Chainlink co-founder Sergey Nazarov told attendees at Sibos 2026 that financial institutions are now building their own tokenized deposit chains, creating an urgent need for interoperability infrastructure to connect them.

Speaking at the annual banking conference, held September 28 to October 1 in Miami Beach, Nazarov appeared on at least three panel sessions alongside representatives from DTCC, J.P. Morgan and Microsoft. His pitch positioned Chainlink's Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) and the Chainlink Runtime Environment (CRE) as the connective tissue between those separate systems.

Why are so many banks building separate chains?

Nazarov framed the issue as one of demand, not technology. Institutions increasingly need infrastructure that can manage multiple blockchain environments at once rather than committing to a single network. He told the Sibos audience that institutions could save multibillion-dollar amounts annually by running workflows efficiently across chains.

That fragmentation already shows up in real-world pilots. The Cari Network, a regional effort, includes roughly 30 US banks. Separately, a group of 16 major banks is building the On-Chain Money Initiative with a targeted 2027 launch. Each consortium produces its own ledger, meaning a deposit tokenized on one network cannot natively reach another.

CCIP, Nazarov argued, functions as a universal translator that moves assets and messages between otherwise incompatible networks. CRE provides the operating environment where institutions run workflows spanning those systems.

What did the Swift and DTCC demos actually show?

Chainlink used the conference to demonstrate a connectivity framework that lets banks plug into Swift's blockchain ledger. Through that link, institutions could run cross-border payments around the clock and execute smart contracts using tokenized deposits.

The second showcase targeted collateral management. Chainlink and DTCC together developed the Collateral AppChain, a system designed to settle pledged assets between parties and networks in near real time and to eliminate the manual reconciliation that slows current back-office operations.

How do tokenized deposits differ from stablecoins?

A tokenized deposit remains a bank liability, not a startup-issued token. It moves as a programmable digital token on a bank-operated ledger, but the underlying obligation matches a checking-account balance and stays within the existing regulatory perimeter, including FDIC insurance where applicable.

That distinction shapes the adoption calculus. Banks pursuing tokenized deposits want to compete with nonbank digital currencies on speed while preserving the regulatory protections a stablecoin or CBDC competitor would not carry. The presence of DTCC, J.P. Morgan and Microsoft on Nazarov's panels signals the conversation has moved past crypto-native circles and into core banking infrastructure discussions.

What milestones should observers track?

The next test sits with execution. Watch whether the Cari Network and the On-Chain Money Initiative hit their stated timelines, whether Swift's ledger connections progress from demonstration to live use, and whether the DTCC Collateral AppChain processes real collateral at institutional volume. The 16-bank initiative's 2027 launch target sets the earliest concrete deadline for whether the interoperability thesis becomes an operating reality.