FISV: Star Sale? Retailer and Industry Feedback

Short update on my industry discussions yesterday (in very brief form). 

Retailers

  • Convinced US Banks would attempt to follow COF/Discover model and that Banks were not concerned about the politics. 
  • Emphasize banks want control, with most seeing that BAC/WFC would make sense as owners of STAR
  • Agreed that retailers would react to price increases, but only top 20 retailers have payment teams with enough depth to act on a plan (ex turn off Star).
  • Believed acceptance rate and processor incentives would be a key hurdle, but that if pricing was around 125bps there was room to create superior processor incentives. 
  • Loss of Tap to Pay and eCommerce (ie no PIN Debit) were consensus consumer impacts with no clear workaround. 
  • Agree that retailers would strongly lobby OCC and CPFB that this was an obvious effort to end run Durbin. May seek to block acquisition. 
  • Discover is an EMVCO member with most tools that would allow conversion of Pulse to dual message. No path for STAR (or EMVCo membership)
  • Bank Consortium could use this as a path toward Zelle acceptance at POS (for 125 bps). This was probably the biggest “new” insight I gained

You need to be logged in to view the rest of the content. Please . Not a Member? Join Us

Are US Banks Really Considering a Durbin End Run with FISV’s Star?

(Paid Subscriber Research)

Yesterday’s WSJ story that JPMorgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and PNC have held “preliminary and tentative” talks to buy Fiserv’s Star debit network is being read as the opening shot in a big-bank campaign to escape Durbin. My first reaction: this is a bit of old news. Fiserv and its private equity suitors have been shopping Star as a spin-off for the better part of four years. Every time the pitch surfaces, the same five objections surface with it. Nothing about the current version of the deal has removed those objections; if anything, the political climate has made them harder.

Before I get to why I don’t believe it will happen, a quick refresher on the business logic, because that logic is real, and it explains why Fiserv can keep the pitch alive.

You need to be logged in to view the rest of the content. Please . Not a Member? Join Us

Challenger Banks: What the Sell-Side is Telling Us

July 2026 — Tom Noyes

Eight months ago I wrote The Neobank Revolution? Not how I see it… after sitting through FinTech NerdCon and listening to the Nubank co-founder and Chime present. My verdict was skeptical: growth is not profitability, the US addressable market is structurally unattractive, and the liabilities of every neobank combined barely register on JPMorgan’s balance sheet.

I was right about some of it. I was wrong about enough of it that this update is warranted and this time I want to ground the analysis in what sell-side analytsts are publishing, not just my own read.

Continue reading

JPMorgan, Citi and TCH: Tokenized Deposits ON Chain

Builds on: 101 Update: CBDCs, Stablecoins and Tokenized Deposits | Stablecoins: A New Model of Trust | Stablecoin Scenarios

The WSJ reported yesterday that JPMorgan, Citigroup, and TCH (a consortium of the largest US banks) are planning a shared tokenized deposit system. For anyone who has been following this space, this is not a surprise. It is a confirmation. I’ve been writing about this trajectory for years. The question was never whether banks would adopt blockchain infrastructure. The question was always how and the commercial construct that governs operation. Now we know. 

Continue reading

Discount “On Chain”. Value Exchange and Commercial Frameworks Will Define Success

Case studies in Agentic and JPM Kinexys

Key Themes

  1. Value exchange requires a commercial construct such as a contract, marketplace agreement or commercial network.
  2. Tech is enabling fragmentation both within an organization and across domains with finer-grained access to services (ex APIs), faster settlement (ex blockchain), immutable digital representations of physical world goods (ex NFT), digital trust and assertions (ex W3C Verifiable Credentials), …etc.
  3. While the tech is progressing at light speed, the real battle surrounds the structures, incentives and politics for how value is exchanged, and risk is assumed. 
  4. This atomization of products, services and organizations has created new opportunities for value orchestrators. For example, what if the battle for AI and Agentic Commerce is not about LLMs efficacy, but about enabling consumers to choose the best agent and permission it from their phone (ex Apple). 
  5. Free and Open are great tech models, but terrible business ones (ex Open Banking). Fragmented voluntary Agreements in Web3 and Agentic Commerce spaces struggle to scale due to high transaction costs associated with establishing bilateral trust.
  6. We are in a flux period where incumbent marketplaces and networks will dominate.  For example, there is little prospect for OpenAI to disrupt Google across 7B+ Devices, 3B+ consumer accounts, GC, Advertising, Analytics, Consumer/Enterprise Services. While the buzz of “on chain” finance is loud, application of DLT in closed private blockchains is driving the majority of growth by bringing new efficiencies to established businesses (JPM Kinexys). 
  7. While alternative “federated” and decentralized models are possible, their core challenges surround economics and governance. Who owns the end-end risk?  Who manages bad actors or system flaws? Where is the commercial agreement that assigns risk? 
  8. The next 10 yrs will NOT be a uniform movement toward one single future, but a fragmentation of how value exchange happens. For example, how identity is handled in Agentic commerce will depend on WHO owns the risk for the transaction (merchant, bank, PSP, Platform, Consumer)?  
  9. At the consumer end, I see mobile platforms acting as the controller/orchestrator for trusted interaction across healthcare, retail, government, agentic … etc. I wouldn’t count Apple “out” of the AI race as they may assume the consumer interface role for “everything”.
  10. Kinexsys Case Study – Closed network, strong governance, massive scale. 

You need to be logged in to view the rest of the content. Please . Not a Member? Join Us

Stablecoin Scenarios

Summary

The digital asset ecosystem has graduated from a decade of speculative experimentation to a decisive phase of infrastructure modernization. For fifteen years, the discourse surrounding blockchain technology has been dominated by the volatility of crypto-assets, effectively obscuring the underlying utility of the technology. That era has concluded. We are now witnessing the industrialization of the sector, where stablecoins have emerged not as a new form of money, but as a fundamental settlement innovation (see blog).

The GENIUS Act has provided the regulatory clarity required to transition stablecoins from the periphery of finance to its very core. This legislative milestone has catalyzed a geopolitical shockwave, prompting European finance ministers to declare U.S. stablecoins a greater threat to monetary sovereignty than trade tariffs. But while the Genius act codified “trust” in an instrument (reducing settlement risk to stablecoin issuer balance sheet), it does not address disputes and broader governance issues associated with managing participants across diverse processes and regulatory regimes.

The maturation of stablecoins is not a revolution that overthrows established banks and payments system; it is an evolution that upgrades it. The rails are being replaced while the train is moving, and those who understand the mechanics of the new tracks will determine the destination of global capital.

You need to be logged in to view the rest of the content. Please . Not a Member? Join Us

The Neobank Revolution? Not how I see it… 

As most of you know I led channels for Citi back in the “direct banking” days. My team in the UK bought Egg (2007) and while I didn’t have oversight of the US I did have the 35 other Geographies. I also ran online and payment services for Wachovia (3rd largest online bank at the time). I’m here at FinTech NerdCon this week and have listened to Nubank co-founder and Chime. While I congratulate their growth and their Nubanks’ progress outside the US, count me as a skeptic of their profitability (and progress) in the US. 

Continue reading

Genius Law – What to Expect?

Yesterday President Trump signed the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act into law, clearing the path for dollar-backed stablecoins. As I’ve argued before, the future of money is a new model of trust, and this legislation provides the regulatory certainty needed for that trust. 

The GENIUS Act is a landmark piece of legislation. It establishes a dual charter system, enabling both federal and state-regulated stablecoin issuers. The key provisions are precisely what the industry needed: a mandate for 1:1 reserves with high-quality liquid assets like cash and short-term treasuries, a prohibition on reusing those reserves, and the designation of issuers as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act. This isn’t just about compliance; it’s about building a foundation of trust that can be exported globally.

Continue reading

APIs – More Banks to Follow JPM – Pricing Implications

As I stated in my Monday blog, Open Banking is dead in the US. Pay by Bank (and open banking) is effectively dead in the US. This follows JPMorgan’s move to push out its new API pricing structure to data aggregators and other third parties in the first week of July. This development comes as the “new” CFPB seeks to vacate its Section 1033 rule.

The latest is that we can expect most other major banks to roll out their own pricing within the next two weeks. These banks will have different pricing, as there was no coordination among banks. JPM has always been the most forward in protecting consumer data. A new pricing floor for data access has been established. Now that other analysts have weighed in, I can recap the pricing framework. 

You need to be logged in to view the rest of the content. Please . Not a Member? Join Us

Open Baning is Dead in the US

Last week, I shared the news that JPMorgan has started charging for API access, a move that many see as a death blow to pay-by-bank and open banking in the US. While this might sound dramatic, I believe it’s a necessary reset. The truth is, the current model was never sustainable, and with the CFPB’s recent move to vacate its unlawful 1033 rule, the writing is on the wall. Open banking as we know it is dead in the US.

Continue reading