How banks can turn digital asset demand into new revenue streams

Demand for stablecoins gives banks a starting point for product development, but commercial returns depend on pricing and delivery costs. In a 2025 EY survey of 100 financial institutions and 250 corporates, 56% of corporate respondents preferred stablecoin access through APIs in existing treasury systems. Around 70% said ERP integration would increase their willingness to adopt stablecoins.

For banks serving these clients, compatibility with established workflows is part of the product specification. A blockchain infrastructure provider can supply transaction technology, while the bank sets commercial terms and manages the customer relationship.

Offer stablecoin settlement through existing payment workflows

Merchants receiving stablecoins may need a bank-managed route to fiat settlement and familiar transaction reports. Corporate payables teams may want to transfer supported stablecoins using their established approval process. A bank can package payment acceptance, screening, conversion, and settlement as a defined service.

Processing charges, settlement fees, and conversion spreads are potential sources of income. Pricing needs to account for network fees, liquidity costs, issuer-specific redemption terms, and transaction-processing expenses. High-volume merchant receipts and less frequent treasury transfers require different forecasts.

Provide digital asset accounts with conversion access

Some fintechs, corporate clients, and professional customers may want wallets linked to the bank’s existing channels. The service can let authorized users hold supported digital assets, transfer them to approved counterparties, and convert them into fiat currencies.

Account fees, transaction charges, and conversion income can support the product. Delivery requires wallet provisioning, secure key management, permissions, screening, and accurate customer records. Client agreements and reporting must distinguish wallet-held or custodied assets from conventional bank deposits. Their legal and accounting treatment depends on the service structure and applicable rules.

Extend cross-border treasury services

Corporate groups managing funds across subsidiaries may need liquidity transfers beyond local banking cut-off times. A bank can incorporate blockchain-based movement into its cash-management offering, allowing authorized treasury staff to initiate and monitor transactions through existing channels or APIs.

Citi Token Services provides an institutional example: Citi described near-real-time cross-border payments and 24/7 liquidity transfers among participating branches. Comparable offerings may support premium treasury pricing, transfer charges, and conversion income where applicable. Finance teams also need visibility into liquidity, entity-level permissions, and consistent reporting across locations.

Model the product economics before launch

A commercial assessment should separate expected demand from the full cost of servicing it:

• Customer demand: Estimate the eligible client segment, paying users, and transaction frequency
• Revenue design: Separate fixed service charges, transfer fees, and conversion income
• Direct costs: Include network fees, liquidity, external software, screening, and transaction operations
• Regulatory readiness: Confirm licensing, asset coverage, safeguarding duties, and internal approvals
• Unit contribution: Estimate margin after variable processing, exception-handling, and support costs

Existing banking relationships offer a distribution route. A company already using a bank for accounts, FX, and treasury may prefer a supported stablecoin workflow in the same operating environment. That preference still has to translate into paid usage.

Test demand with a bounded commercial pilot

The bank doesn’t have to build a full blockchain stack to test a single product. Coinspaid Enterprise is an example of software for branded digital asset payments and exchange, with merchant management, settlement, reconciliation, liquidity, compliance, and transaction monitoring.

A bank assessing a ready-to-launch platform for financial institutions should verify workflow coverage against its intended product, licenses, and internal controls. The pilot can then compare forecasts with observed fee income after direct costs, paying clients, support time per transaction, and reconciliation exceptions.

If transaction fees cover processing costs but exceptions absorb too much staff time, the bank may need a narrower asset or network scope before expanding distribution.