Private blockchains pose bigger threat than sales, JPMorgan says
JPMorgan analysts led by Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou stated that while MicroStrategy's Bitcoin sales create periodic pressure, the larger structural threat is financial institutions adopting private blockchains. This shift could bypass public networks, reducing liquidity and capital flows for the broader crypto ecosystem. The analysts noted that even regulatory clarity like the CLARITY Act might accelerate bank-issued tokenized deposits, further limiting the role of public blockchains.

*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
JPMorgan analysts stated that Bitcoin sales by Strategy Inc. create periodic selling pressure but do not represent the main structural threat to the cryptocurrency. According to a note published on Thursday, the larger risk stems from financial institutions adopting blockchain technology in ways that bypass public networks entirely. If tokenization, payments, and settlement move to permissioned infrastructure controlled by banks, the broader crypto ecosystem faces slower activity, lower liquidity, and weaker capital flows over time.
The Real Threat Is Banks Building Their Own Blockchains
Analysts led by managing director Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou argued that the more important risk is blockchain adoption within traditional finance continuing to develop in ways that bypass public permissionless networks. JPMorgan said institutional adoption has consistently favored permissioned blockchains because they offer better privacy controls, KYC compliance, clearer governance, and greater regulatory certainty.
Why Institutions Keep Choosing Private Blockchains
The Bank for International Settlements has explicitly warned against using public blockchains for systemically important financial infrastructure, instead promoting permissioned ledgers. Banks are already building their own blockchain infrastructure through tokenized deposits, which are digital versions of regular bank deposits backed by existing regulation. If these become widely adopted, they reduce the need for stablecoins in institutional payments. SWIFT’s blockchain initiative and central bank digital currency projects like the digital euro and digital yuan would strengthen that trend further.
Real World Assets May Never Move To Public Chains
The tokenized Real World Assets (RWA) market sits at around $50 billion, with a meaningful share hosted on Ethereum. JPMorgan said that likely reflects early experimentation rather than the long-term structure. As institutional adoption grows, issuance, custody, and settlement could increasingly move to private infrastructure. Public blockchains may still handle distribution but become less central to how institutions actually process transactions. DTCC is already developing tokenization workflows on permissioned infrastructure while only selectively connecting to public networks.
| Entity | Initiative/Role | Type |
|---|---|---|
| Bank for International Settlements | Promoting permissioned ledgers | Regulatory Body |
| SWIFT | Blockchain initiative | Financial Infrastructure |
| DTCC | Tokenization workflows | Financial Infrastructure |
Even The CLARITY Act May Not Fix This
The analysts noted that even if the CLARITY Act passes this year, it may not eliminate these risks. Regulatory clarity could accelerate bank-issued tokenized deposits, strengthening incumbents while limiting the role of public blockchain stablecoins. Three scenarios could challenge JPMorgan’s view: a hybrid model where both blockchain types play meaningful roles, stronger stablecoin adoption from favorable regulation, or Bitcoin continuing to trade as digital gold regardless of how value accrues across the broader ecosystem.
How might public blockchains pivot their value proposition to remain relevant if institutions settle the majority of tokenized assets on private ledgers?
Could the rise of bank-issued tokenized deposits render public stablecoins obsolete for institutional use cases?
What specific technical bridges or interoperability standards would be required to prevent a complete fragmentation between private and public networks?

































