Enterprise Tokenized Settlement: Can Convertibility Hold Under Stress At Scale?

Tokenized money is going plural — stablecoins, bank-issued tokenized deposits, and unified-ledger settlement rails are all moving toward live enterprise use in 2026, and each is being asked to prove the same thing under different mechanics: that a unit of value holds its worth regardless of issuer, channel, or ledger. For stablecoins, 2026 rulemaking from the GENIUS Act to MiCA's redemption standards is building that guarantee at the reserve and redemption layer. For tokenized deposits and unified-ledger rails, the guarantee runs through bank capital rules, central bank settlement, and — increasingly — interoperability across a growing number of parallel ledgers and issuing banks.

> As regulators warned at the Point Zero Forum, the open question isn't which model is theoretically sound — it's whether convertibility at par survives a crisis in practice, on any of these rails. This session asks what needs to be built at each stage — reserve or capital backing, custody or bank participation, secondary-market trading, and cross-ledger settlement — for that convertibility to hold under stress. It puts reserve-backed and deposit-backed models on equal footing: where each is already resilient, where each is still exposed, and whether a fragmented rails landscape is itself becoming the bigger risk to singleness than any one model's design.