At GSBC, Stablecoins Spark a Bigger Conversation About the Future of Community Banking
Later this month, stablecoins will be a topic of discussion on campus during GSBC’s 75th Annual School Session. Student projects on the topic will serve as a foundation for the discussion.
The underlying question representing the projects was: What happens when money moves faster than the systems banks have traditionally relied upon?
Their research examined stablecoins through the lenses of payments, deposits, liquidity, regulation and customer expectations. While opinions varied on timing and implementation, one conclusion emerged consistently: stablecoins are no longer a fringe crypto experiment. They have become part of a larger conversation about payments modernization and the future role of community banks.
The Conversation Is Shifting Beyond Crypto
Students repeatedly framed stablecoins as a payments innovation rather than an investment product.
Unlike traditional cryptocurrencies, stablecoins are designed to maintain a stable value and facilitate the movement of money. Their appeal lies in their ability to support near-instant settlement, around-the-clock availability and potentially lower transaction costs.
Whether stablecoins ultimately achieve widespread adoption remains uncertain. What is becoming harder to ignore is the expectation they represent: faster, simpler and more accessible movement of money.
Why Community Bankers Are Paying Attention
The strongest theme across the projects was that stablecoins represent both opportunity and risk.
Community banks have traditionally competed through relationship banking, local market knowledge, personalized service and strong core deposit franchises. At the same time, customers increasingly expect financial services that are instant, mobile and available whenever they need them.
Stablecoins are forcing banks to examine whether existing payment systems will continue meeting those expectations in the years ahead.
The issue is not necessarily whether stablecoins replace banks. It is whether they help reshape what customers expect from their banks.
The Deposit Question Is Front and Center
Among all the themes explored, none appeared more frequently than deposits.
Community banks depend on stable, relationship-based deposits to support lending and local economic growth. If customers eventually begin holding more transactional balances in stablecoin wallets or other digital payment platforms, banks could face pressure on liquidity, funding costs and lending capacity.
Most students did not predict an immediate shift. Adoption remains limited and community banking relationships remain strong.
Still, the projects consistently identified deposit disintermediation as one of the most important strategic questions facing the industry.
Opportunity Exists Alongside Risk
Despite concerns about deposits, the student projects did not advocate resisting innovation.
Many pointed to opportunities in faster payments, treasury management, customer retention and new fee-based services. Others highlighted partnership models that would allow community banks to participate without becoming stablecoin issuers themselves.
Partnerships with fintechs, consortium-based approaches and tokenized deposit networks were recurring themes throughout the research.
For most institutions, the question is not whether to build a stablecoin. It is how to remain relevant as payment infrastructure evolves.
Regulation Has Changed the Conversation
Nearly every project referenced the GENIUS Act and its role in creating a more formal regulatory framework for stablecoins.
Students generally viewed regulatory clarity as a positive development. At the same time, they acknowledged ongoing questions surrounding implementation, compliance expectations and competitive dynamics between banks and nonbank providers.
One particularly thoughtful theme involved regulatory asymmetry. Community banks operate under comprehensive prudential supervision, while some nonbank competitors may participate in digital payments with fewer obligations and lower operating burdens.
How regulators address that balance will help shape the future competitive landscape.
Learn First
Perhaps the most consistent recommendation across all projects was remarkably simple: learn.
Students encouraged boards and management teams to understand stablecoins, tokenized deposits, blockchain settlement systems and emerging payment technologies before deciding whether direct participation makes sense.
The consensus was not that every community bank needs a stablecoin strategy today; it was that every community bank should understand the forces driving the conversation.
Looking Ahead
What stands out most from this year’s student research is not excitement or skepticism, but thoughtful evaluation.
Community bankers are approaching stablecoins the same way they approach every significant industry development: by evaluating the impact on customers, deposits, liquidity, risk and long-term franchise value.
As the conversation continues during the Annual School Session, the student projects offer an important reminder: stablecoins may or may not become a major part of the financial system, but the broader trends they represent, including real-time payments, digital settlement and changing customer expectations, are already influencing the future of banking.
The banks that succeed will likely be the ones that remain informed, disciplined and strategically flexible, embracing innovation where it serves customers while protecting the relationships and trust that have always defined community banking.
This article was compiled utilizing the projects of GSBC students Jermy Ashby, Kayte Collamer, Martin Gonzalez, Madison Hart, Daniel Leatherman and Cole Vizina. The article also includes findings from Peer Group #18: Derek Chaney, Lydia Frizzell, Rod Heit, Sam Koehn, Tom Sanvick, Vanessa Spicer, Sarah Poynter and Eric Ruppert.