In May 2026, on the same timeline, two routes began to visibly diverge: at the London City Week 2026, the Bank of England Deputy Governor Sarah Breeden publicly depicted a retail payment route "from tokenized deposits, regulated payment tokens to a potential digital pound" and provided a specific timeline—regulatory drafts targeting "systemic" payment tokens are expected to be launched in June 2026, aiming to finalize the overall framework by the end of 2026; across the Atlantic, the U.S. political scene continues the tough anti-CBDC stance established by the Trump administration's executive order in 2025, with South Carolina passing S.0163, writing into law the prohibition of state government agencies from accepting or testing central bank digital currency, while adding pro-crypto clauses to protect self-custody, non-discrimination in mining, and tax neutrality for crypto payments, trying to create a "government forbidden zone" for digital currency within the state; however, contrasting with this open blockade, former CFTC Chairman Timothy Massad publicly declared that a digital dollar or government-supported payment tokens is "inevitable" and disclosed that the U.S. government, including the White House, is engaged in ongoing closed-door discussions and discreetly experimenting with multilateral tokenized settlement infrastructures by participating in projects like BIS-led Project Agora, and the federal level has never formally ordered a halt to all related research. Thus, an increasingly sharp question is presented to compliant issuers, payment institutions, and on-chain projects: as the UK accelerates regulation along the "consultation—draft—finalization" path, while the U.S. oscillates between "loud opposition and low-key exploration," where should future businesses weigh their licenses, clearing, and technology stack within which jurisdiction, and how will geographic layout and compliance structure be forced to be rewritten?

London Flashes Its Cards: Tokenized Deposits and Compliant Payment Tokens on the Table

On the main stage of London City Week 2026, Sarah Breeden essentially laid out the future retail payment "product line" for the Bank of England: on one end, tokenized deposits primarily by commercial banks, and on the other end, regulated payment tokens included in the licensing system, with a position reserved in the middle for a retail "digital pound" still under deliberation. She specifically pointed out that technologies like shared ledgers are expected to lower payment costs and enhance settlement efficiency, but also admitted that this assessment currently mainly stems from a single study and pilot materials released by the central bank, and there is still a distance from forming a mass experience verified by the market. This proactive approach of placing the three forms in the same retail payment map in a public setting sends a signal to banks, payment institutions, and on-chain projects: the future technological route and regulatory coordinates in the UK will revolve around these three types of tools, rather than being dragged back and forth on the abstract question of "whether or not to issue digital currency."

Supporting this map is the established regulatory timeline. The Bank of England previously completed a formal consultation on payment tokens (including asset-backed coins), based on which regulators targeted "systemic payment tokens" that might impact financial stability: any large arrangements in the UK retail payment system that reach the threshold of systemic importance in terms of scale, network effects, and substitutability, sufficient to influence overall payment security, will be included in a separate regulatory framework. Following Breeden's outlined route, the relevant rules draft is expected to be released in June 2026, with the goal of finalizing the overall regulatory framework by the end of 2026. This means that the boundaries of authority, capital constraints, and operational responsibilities surrounding tokenized deposits, compliant payment tokens, and the potential digital pound will be written into executable terms within the next year and a half, providing a regulatory certainty not yet offered by other major jurisdictions for the City of London to undertake tokenized issuance, on-chain settlements, and upgrades to inter-institutional payment infrastructure.

Who Can Get the UK Passport: New Thresholds for Compliant Issuers and Banks

In the Bank of England's vision, those willing to issue payment tokens to the public on a large scale in the UK in the future will no longer be viewed as "tech companies doing wallet business," but will be directly brought into the "systemic participant" category, occupying positions close to important financial infrastructure such as clearinghouses and card organizations. The so-called "systemic payment tokens" refer to those issuing arrangements in the UK retail payment system that, once they reach a sufficiently large scale, could affect financial stability; once deemed to meet this threshold, the issuer and its operational structure will be incorporated into a regulatory framework connected to existing payment systems, e-money, and systemically important banks, rather than enjoying a separate looser set of "tech trial rules." This means that whether they are local banks, payment institutions, or international entities issuing fiat-pegged tokens to global users, those looking to widely roll out retail usage in the UK will have to accept "infrastructure-level" scrutiny and authorization.

Surrounding this "passport," the forthcoming rules draft indicates several clear compliance lines: first, a clear authorized license must be obtained, with issuance and operational functions possibly needing separate approvals; second, a requirement to maintain a certain level of capital and liquidity buffers to cover payout and market volatility risks; third, strict separation of user funds and proprietary assets, as well as executable redemption obligation arrangements under stress scenarios; fourth, operational and technical risk management, from on-chain contract design, wallet security, to disaster recovery and network attack response, all must be examined according to "systemic institution" standards. Concerns in the industry regarding early proposals being "potentially too strict" largely stem from fears that these requirements could push the originally light-asset, cross-border layout of token issuance toward a heavy-asset, heavy-compliance banking path. Specific parameters such as required reserve ratios and single customer holding limits have not yet been disclosed, with the outside world only knowing that the first draft will be seen in June 2026, so various institutions can only make calculations based on the most conservative cost assumptions: traditional banks need to assess whether to include tokenized deposits and payment tokens into their existing asset-liability and risk limit systems; payment institutions must weigh whether the fixed costs of licensing, compliance teams, and technical upgrades will still support their original business models after being elevated to "systemic arrangements"; while international fiat-pegged token issuers and custody platforms must consider establishing more independent, adequately capitalized, and auditable local entities in the UK for a chance to be seen as real qualified participants in retail payment infrastructure.

South Carolina Strikes Back Against CBDC: Blocking with One Hand, Protecting Coin with the Other

Against the backdrop of federal-level "verbal opposition and technical exploration" towards the digital dollar, South Carolina provides a markedly different script with S.0163. The most striking part of the bill is the direct closure of the "official entrance" to central bank digital currency within the state: any state government department or agency is prohibited from accepting central bank digital currency as a method of payment and is also barred from participating in testing such tools. Even if Washington were to authorize some form of digital dollar in the future, at least in this state, taxes, fines, and license fees are not permitted to be settled with this new tool, effectively locking the state government out of the traditional account system through legislation.

However, S.0163 is not merely a "refusal," but on the other hand, wraps a layer of protection around private crypto activities. The bill enshrines self-custody rights, explicitly allowing individuals and businesses to hold their private keys and related digital assets without being subject to additional restrictions or presumed as higher-risk entities for using self-custody wallets; this serves as a strong symbolic endorsement for early users who have long been concerned about "custody being an entry point for regulation." On the mining side, there is a "non-discrimination clause": electricity prices, licenses, and other policies cannot discriminate against the use of crypto mining technology, which gives local miners and node operators an additional legal reference when negotiating power contracts or applying for land. The payment side is also taken care of—the bill clearly states that crypto payments will not be taxed separately, and merchants receiving payments in related tokens will not incur an additional "tech tax" due to different payment mediums, thus residents within the state avoid additional compliance costs due to payment formats in their daily consumption. The only uncertainty is that the circulated claim that "the governor signed it into law on May 19" has not been fully confirmed by official records, meaning participants still need to keep an eye on the final text and effective date while adjusting their business structures. Overall, this legislation blocks direct contact between the state government and central bank digital currency while providing a policy safety valve for self-custody, mining, and crypto payments, starkly revealing the fragmented nature of the U.S. regulatory landscape: within the same country, the federal government discusses the technical path for a digital dollar, while some states legally lock down "government wallets," but simultaneously signal friendliness towards private crypto activities.

Federal Level Says No: Digital Dollar Advances in the Shadows

If state-level legislation openly includes "refusal," the federal level has embedded contradictions into the timeline. In 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order that unusually named its opposition to a central bank digital currency issued by the Federal Reserve, citing privacy risks and excessive concentration of federal power as reasons, effectively branding a politically charged "veto" on retail digital dollars. However, alongside this, the U.S. has never issued a formal decision to "completely halt CBDC research," with technical and policy pre-research never cut off at the institutional level, merely maintaining intentional distance in public discourse.

What truly tears open this layer of "verbal denial" is the statement from former CFTC Chairman Timothy Massad. As a former top regulator, he directly labeled the digital dollar or government-supported payment tokens as "inevitable" in public, revealing that federal agencies, including the White House, are engaged in closed-door discussions about the technical forms and policy options for these tools, but have not yet formalized a written roadmap. More critically, Massad pointed out that the U.S. is participating in Project Agora led by the Bank for International Settlements, holding a place in the experiments on multilateral tokenized settlements and payment infrastructures, which means that while the U.S. projects a strong reserved attitude towards retail digital dollars in domestic politics, it quietly engages in the design of new-generation on-chain settlement foundations at the international level. For banks, payment institutions, and on-chain project parties, this dual-track signal of "public opposition + low-key advancement" significantly raises the costs of policy interpretation: no one can determine at what level or in what form the U.S. will ultimately implement the "digital dollar," and they can only attempt to construct a hypothetical curve of compliance and product paths amidst national technical pilots and high-decibel political statements.

Regulatory Race Chips: How Projects Bet Between the UK and the US

As of May 2026, the landscape has become clear: on one side, the Bank of England has provided a clear timeline with a draft in June 2026 and a final framework by the end of 2026, locking in higher regulatory thresholds for "systemic payment tokens"; on the other side, the U.S. lacks unified national legislation for digital dollars and does not have comprehensive federal rules covering tokenized settlements, yet states like South Carolina with S.0163 have proactively released template signals limiting CBDC and protecting private crypto activities. For global issuers, cross-border payment networks, and compliant service providers, this means the sequence of layouts must be adjusted: any products aimed at large-scale retail payments that may touch upon systemic importance are more inclined to first consider the UK as a "priority pilot arena," refining compliance models for tokenized deposits and regulated payment tokens within foreseeable regulatory pathways before assessing their potential transferability to other markets; while the U.S. presents a high uncertainty pattern of "state law puzzle + federal watchfulness," project parties must not only judge whether the state where their target users are located will replicate S.0163-style clauses but also bet on whether the federal level will ultimately approve "government-supported payment tokens" to bypass the political controversy surrounding retail CBDCs. What truly needs to be closely monitored are several sets of timelines and scenarios: whether the UK's draft is released on schedule in June 2026 and whether the capital, custody, and operational requirements for systemic payment tokens are stringent, how much the final framework before the end of 2026 will compress the commercial model space, how rapidly S.0163 might spread to other states and reshape the U.S. compliance landscape, and whether during the advancement process of BIS Project Agora in the coming years, the Federal Reserve will release clearer positions on tokenized settlements through technical pilots, as these variables will ultimately determine whether cross-border on-chain payments and tokenized asset businesses unfold under the narrative of "London leading and the U.S. catching up" or "the U.S. quietly reversing and London becoming the rule exporter."

Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram group: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。