The most important thing to remember about fiat going on chain (via stables or tokenized deposits) is that unless the solution changes the current architecture of payments, it doesn't achieve anything. It's a step backwards. This is not some anti-bank ideology. It's a practical recognition that the tech, cryptographic, and incentive soup that forms a blockchain is only beneficial if it enables a more P2P settlement layer. If it doesn't then it's pointless complexity and cost. A bank doesn't need a blockchain to offer real-time 24/7 payments to its clients. Banks have been offering that service for decades. Also, a bank consortium (or government) doesn't need a blockchain to allow real-time 24/7 payments across banks. Many countries have had RTP/Fast Payment systems for decades. All the defenses of why permissioned blockchain solutions make sense only see that there's a problem. "Bank systems are too slow" or "wire transfers take too long." But you can solve both to a great extent with faster databases and newer shared infrastructure. The blockchain is only beneficial if it's used to get rid of someone - a bank or a correspondent or or clearinghouse. And that only happens if the system is permissionless. There's a reason why after a decade of attempts and likely over a billion dollars invested, not a single permissioned solution has ever achieved anything other than questionable headlines If you still don't believe me, maybe you can be convinced by my (likely) late friend S.N. Most people think of him as the inventor of a new currency, but he was also a keen observer of the fundamental flaw of intermediated & permissioned systems: