Are Banks Already Too Late? Martin Masser INTERVIEW ChangeNOW

Banks may be at risk of losing ground on digital assets, but their slow pace reflects the burden of legacy technology rather than a lack of potential use cases. Martin Masser cited a McKinsey estimate that banks devote 10% of technology spending to innovation while 70% goes to supporting legacy systems. Blockchain could shorten settlement and reduce back- and mid-office delays, but deploying it means connecting with existing systems and addressing the processes and dependencies downstream. Masser said work on blockchain settlement has been underway for about 10 years, illustrating how long new technology can take to enter banking.

Stablecoins could make cross-border business payments much faster: Masser said a company might pay an overseas supplier in minutes, whereas a conventional bank transfer might not arrive until Monday or Tuesday. Paul said 21 banks were building stablecoins and competing for market control. Masser cautioned that bank-issued coins would need banks to work together to succeed, and said it remains uncertain whether ordinary customers would adopt them or how insurance would work. The opportunity is therefore not just technical; it depends on coordination and whether customers find the products useful and trustworthy.

Paul cited a National Cryptocurrency Association figure saying nearly one in three US crypto holders want crypto integrated into familiar systems such as banks, but questioned whether that share was too high and suggested it could be as low as 10%. Masser said crypto users can be isolated in a self-custody “bubble,” while many less committed users may simply want to buy crypto through an app they already use, such as Revolut. Familiar access could bring crypto closer to mainstream customers, but the episode did not establish how much demand exists for bank-issued products specifically.

Swift’s blockchain ledger was ready for use by 17 banks, Paul said, and Swift reported that 75% of payments on its network reach beneficiary banks within 10 minutes, often within seconds. Masser emphasized that rapid movement between banks does not eliminate the separate front-, middle- and back-office approval and settlement steps that payments can involve. The figures point to faster network transfers, but they do not by themselves show that every payment is completed end to end in seconds; Paul’s discussion did not explain the remaining 25%.

Masser sees nimble technology firms as better positioned to enter banking than traditional banks are to rebuild themselves around crypto. Neobanks can implement technology faster, he said, and he expects crypto companies to move into banking, with initial steps possible within two years—though that does not necessarily mean creating full banks. Paul noted that the OCC had approved three digital-asset firms for trust bank charters, a potential source of competition from companies more familiar with the technology. Vault technology is also developing quickly, but Masser said retail appetite remains uncertain; Paul raised the possibility that vaults could attract customers if banking changes significantly and the products become widely available. Morgan Stanley digital-assets head Amy was cited as saying vault technology was still too early for a bank’s broader platform.

Masser expects more consolidation in crypto, including among stablecoin issuers, but said corporate treasuries may benefit from having alternatives such as Circle’s USDC and a major bank’s coin. He also said Tether, once widely doubted, has become more established and credited successful US onboarding with supporting its growth. In his view, the United States is a key market for major crypto expansion. The incoming US administration has reduced ambiguity and made companies less concerned about pursuing projects, Masser said. He expects innovation and new entrants to continue, while acknowledging that regulation can both restrict activity and clarify what is permitted; he doubts a future administration could reverse all the changes.