By Larry Pruss
With a consortium of large banks reportedly considering the acquisition of Fiserv’s debit network, most of the discussion has centered on one question: Are the banks trying to improve their economics under the Durbin Amendment? That is certainly one plausible explanation. But I think the more interesting question is why Fiserv might be willing to sell such a strategic asset in the first place.
One possible explanation is that Fiserv sees where payment infrastructure is heading. Stablecoins, tokenized deposits, real-time payments, and programmable money all point toward a future where more value moves over shared digital infrastructure and less value depends exclusively on traditional payment networks. Fiserv has already begun investing in that future through FIUSD, partnerships with Circle and Paxos, blockchain integrations, and tokenized deposit capabilities.
If management believes future value will come from enabling digital money rather than simply switching debit transactions, monetizing a legacy network asset while reinvesting in next-generation infrastructure becomes a logical strategic decision.
Entirely Different Reasons
For the banks, however, the same asset may be worth more for entirely different reasons. Ownership of a major debit network could strengthen their position in a post-Durbin world by giving them greater control over network economics, routing, and payment infrastructure. Whether the primary objective is improving debit economics, increasing negotiating leverage, or reducing dependence on third-party networks, the strategic value of the asset may be considerably higher to the buyers than to the seller.
Credit unions will not be buying payment networks, but they will face a similar strategic choice. As core providers, such as Fiserv, begin investing in shared ledger infrastructure and tokenized money platforms, institutions will need to decide whether they are aligned with providers building tomorrow’s payment ecosystem or simply maintaining yesterday’s. That decision may arrive sooner than most expect.
Large Banks Already Tested This Model
The concept of a shared ledger has circulated for a few years under different names. The Bank for International Settlements calls its version a Unified Ledger: a system that combines central bank money, commercial bank deposits, and other assets on one programmable platform instead of scattering them across separate institutional ledgers. The BIS argues this removes the messaging and reconciliation that today’s separate-ledger system requires.
Large banks have already tested a version of this. In 2023, the New York Fed’s Innovation Center ran a 12-week proof of concept called the Regulated Liability Network with nine institutions, including Citi, HSBC, Wells Fargo, Mastercard, PNC, and BNY Mellon, and concluded the model was viable. A follow-up experiment in the UK with Barclays, Lloyds, NatWest, and others reached the same conclusion in 2024. Large institutions continue testing shared ledger infrastructure because they believe it has the potential to reduce reconciliation, improve programmability, and enable new forms of digital settlement.
The Leverage Problem Credit Unions Already Have
Core banking is already one of the most concentrated parts of credit union technology. Fiserv alone serves roughly a quarter of all credit unions, Jack Henry serves another sizable share. Switching cores is expensive and disruptive enough that most credit unions stay with a provider even when they’re frustrated with it. A shift toward shared, ledger-based infrastructure changes the leverage in that relationship.
Whichever core provider first integrates tokenized deposits, stablecoins, and shared settlement directly into its core platform could become the provider credit unions want to be with, and can price and negotiate accordingly. The providers that don’t build it will be competing on service[CB1] [JT2] and discounts rather than innovation.
The NCUA’s own rulemaking under the GENIUS Act builds in room for exactly this kind of pooling. Its licensing framework lets a stablecoin-issuing CUSO apply jointly with multiple credit union parent companies, rather than requiring every credit union that wants in to build and license its own issuer. I’ve been describing the same logic for the core itself. Credit unions already collaborate through shared service organizations, and a shared ledger extends that same instinct to infrastructure instead of services.
The Questions to Ask Before the Next Core Renewal
Most credit unions aren’t going to negotiate their way onto a shared ledger this year. But every core contract renewal is a chance to ask the providers direct questions: What is the roadmap for tokenized deposits, stablecoins, and shared settlement, and what happens to member data and member relationships if that roadmap runs through a platform the credit union doesn’t own a piece of?
Boards and CFOs should also track where their core provider is investing and with whom it is building strategic partnerships. A provider quietly building consortium relationships with large banks is signaling where its engineering talent, capital, and long-term product strategy are being directed. Credit unions should ask how, and when, those same investments will benefit their institutions.
The Bottom Line
The banks reportedly circling Fiserv’s network may be focused on strengthening their debit economics and strategic position in the payments ecosystem. Fiserv, however, may be solving a different problem entirely. If payment infrastructure gradually shifts toward tokenized money, shared ledgers (i.e. blockchain), and programmable settlement, the company’s greatest opportunity may lie in enabling that ecosystem rather than owning every piece of the legacy infrastructure that supports today’s debit transactions.
In that scenario, both buyer and seller can be right. The banks acquire a valuable network asset that strengthens their competitive position today, while Fiserv potentially reallocates capital toward the software, tokenization, and digital asset capabilities that could define the next generation of financial infrastructure.
The Question for Credit Unions
Credit unions already have the structure for this: a cooperative model built for shared investment. The question is whether they will use it. As core providers increasingly invest in tokenized deposits, stablecoins, and shared ledger capabilities, credit unions should ensure those investments ultimately benefit their institutions and members—not just the largest banks.
The organizations that help shape this next generation of infrastructure will influence its direction. Those that wait may find themselves adapting to decisions made by their core providers and the industry’s largest institutions.
Larry Pruss is Managing Director of Emerging Payment Technologies at SRM and has more than 30 years of experience as a trusted adviser, strategist, author, speaker, and futurist. He has advised and educated members of congress and regulators including the NCUA, OCC, and the Federal Reserve. He also hosts SRM’s Perspectives Live! Webinar series, serves as a member of the U.S. Faster Payments Council, and is a Fellow at the Digital Euro Association. Larry’s career includes leadership roles at prominent financial institutions such as Bank of America and Banque Nationale. LinkedIn
