SWIFT Ledger has completed two live tokenised-deposit payment tests, linking the global financial messaging network to bank-issued digital deposit claims in transactions involving U.S. dollars and Singapore dollars.
The tests, carried out on Sept. 2 and Sept. 10, put the shared-ledger model into production-style use for both a cross-border payment and a domestic interbank transfer. They offer a practical example of how banks could support always-on payment processing without moving deposits onto public blockchains or replacing their existing core banking systems.
On Sept. 2, First Abu Dhabi Bank and Citibank executed a U.S. dollar transaction using SWIFT messages connected to tokenised deposits issued by banks and coordinated through the shared ledger, according to SWIFT. The transaction was structured around a correspondent-banking-style cross-border flow, where multiple banks may need to exchange payment instructions, verify conditions and manage settlement obligations.
Eight days later, DBS, OCBC and UOB completed what SWIFT described as Singapore’s first live interbank transaction in Singapore dollars using tokenised deposits. The domestic test showed the same structure can be applied to payments between banks operating within one national currency system, rather than only to international transactions.
A coordination layer for bank deposits
Tokenised deposits are conventional bank deposit liabilities represented on a programmable ledger. A customer holding a tokenised deposit retains a claim on the issuing bank, unlike a holder of a bearer-style cryptoasset whose ownership may depend solely on control of a wallet or private key.
That distinction places these tests closer to an upgrade of bank payment infrastructure than to the open cryptocurrency networks used for trading digital assets. Banks can continue to apply their existing customer screening, anti-money-laundering controls, credit policies and account-management procedures while using a new system to coordinate transfers.
Under SWIFT’s model, the shared ledger does not replace each bank’s internal books and records. It acts as a common coordination layer, allowing participating institutions to synchronise payment commitments and check whether agreed conditions have been met before value moves at the customer-account level.
The design separates the customer payment from the final settlement of obligations between banks. Payments involving tokenised deposits could, in principle, be processed around the clock within the network, while banks settle the resulting positions through existing real-time gross settlement systems, correspondent accounts or other established arrangements.
That division addresses one of the most difficult practical barriers facing tokenised finance: banks need faster transaction processing, but they also need to preserve the liquidity, credit and settlement controls that support regulated payment systems. A shared record of payment instructions can reduce coordination delays without requiring every bank to abandon the infrastructure on which it currently manages money and risk.
From design work to live transactions
SWIFT announced its shared-ledger initiative in September 2025, saying that more than 30 financial institutions were involved in its design. By July 2026, the project had moved into an initial-usage phase, with 17 banks across six continents preparing live tokenised-deposit transactions.
The September tests move the project beyond demonstrations and design exercises. Live transactions force participating banks to address operational processes that can be simplified in a pilot environment, including account reconciliation, exception handling, messaging standards, governance and coordination between compliance teams.
The cross-border U.S. dollar test also carries particular weight because dollar payments often pass through correspondent-banking relationships. Those arrangements remain central to global commerce but can involve sequential processing between institutions, different operating hours and multiple checks before a payment is completed.
A shared ledger would not automatically remove the need for correspondent banks, foreign-exchange processes or jurisdiction-specific compliance checks. It could instead give those participants a synchronized view of payment commitments, reducing the risk that institutions are working from incomplete or delayed information.
Singapore’s domestic test presents a different use case. Banks operating in the same currency area may already have access to efficient local clearing and settlement systems, so the potential benefit lies less in replacing a domestic rail and more in enabling programmable, continuous transactions between commercial-bank deposit systems.
Continuous payments bring new liquidity demands
The move toward 24/7 processing also changes the banking risks that have to be managed. In a 2026 study on tokenised finance, the International Monetary Fund said continuous settlement could accelerate margin calls and funding outflows during market stress.
Traditional payment systems often operate within defined windows, giving banks time to fund positions, reconcile balances and manage liquidity before the next settlement cycle. Continuous payment capability compresses that timetable. A bank may need to meet payment demands overnight, during weekends or across holidays, increasing the value of real-time liquidity monitoring.
The architecture tested by SWIFT leaves final interbank settlement connected to established systems, which may help participating banks retain familiar liquidity controls during the early stages of deployment. Yet it also creates a need to define clearly when a payment becomes irrevocable and how an obligation recorded on the shared ledger relates to subsequent settlement between banks.
Legal questions will become more prominent as these systems expand across jurisdictions. Banks and regulators will need to determine which record prevails if a shared-ledger entry conflicts with an institution’s internal core ledger, when settlement finality occurs under different national laws, and who has authority to correct errors or pause a smart contract.
Governance is equally consequential. A programmable payment network needs clear rules for software upgrades, access permissions, transaction reversals and emergency intervention. Those decisions are routine but often hidden within existing payment systems; placing them in a shared technical layer makes their legal and operational ownership more visible.
Payment bodies widen their focus
The live tests arrive as payment-rule organizations increasingly examine tokenised forms of money alongside banks and digital-asset issuers. Nacha, the U.S. organization that governs the ACH Network, formed a project team in September 2026 to study the potential effects of stablecoins and tokenised deposits on payments.
That work reflects a growing divide between the technology used to represent money and the legal structures governing it. Tokenised deposits seek to preserve the commercial-bank deposit model while adding programmable features and shared records. Stablecoins can have different reserve structures, redemption mechanisms and issuer arrangements, even when they are pegged to the same fiat currency.
SWIFT’s two September transactions do not settle the questions surrounding interoperability, legal finality or 24-hour liquidity management. They do show that major banks are testing tokenised deposits in live payment flows using the familiar SWIFT messaging environment, placing the shared-ledger approach closer to existing banking rails than to public blockchain settlement.
Explore how banks blend SWIFT messaging with digital assets in Toobit’s RWA deep-dive: can tokenized energy and agriculture do what gold already did.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
