The Role of RITS in Supporting Settlement in a Tokenised Ecosystem Appendix C – Consultation response template

Consultation Paper
September 2026

Download the complete Document 1MB

How RITS could support cash settlement in tokenised wholesale asset markets

Question 1

What DvP synchronisation models (asset lock, central bank reserves lock, or asset and central bank reserves lock) should RITS and/or the FSS be capable of supporting? Please include in your response:

• A description of the current and anticipated use cases the models would support.
• The timeframe within which they should be supported (1–3 years, 3–5 years, or 5+ years).
• The advantages of your preferred model for your use case(s) compared with the alternative models.

Question 2

What types of synchronisation arrangements (asset platform-led, third-party or central bank-supported) would best support your use cases? Please include in your response:

• Which current and anticipated use cases are best suited to each type of arrangement and why? Please explain whether operational, governance or scalability requirements drive your preference and whether different arrangements may be appropriate at different stages of market development.
• If central-bank supported arrangements are required, what functions would provide the greatest value (e.g. technical interface, workflow coordination, reservation management, exceptions handling).

Question 3

To what extent do existing RITS and FSS capabilities and services enable the DvP synchronisation models and synchronisation arrangements that are needed to support current and anticipated use cases? This includes:

1. Existing core settlement and reservation services.
2. Existing options for submitting settlement instructions to RITS or the FSS (feeder systems, batches, LVSS).
3. Connectivity and messaging, and information and notification arrangements.

Please include in your response:

• Which use cases can, or cannot, be adequately supported using existing functionality, and why.
• Current gaps or limitations.
• Operational and implementation challenges.

Question 4

What enhancements to the existing services and capabilities are required to support tokenised asset settlement use cases that cannot be adequately supported using existing functionality? Please include in your response:

• What enhancements are required and how they would support current and anticipated use cases.
• Whether these enhancements are:
  • essential for the implementation of tokenised asset use cases, or would materially reduce the effort required for implementation
  • important for scale and operational efficiency as markets mature
  • desirable long-term enhancements.
• Over what timeframe the enhancements would be needed (1–3 years, 3–5 years, 5+ years).

How RITS could support at-par exchange of private tokenised money

Question 5

What exchange models (simple exchange, exchange with synchronisation, or DLT exchange) should RITS and/or the FSS be capable of supporting? Please include in your response:

• For models requiring synchronisation, which locking arrangement (asset lock, central bank reserves lock, or asset and central bank reserves lock) RITS and/or the FSS should be capable of supporting.
• Description of the current and anticipated use cases the models would support, including whether these use cases are actively being developed today, expected within 3 to 5 years, or are longer-term possibilities.
• The timeframe within which the models should be supported (1–3 years, 3–5 years, or 5+ years).
• The advantages of your preferred model for your use case(s) compared with the alternative models.

Question 6

For exchange models requiring synchronisation, what types of synchronisation arrangements (bilateral, third-party, central bank-supported or other) should be supported? Please include in your response:

• Which current and anticipated use cases are best suited to each type of arrangement and why.
• If central-bank supported arrangements are required, what functions would provide the greatest value (e.g. technical interface, workflow coordination, reservation management, exceptions handling).

Question 7

To what extent do existing RITS and FSS capabilities and services enable the exchange models that are needed to support current and anticipated use cases? This includes:

1. Existing core settlement and reservation services.
2. Existing options for submitting settlement instructions to RITS or the FSS (feeder systems, batches, LVSS).
3. Connectivity and messaging, and information and notification arrangements.

Please include in your response:

• Which use cases can, or cannot, be adequately supported using existing functionality, and why.
• Current gaps or limitations.
• Operational and implementation challenges.

Question 8

What enhancements to the existing services and capabilities are required to support exchange use cases that cannot be adequately supported using existing functionality? Please include in your response:

• What enhancements are required and how they would support current and anticipated use cases.
• Whether these enhancements are:
  • essential for the implementation of exchange arrangements or would materially reduce the effort required for implementation
  • important for scale and operational efficiency as markets mature
  • desirable long-term enhancements.
• Over what timeframe the enhancements would be needed (1–3 years, 3–5 years, 5+ years).

Access to central bank accounts for stablecoin issuers

Question 9

How might stablecoin issuers use access to central bank reserves if it was made available, both today and as arrangements scale? For example to:

• hold backing reserves
• settle issuance and redemption flows
• manage liquidity
• settle transactions related to reserve assets
• support exchange with other forms of private money.

In your response, please explain how your preferred use would be consistent with supporting financial stability.

Question 10

What account features would be most valuable to stablecoin arrangements, both today and as they scale? Please distinguish between features that are essential to support a viable business model and those that would improve efficiency, scalability or resilience. For example:

• ability to settle or hold reserves in own account
• access to a pooled omnibus account, or ability to segregate funds within existing ESAs to support models where stablecoin issuers have beneficial claims on central bank reserves held by other institutions on their behalf
• operating hours.

Question 11

What barriers, other than eligibility, would stablecoin issuers face in accessing and using central bank reserves? For example:

• operational requirements
• access to payment systems to move funds into or out of the account (for liquidity management and/or payment purposes)
• technical connectivity requirements
• liquidity management
• cost associated with operating a central bank account.

Tokenised reserves

Question 12

Which use cases would become materially easier or more efficient if tokenised reserves were available? Please include in your response why existing synchronisation approaches may be insufficient.

Question 13

What functional outcomes should the design of tokenised reserves, and the issuance and distribution model need to support? For example:

• atomic settlement
• programmability
• composability
• interoperability
• 24/7 liquidity management
• cross-platform settlement.

Question 14

Based on the use cases that require tokenised reserves and the outcomes that need to be supported, what issuance and distribution approaches would be appropriate?

Question 15

What funding, redemption and liquidity-management capabilities would be required between ESAs and tokenised reserve holdings? Please include in your response which capabilities would need to operate: in real time; extended hours; or 24/7.