Banks Put $32.5M Into Cari—Tokenized Deposits Stay Inside Banking

Cari’s September 2 announcement says the company raised $32.5 million in the first tranche of its initial external funding round, entirely from banks. Investors included design partners First Horizon Bank, Huntington Bank, KeyBank, M&T Bank, Old National Bank and SouthState Bank, plus other institutions including Glacier Bank. The capital has been raised, but Cari describes participating institutions as pilot banks and says the money will help the network move toward production.
The Bank Slate’s account separately reports the same $32.5 million tranche, bank-only investor base and seven named institutions. The September 2 financing event is therefore distinct from the network’s operating status: the funding is completed at the tranche level, while production use has not been confirmed.
The investors helped design what they funded
The six design-partner banks began working with Cari in September 2025 and helped shape the network’s technology, operations, governance and intended uses before investing. Their dual role matters because Cari is not merely selling banks access to infrastructure designed elsewhere; participating institutions have been involved in defining how the shared system should operate.
That arrangement also addresses an economic problem for regional and midsize banks. Developing separate wallets, integrations, operating controls and programmable-payment systems would require each institution to bear substantial costs alone. A shared platform distributes part of that burden while leaving banks to compete through their own customer relationships and services.
The disclosed rationale is defensive as well as developmental. The participating banks want access to programmable digital money without handing issuance, governance and redemption policy to an external stablecoin company. Their investment gives them a financial stake in infrastructure intended to preserve banks’ role in issuing deposit money.
How Cari keeps the liability inside banking

Cari’s model represents a customer deposit as a digital token on a permissioned network. The underlying obligation remains associated with a deposit at a participating chartered bank rather than being exchanged for a new liability issued by a separate stablecoin provider. This is the precise sense in which the money stays inside banking.
The pilot platform combines programmatic capabilities, a front-end wallet interface and an operational portal. Together, those components allow participating banks to test an end-to-end cycle: mint a tokenized representation of a deposit, transfer it through the network and burn it when that representation is extinguished or converted back.
The workflow changes how the deposit is represented and moved, but it does not by itself turn Cari into the issuer of customers’ money. Bank-centered governance follows the same structure: the design partners have helped determine operating rules and uses instead of relying on policies imposed by an unrelated token issuer.
Tokenized deposits and stablecoins create different claims

Both instruments can represent dollars on programmable infrastructure, but they do not give holders the same claim. A tokenized deposit remains a liability of the issuing commercial bank. A reserve-backed stablecoin is generally a transferable liability of its stablecoin issuer, supported by that issuer’s reserves and redemption arrangements.
The transfer mechanics can also differ. The BIS comparison of the two models describes tokenized deposits as account-based bank liabilities: a payment debits one customer’s balance, credits another and settles the banks’ obligations through central-bank accounts in the background. Stablecoins generally circulate as bearer-like instruments, so a transfer changes who holds the stablecoin issuer’s liability.
That distinction explains why banks may prefer shared tokenized-deposit infrastructure. Retaining the deposit liability helps preserve bank funding and keeps the regulated account provider at the center of the customer relationship. Joint governance also gives participating banks influence over access, compliance and operating controls.
It does not eliminate the network’s risks or prove interoperability. Cari must still show that independently regulated institutions can coordinate liquidity, controls and settlement reliably. The funding announcement also does not specify the final production settlement design, so the generic central-bank settlement model described by the BIS should not be treated as a confirmed technical specification for Cari.
The product suite exists, but production remains ahead
Cari has progressed beyond a concept: it says a minimum viable product and then a full product suite were delivered before the funding announcement. Those milestones establish that the software needed for pilot participants to test minting, transferring and burning tokenized deposits exists. They do not establish a public production launch.
The distinction is important because a successful software build, a participating-bank roster and completed financing measure different things. Cari has not disclosed production transaction volume, identified customers making routine live payments or published results from production interbank settlement. Its statement that the capital will help it move toward production reinforces that the current stage is still preparatory.
The $32.5 million tranche is evidence that banks are willing to own and fund a shared alternative to stablecoin infrastructure. The next material evidence will be a confirmed production launch, banks connected for live settlement, final governance and settlement rules, and measurable transaction activity. Until then, Cari is a funded, bank-backed tokenized-deposit network with an end-to-end pilot workflow—not a proven production payment rail.
Also read:
Subscribe to our newsletter
Get the latest Web3, AI, and crypto news delivered straight to your inbox.