FIS digital money strategy centers on bank networks and tokenized deposits

FIS digital money strategy is being shaped around the view that banks will have to support several forms of digital value rather than choose a single model. David Trecker, vice president and head of strategy for digital assets at FIS, told PYMNTS that geography and customer type will largely determine whether banks focus on stablecoins, central bank digital currencies, tokenized deposits or other digital asset structures.

Trecker said digital assets derive much of their usefulness from the ability of different formats to work together. That leaves financial institutions with a planning challenge: deciding which digital money instruments should sit inside the banking system, which may operate beside it, and how links between them can be managed without adding compliance or operational gaps.

How does FIS see digital money in banking?

Trecker described a market in which different types of digital money serve different purposes. He told PYMNTS that banks with European operations need to take central bank digital currency work, including the digital euro, into account even though CBDCs have limited momentum in the United States.

Stablecoins present a separate issue for banks. Trecker said they have established valid uses in payments and settlement, especially for transferring funds and holding U.S. dollars outside the United States. At the same time, banks remain attentive to deposit protection because deposits are central to their funding model.

According to Trecker, banks face a choice: use stablecoins where customers need those capabilities, or develop alternatives that offer similar outcomes while fitting the commercial bank model. That framing sits behind the Keystone Network, a bank-owned effort focused on tokenized deposits and aimed at the needs of community and regional banks as well as larger institutions.

Tokenized deposits, in this context, refer to digital representations of bank deposits designed for use in programmable financial services and settlement processes. Trecker’s argument is that smaller banks need practical business tools and operating models, not only blockchain infrastructure.

Why bank networks matter for tokenized deposits

Trecker said much of the current discussion around digital assets concentrates on cross-border payments, wholesale settlement and treasury operations at multinational companies. Those use cases are more natural for global banks that manage liquidity across jurisdictions and time zones.

Regional and community banks, he said, may find earlier value in narrower applications. He cited smart deposits, programmable commercial banking services, internal liquidity management and tokenized real-world assets as areas where banks can build experience before relying on wider industry connections.

Trecker described adoption as a progression from uses within one institution, to smaller hub-and-spoke arrangements, and then to broader network activity. In his view, interbank settlement, correspondent banking and foreign exchange become more workable when groups of banks first establish trusted relationships around shared objectives.

He also urged banks to monitor customer behavior rather than wait for flawless return-on-investment calculations. Trecker compared the current period with the early development of online banking, when customer expectations moved before many institutions had built conventional financial cases for digital spending.

For banks considering external digital asset networks, Trecker said requirements include clear responsibility for activity, consistent know-your-customer and Bank Secrecy Act controls, liability rules and full transaction visibility.

His broader message was collaborative. Trecker told PYMNTS that community and regional banks should treat one another as potential partners in digital assets, with common standards and larger shared networks offering a stronger base than isolated projects built around separate use cases.

This story draws on original reporting from PYMNTS.