Deposits are shifting. What’s driving it and what banks do next

Deposit migration is visible in transaction data. KlariVis’ February 2026 study examines customer-initiated transfers between US community banks and Coinbase across Dec 2024 to Dec 2025, treating those transfers as a practical indicator of how easily balances can move onto digital rails. In the subset where transaction directionality could be determined, net flows skew outward over the observed period.

For bank leaders, the productive question is operational. What portion of this activity reflects funding leakage, what portion reflects a settlement convenience gap, and where do both dynamics coexist.

What the KlariVis report shows

KlariVis analysed 225,577 Coinbase-related transactions across 92 community banks, identified through description fields referencing “Coinbase”. That matters because the dataset reflects observed money movement, not intent surveys.

In 53 banks where directionality was available, the flow pattern is asymmetric. For every dollar that came back from Coinbase, $2.77 left. Outflows dominate by transaction count as well. The report also notes that activity tracks crypto market cycles, which points to a meaningful investing component. Even with that context, the directional skew remains relevant as a deposit and liquidity signal.

The product mix adds another layer. Money market accounts contribute a disproportionate share of net outflows within the directional sample relative to their share of Coinbase-related dollar volume. This highlights that yield-aware, higher-balance customers already use digital rails at a meaningful scale.

What the report does not prove on its own

The report is explicit about its limits. It captures Coinbase exchange pathways and does not measure stablecoin balances across venues, peer-to-peer stablecoin flows, or direct stablecoin custody. Directionality is available for a subset of the banks. These boundaries matter for policy conclusions and for extrapolating national effects.

For bank strategy, the takeaway can stay narrow and still be powerful. The behavioural infrastructure for balance migration exists, and it is measurable within an institution’s own transaction data.

Two problems that can look similar from the outside

External transfers to a crypto platform can reflect different drivers with different implications.

In one scenario, balances leave the banking perimeter and do not return in a similar size. This is funding leakage. It compresses the deposit base and, over time, can reduce lending capacity, especially in community banking segments that remain central to small business and agricultural credit.

In another scenario, customers keep balances at the bank while routing specific journeys externally because the rails are faster, always-on, or operationally simpler. Common examples include merchant settlement, marketplace payouts, select cross-border flows, and 24/7 treasury movements. In this case, pressure shows up first in operational metrics: intraday liquidity management, settlement failures and returns, exception handling volumes, and reconciliation workload.

Boards and executives benefit from separating these patterns early. Leakage-led pressure tends to drive funding and deposit product strategy. Convenience-led pressure tends to drive infrastructure choices and rail access.

While these signals can look similar externally, they lead to very different strategic consequences for banks.

Making the discussion measurable

The KlariVis method implies a practical playbook that most banks can apply quickly. Identify venue-linked transfers using description fields and combine that with segmentation by deposit product, customer cohort, ticket size, frequency, and directionality.

Then anchor the analysis in operating KPIs that clarify what is happening in practice:

• intraday liquidity buffers and utilisation

• settlement fail and return rates, plus exception queue volumes

• time-to-reconcile and share of manual breaks

• corridor-level routing patterns that explain why journeys move outside

These measures help answer a sharper question: where is the institution experiencing balance-sheet leakage, and where is it losing on settlement convenience for specific journeys.

Two operating modes banks evaluate in parallel

When banks choose to respond, many evaluate two operating modes that can run side-by-side.

Tokenised deposits as a bank liability. Tokenised deposits extend bank-issued liabilities into programmable rails under bank governance. The core remains the system of record for balances, limits, policy enforcement, accounting treatment, and auditability. Typical builds include real-time remittances, 24/7 merchant settlement, programmable savings, cross-border transfers, and escrow-style conditional payments.

Stablecoin settlement as a managed rail. Stablecoins can serve as a controlled settlement rail for defined corridors where reach and speed matter. The bank defines the operating model: permitted flows, counterparties, limits, liquidity sourcing, monitoring, and reporting. The core remains the system of record for customer balances and governance, while the stablecoin rail supports execution within agreed constraints.

Across both modes, the strategic objective is consistent. Keep the bank as the primary store of value and system of record while matching the convenience customers already find on external rails.

Where a Side-core approach like DCM fits

DCM is built as a Side-core platform that makes banks blockchain-ready in weeks, enabling tokenised deposits and stablecoin payment flows on top of existing banking cores without rewrites, migrations, or core replacement.

A Side-core approach matters because it keeps governance anchored where boards expect it. The core remains the ledger of record. The Side-core orchestrates the new rails: interoperability, bank-grade payment messaging, policy enforcement, and automated clearing and reconciliation. DCM is designed to integrate with existing compliance and AML control environments, with the final operating model shaped by jurisdiction and bank policy.

A concrete example is 24/7 merchant settlement. The Side-core handles orchestration, routing, limits, ISO-aligned messaging, and settlement execution on the chosen rail. The core records balances, accounting treatment, and reporting, preserving auditability and continuity. Merchants get always-on settlement, and the bank keeps balance-sheet control.

As stablecoins and exchange “on-ramps” intensify competition for deposits, DCM also enables bank-led stablecoin account propositions that let customers access stablecoin utility through the bank’s experience while keeping the underlying deposit relationship anchored with the bank—turning a potential deposit drain into a retain-and-serve model, rather than watching balances migrate to external platforms.

Board-level next steps

Three practical steps follow from the KlariVis signal. First, quantify venue-linked transfers by product, segment, direction, and journey. Second, define a bank-owned digital deposit posture, including guardrails for tokenised deposits and stablecoin-enabled settlement corridors. Third, choose an interoperability strategy designed for production, where messaging, clearing, reconciliation, and compliance are engineered from day one and the core remains the system of record.

Closing

The KlariVis report turns a policy debate into an observable operating signal. On-ramps exist, customer behaviour is established, and yield-sensitive segments warrant attention.

The strategic opportunity is to stay in the loop customers already use for digital liquidity, by bringing tokenised deposits and managed settlement rails into the bank’s infrastructure with governance anchored in the core.

Speed at Scale. Trust by Design.

Source

KlariVis, The Quiet Spread: What Transaction Data Reveals About the Stablecoin Impact on Community Bank Deposits and Lending, February 2026