome so there is a definitive state, completed or failed, without ambiguity around whether settlement has actually taken place. 

The payment side is equally important because a bond or sukuk is only as robust as the money it settles against. Where both the asset and the payment are tokenised, they should settle together as part of the same transaction. 

Compliance also has to be embedded into the transaction flow before settlement. Custody should remain separate from the platform, with control of keys staying with the institution or its chosen custodian. 

For banks to trust this kind of infrastructure with balance-sheet assets, the full operating model has to work across transaction finality, settlement, compliance and custody.

Valour issues regulated digital-asset ETPs. A stablecoin and a tokenised deposit both claim to represent real value, but investors clearly treat them differently. What’s the actual difference in risk that justifies that, beyond the regulatory label?

Andrew Forson: Exchange traded products (ETPs) are merely regulated wrappers that are accessed on exchanges. Stablecoins are derivative reserve-backed digital representations of fiat money that are not securities and are designed to mimic the features and fungibility of fiat money. 

Tokenized deposits are digital representations of commercial bank money. An ETP that is 100% hedged and backed by 30 day US treasuries will likely have lower risk profile than either the stablecoin or the tokenized deposit. 

The wrapper is less important than the underlying when it comes to determining the risk. The structure can also impact risk profile, whether it packages bankruptcy-remote assets or is a note or certificate against the issuing company. 

Ultimately the risk profile and appetite for an ETP, stablecoin, or tokenized deposit will depend heavily on the holder or buyer.

The UAE’s Digital Dirham programme is also tied into mBridge, the multi-country cross-border CBDC settlement project. Does a sovereign CBDC actually compete with tokenised deposits and stablecoins, or does it operate in a completely different lane?

Adam Popat: CBDCs, stablecoins and tokenised deposits can all support payments, settlement and the transfer or storage of value, but they are different forms of money with different issuers, regulatory treatment and use cases. 

In the UAE, the Digital Dirham is currently focused on wholesale use cases such as bank-to-bank and cross-border settlement, while retail use has not yet been launched at scale. 

Tokenised deposits serve a different purpose because they represent commercial bank money and remain within the existing banking relationship. My expectation is that these forms of money will coexist rather than converge into a single model. 

We are already seeing some of that convergence in the UAE, where banks such as Zand and FAB are participating in stablecoin issuance while also developing broader digital asset capabilities.

Soham Jethani: I do not think a sovereign CBDC operates in a completely separate lane. It operates at a different level of the same system. The Digital Dirham could provide the settlement asset used between banks. 

A tokenised deposit or regulated stablecoin could remain the product used by the customer. A bank could therefore offer tokenised deposits to its customers. It could then settle the resulting obligations with another bank using the Digital Dirham. 

There could be more direct competition at the retail level, where a consumer might choose between holding Digital Dirhams, bank deposits or regulated stablecoins. At the wholesale level, I expect the relationship to be more complementary.

Andrew Forson: As of today, no CBDC, cross-border, retail, institutional, or otherwise, is operational at intended scale. mBridge is less a CBDC implementation, and more a competitor to SWIFT built on DLT rails. 

It is a wholesale CBDC platform with an entirely different, commercial, wholesale bank constituency. It is currently not a tool that an individual will ever interact with. 

It further follows that stablecoins may one day be backed by CBDC and tokenized deposits, making them entirely different tools that are not necessarily in competition with CBDC projects.

Twelve months from now, what’s the one thing that would tell you which rail is actually winning?

Adam Popat: If we see a government bond or sukuk settling T+0 through a digital depository, with the payment side also on-ledger and a bank treasury treating that position as part of its normal inventory, that would be a very strong signal that tokenised deposits are moving into real institutional use. 

Another indicator would be banks starting to report tokenised deposit balances in their regular financial disclosures. 

I would also look closely at collateral, whether institutions begin moving government securities intraday against tokenised deposits. For stablecoins and CBDCs, the clearest signal will be actual institutional usage.

Soham Jethani: The first thing I would watch is how many bank-linked stablecoins move from regulatory approval into actual issuance. 

The CBUAE has already licensed several Dirham Payment Token Issuers. Zand has launched its AED-backed stablecoin through a wholly owned subsidiary. The DDSC initiative involving FAB has also received approval to go live. RAKBANK has reportedly received in-principle approval for its own stablecoin. 

However, a licence does not establish that customers want the product. I would therefore look at whether the stablecoins are being used for real transactions, and whether businesses accept them outside the issuing group.

Andrew Forson: In twelve months, the metrics that will determine which platform is winning will be the AUM equivalent for stablecoins, which is market capitalization and circulating supply, and total deposits for tokenized deposits. 

The biggest number wins.

Editor’s Take: All three answers hold up within their own frame, each reflects the specific part of the system each of them actually operates in. My own read: no single rail wins outright. Tokenised deposits, stablecoins and CBDCs will likely each keep their own lane, serving different transactions and different counterparties rather than converging into one winner. 

Usability will be the real deciding factor within each lane, whichever option is genuinely easiest and most convenient for the person or institution moving the money.