Table of Contents
JP Morgan Chase has held preliminary internal discussions about launching its own stablecoin, according to a Wall Street Journal report citing people familiar with the matter, published August 26. The discussions are early-stage, and a JP Morgan spokeswoman said the bank has no active plans to issue one, adding that it would evaluate all options depending on customer demand and how regulation develops.
The bank already operates JPM Coin, a tokenized deposit product that moves institutional payments over a permissioned blockchain, but a stablecoin would be a different instrument: a token that can move freely across wallets, exchanges and apps rather than staying tied to money held at a specific bank.
The report landed a day after more than a dozen large banks, including Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Santander, advanced plans for a stablecoin venture aimed at commercial clients across G7 currencies, and the same week that thousands of smaller lenders organised under 39 state banking associations to announce the BankChain Alliance, an industry-owned blockchain network built to support tokenized deposits, bank-issued stablecoins and automated settlement, targeting a 2027 launch.
Three separate bank-led stablecoin efforts, all surfacing within days of each other, is the story here as much as JP Morgan's individual review.
What makes this notable is the identity of the bank doing the exploring, and how recently that would have seemed unlikely.
CEO Jamie Dimon has spent the past year publicly unconvinced that stablecoins solve a problem banks don't already handle. On JP Morgan's July 2025 earnings call, he said the bank would get involved in both its own deposit coin and stablecoins broadly, framing it explicitly as defensive rather than enthusiastic: fintechs, he said, are "very smart" and are "trying to figure out a way to create bank accounts and get into payment systems and rewards programs," and the bank needed to be involved simply to understand what it was up against. He added, in the same call, that he didn't know why anyone would want a stablecoin "as opposed to just payment."
By March 2026, pushing back on proposals to let stablecoin issuers pay yield, he was sharper still: "If you want to be a bank, become a bank," he said, arguing that any institution offering yield on customer balances should face the same capital, liquidity and anti-money-laundering rules a bank does. The throughline across these statements is that JP Morgan's interest in stablecoins has consistently been framed around competitive pressure rather than conviction about the technology itself.
That framing explains why banks resisted stablecoins for so long, and why the resistance broke when it did.
For most of the last decade, stablecoins were a crypto-native product serving crypto-native demand: collateral for trading, a bridge between exchanges, a way to hold dollar exposure without a bank account. Banks had little reason to compete for that market, and every reason to be wary of it. Tether and Circle operated with limited regulatory oversight relative to depository institutions, and executives could reasonably argue that stablecoins sat outside the perimeter that made banking safe. Dimon's repeated point about regulatory arbitrage was not wrong: a bank that pays interest on deposits faces capital and liquidity rules that a stablecoin issuer historically did not.
Two things changed that calculus. The first was the GENIUS Act, signed into law in July 2025, which gave the United States its first federal framework for payment stablecoins, requiring issuers to hold 1:1 reserves in cash or short-term Treasuries and to disclose them monthly. That framework did what regulatory clarity usually does: it lowered the barrier to entry for serious, well-capitalised players, banks included, while raising the operational bar for smaller or offshore issuers.
The second was scale. The total stablecoin market sat at roughly $308 billion in mid-August, up from around $205 billion at the start of 2025, and by one IMF estimate the passage of the GENIUS Act alone erased close to $300 billion, or 18%, from the market value of listed payments incumbents, with cross-border payment specialists hit hardest. That is a market large enough, and growing fast enough, that standing outside it is no longer free.
The competitive logic Dimon articulated in 2025, that fintechs would use stablecoins to build bank-account-like products and peel off payments revenue, has only sharpened. Visa, BlackRock, Google and DoorDash have all moved into stablecoin-adjacent infrastructure or products over the past year, none of them constrained by the deposit-taking rules that shape how a bank thinks about payments. A bank that treats stablecoins purely as a crypto curiosity risks watching its cross-border and treasury clients migrate to rails it does not control. A bank that issues its own risks cannibalising the deposits that fund its balance sheet. JP Morgan's decision to run both JPM Coin and a potential stablecoin in parallel is an attempt to hedge that exact tension, rather than resolve it.
The unresolved question is demand. JP Morgan's own spokeswoman tied any launch explicitly to customer demand, and some bank executives, Dimon included, have questioned what use case a bank-issued stablecoin serves beyond cross-border payments that existing rails already handle reasonably well. Tokenized deposits like JPM Coin already offer many of the same efficiency gains within the regulated banking system, with the added benefit of deposit-insurance eligibility that a stablecoin would not carry. The three parallel bank efforts, JP Morgan's internal review, the BofA-led commercial consortium, and the BankChain Alliance's shared network, are less a coordinated strategy than three separate hedges against the same fear: that stablecoins become infrastructure whether or not banks want them to, and the institutions that sit out the buildout end up renting access to it later.
That is the real shift this week's reporting captures. Banks did not warm to stablecoins because they were persuaded of their merits. They moved because the alternative, ceding a payments layer that is already approaching $310 billion in size to non-bank issuers and fintech rivals, became harder to justify than the risk of building one themselves.
