Swiss franc · store of value
CHF-pegged stablecoins as a store of value
A three-step method to design, describe and assess Swiss-franc stablecoin business models: a morphological box for the design space, a stablecoin canvas for the business logic, and criteria-based spider charts for the decision.
01
Morphological box — the WHAT
Instead of a branching decision tree, all building blocks are laid out per layer. Combining specific expressions yields concrete design paths.
02
Stablecoin canvas — the HOW
Each path is described on a canvas inspired by the Business Model Canvas, but with dimensions chosen for stablecoin issuance.
03
Spider charts — the WHETHER
Models are scored against a shared criteria grid — interoperability, operational complexity, risk, regulatory feasibility and economic viability.
1. Morphological box — the design space
Every row is a design layer, every cell an available expression. A business model is a path across the rows. Highlighted cells show three illustrative CHF store-of-value paths.
| Issuer typeWho carries the claim | Licensed bank (BankG)a | Fintech / payment institution | Trust / SPV with bank guaranteeb | Fund vehicle (FINMA-supervised)c | Consortium / joint venture |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal nature of claimWhat the holder actually owns | Deposit claim (on-balance-sheet)a | E-money-style claim (off-balance-sheet) | Fund unit / sharec | Bearer note / debt instrument | Beneficial interest in a trustb |
| Reserve compositionStore-of-value quality driver | SNB sight deposits (100%)a | CHF cash + short CHF Confederation bondsb | CHF money-market instrumentsc | Diversified HQLA with duration ladder | Over-collateralised crypto / RWA |
| Yield treatmentWho keeps the carry | No yield to holder (issuer keeps carry)a | Rebasing / accruing to holder | NAV-appreciating tokenc | Tiered: retail 0, institutional pass-throughb | Negative-rate pass-through mechanism |
| Redemption & liquidityConvertibility to CHF | T+0 at par, 24/7a | T+0 banking hoursb | T+1 / T+2 settlementc | Gated with notice period | Secondary-market exit only |
| Ledger & interoperabilityWhere value is recorded | Public permissionless L1 | Public L2 / rollup | Permissioned DLT (e.g. SDX)c | Hybrid: permissioned mint, public circulationa · b | Multi-chain with canonical bridge |
| Custody modelHow holders keep the token | Self-custody wallet | Regulated custodianb · c | Bank-integrated walleta | MPC / smart-contract account | Omnibus with sub-ledger |
| Access & distributionWho may hold it | Retail open access | Whitelisted retail (KYC at wallet level)b | Professional investors onlyc | Institutional / interbank onlya | Closed corporate ecosystem |
| Regulatory anchorSupervisory perimeter | Banking licencea | Fintech licence (Art. 1b BankG) | Bank-guarantee exemption (FINMA GN 06/2024)b | Collective-investment approvalc | Future dedicated stablecoin regime (consultation 22 Oct 2025) |
Path A — Sovereign-grade CHF reserve token
Bank-issued deposit token fully backed by SNB sight deposits, no yield to holder, instant par redemption. Maximum store-of-value quality, lowest reach.
Path B — Regulated retail CHF savings token
Trust/SPV issuer under a bank guarantee, CHF cash plus short Confederation bonds, tiered yield, whitelisted retail access on hybrid rails.
Path C — Institutional CHF money-market token
Fund vehicle issuing a NAV-appreciating unit on permissioned DLT for professional investors — a yield-bearing store of value rather than a payment coin.
2. Stablecoin canvas — the business model
A standalone artefact: nine dimensions that describe how a CHF store-of-value stablecoin creates, delivers and captures value — reusable across working-group discussions.
Value proposition
- CHF-denominated value preservation without bank-account friction
- Programmable Swiss-franc safety asset, 24/7
- Hedge against non-CHF stablecoin exposure for Swiss corporates
- Auditable, on-chain proof of reserves
Holder segments
- Swiss retail savers and diaspora
- Corporate treasuries with CHF liabilities
- Crypto-native funds seeking CHF leg
- Cross-border investors hedging into CHF
Trust & reserve architecture
- Reserve eligibility policy and duration ladder
- Segregation, bankruptcy remoteness, custodian set
- Attestation cadence and on-chain proof
- Stress and redemption-run scenarios
Regulatory anchor
- Licence or exemption relied upon
- AML/KYC perimeter and travel-rule handling
- Passporting / recognition outside CH
- Consultation-readiness (22 Oct 2025 draft)
Distribution channels
- Bank and neobank apps
- Regulated exchanges and OTC desks
- Wallet and custody partners
- DeFi venues with whitelisting
Revenue logic
- Reserve carry (net of pass-through)
- Mint / redeem and FX spread
- Custody and enterprise API fees
- Float on settlement balances
Cost logic
- Licensing, capital and audit
- Compliance operations and monitoring
- Ledger, custody and smart-contract security
- Liquidity provisioning and market making
Risk & controls
- Depeg, run and concentration risk
- Negative-rate environment on CHF reserves
- Smart-contract and bridge risk
- Sanctions and reputational exposure
Key partners
- Reserve bank and custodian
- Auditor / attestation provider
- Ledger operator and market makers
- Wallet and PSP distribution partners
3. Spider charts — the evaluation
Each path is scored 1–5 on the same criteria grid. The shape, not the single number, carries the message.
Path A — Sovereign-grade CHF reserve token
Highest safety and regulatory clarity, but narrow interoperability and thin economics: SNB reserves leave little carry, so the model needs fee income or a strategic sponsor.
Why these scores
- Interoperability 3 — circulates on a hybrid setup (permissioned mint, public leg) and reaches banking rails and major wallets, but institutional whitelisting and bank-side controls keep it away from open DeFi composability.
- Operational complexity 2 — a bank issuer must integrate the token with core banking, SNB account operations, treasury and 24/7 redemption; heavy in-house processes and continuous supervisory reporting.
- Risk 5 — claims are on-balance-sheet deposit claims backed 1:1 by SNB sight deposits with instant par redemption; effectively no credit, duration or liquidity mismatch and no reserve-manager discretion.
- Regulatory feasibility 5 — a full banking licence already covers deposit-token issuance, so no new regime or exemption is required and the consultation draft of 22 October 2025 only confirms the route.
- Economic viability 2 — SNB sight deposits yield close to nothing after the tiering threshold, so carry cannot fund licensing, audit and operations; the model depends on fee income or strategic subsidy.
Overall assessment
Overall, Path A is the safest and most clearly authorised design in Switzerland but the least self-financing. It is best read as strategic infrastructure — a bank or consortium funding it for settlement and franchise reasons rather than for stand-alone profit.
Path B — Regulated retail CHF savings token
Best balance of interoperability and reach under the bank-guarantee route; moderate complexity and solid economics depend on tiered yield and distribution partners.
Why these scores
- Interoperability 4 — hybrid rails combine a public circulation leg with bank-integrated wallets and whitelisted venues, giving broad wallet, PSP and exchange reach; whitelisting is the only real constraint.
- Operational complexity 3 — the SPV outsources custody and uses standard APIs and periodic attestation, but wallet-level KYC, guarantee monitoring and a retail redemption desk still require a real operating team.
- Risk 4 — CHF cash plus short Confederation bonds is high-quality and segregated, and a bank guarantee protects holders; residual duration, guarantor-concentration and off-balance-sheet claim risk keep it below the top level.
- Regulatory feasibility 4 — FINMA Guidance 06/2024 provides a known bank-guarantee exemption path with clear steps, but it depends on securing a guarantor bank and remains sensitive to how the new regime is finalised.
- Economic viability 3 — reserve carry on short Confederation paper plus mint/redeem and FX spreads covers costs at scale, but tiered yield pass-through and guarantee fees compress the margin and a zero-rate scenario hurts.
Overall assessment
Overall, Path B is the most balanced proposition: it trades a little safety and regulatory certainty for meaningfully wider retail reach and workable unit economics. It is the strongest candidate where the goal is adoption rather than pure reserve quality.
Path C — Institutional CHF money-market token
Strong economics and clear supervisory home on permissioned DLT, but access is restricted and it behaves as an investment product rather than money-like interoperability.
Why these scores
- Interoperability 3 — a permissioned DLT with regulated custodians integrates well with institutional post-trade infrastructure, but professional-investor gating and the absence of a public leg rule out wallet-level and retail composability.
- Operational complexity 3 — fund administration, NAV calculation and transfer-agency duties add work, yet they run on established collective-investment processes and outsourced custody rather than a bespoke build.
- Risk 4 — CHF money-market instruments under collective-investment supervision are diversified and audited, but the NAV can move, redemption is settlement-cycle bound and there is no par-redemption guarantee.
- Regulatory feasibility 4 — collective-investment approval is a well-trodden FINMA route with predictable steps; the open question is treating a tokenised unit as money-like rather than the licence itself.
- Economic viability 4 — management fees on money-market assets plus reserve carry give a proven, multi-line revenue base with institutional ticket sizes; only a deeply negative CHF rate would break it.
Overall assessment
Overall, Path C is the most commercially robust of the three, but it buys that robustness by becoming an investment product. It serves treasuries and funds seeking a yielding CHF leg rather than a general-purpose franc store of value.
Criteria definitions & assessment scale
Each criterion is scored 1–5. The scale below explains what each level means.
Interoperability
Ability to plug into existing payment rails, ledgers, wallets and banking APIs; compatibility with public L2s, permissioned DLT and cross-chain bridges.
- 1 — Siloed: single closed ledger, no public API, no bridge, no wallet choice.
- 2 — Limited: one partner API or one public chain with thin integration.
- 3 — Connected: multi-channel via regulated custodians, banking APIs and major wallets.
- 4 — Open: public L2 + banking rails + whitelisted DeFi venues and SDKs.
- 5 — Ubiquitous: native across L1/L2, TradFi PSPs, wallets, DeFi and cross-chain bridges.
Operational complexity
Effort to build and run the stack: core-banking integration, custody, attestations, monitoring and redemption operations. Scored inversely — higher is simpler.
- 1 — Very heavy: bespoke core-banking build, manual operations, dedicated 24/7 team.
- 2 — Heavy: deep core-banking and custody integration, multiple in-house processes.
- 3 — Moderate: standard APIs, regulated custodian, periodic attestation, run-book in place.
- 4 — Light: outsourced custody, automated mint/burn, few integration partners to manage.
- 5 — Minimal: white-label infrastructure, near-fully automated, small operating footprint.
Risk
Composite of reserve, credit, liquidity, operational and run risk — including reliability of par redemption under stress. Scored inversely — higher is safer.
- 1 — High: material credit, liquidity, run, custody or smart-contract risk with limited transparency.
- 2 — Elevated: concentrated reserves, novel technology or weak redemption assurance.
- 3 — Moderate: diversified HQLA, audited reserves and established settlement rails.
- 4 — Low: segregated high-quality assets, regulated custodian and frequent attestation.
- 5 — Minimal: central-bank or equivalent reserves, bankruptcy remoteness, instant par redemption.
Regulatory feasibility
How readily the model fits an existing Swiss licence or exemption, and how well it maps onto the Federal Council consultation draft of 22 October 2025.
- 1 — Prohibited or no discernible licence path under current or draft Swiss law.
- 2 — Unclear: only viable if a new regime is enacted, with high implementation risk.
- 3 — Conditional: permitted under existing framework but requires material adaptation.
- 4 — Clear: fits an available exemption or fintech / banking licence route with known steps.
- 5 — Straightforward: fully covered by existing banking licence or explicit regulatory blessing.
Economic viability
Ability to cover fixed cost from reserve carry and fees at realistic CHF rate levels — including a zero or negative rate scenario.
- 1 — Not viable: costs exceed realistic revenue even at scale or with sponsor support.
- 2 — Marginal: break-even only at very large scale or with ongoing subsidy.
- 3 — Moderate: covers costs at scale under current rate assumptions.
- 4 — Healthy: multiple revenue lines (carry, fees, API) produce a comfortable margin.
- 5 — Resilient: strong unit economics even in a zero or negative CHF rate environment.