The piece argues that the debate between tokenized deposits and stablecoins distracts from their complementary roles in modern finance. Tokenized deposits, tied to banks, excel in providing cheap credit through fractional reserve banking. For example, a $100 deposit can turn into $90 in loans. Large corporations benefit from this setup, securing favorable credit lines while staying within the regulated bank ecosystem. However, tokenized deposits restrict access to bank hours and processes, limiting their utility outside traditional banking environments. In contrast, stablecoins like USDC and Tether offer a cash-like solution for moving money across borders without the constraints of banks. With $200 billion held in stablecoin reserves, they facilitate transactions globally, allowing corporations to pay suppliers instantly, regardless of time or location. This flexibility is vital for businesses needing to transact in regions with different banking infrastructures. The article highlights how a Fortune 500 company might use both systems: maintaining tokenized deposits for credit while employing stablecoins for swift payments to international suppliers. Both tokenized deposits and stablecoins have their strengths and weaknesses. Tokenized deposits are best for regulated, institutional use, while stablecoins shine in global remittances and decentralized finance (DeFi) applications. The author emphasizes that neither approach alone will suffice; corporations require both access to cheap credit and immediate settlement options. The future of finance lies in integrating these systems, leveraging smart contracts to create seamless workflows that connect traditional banking with the flexibility of on-chain finance. This interoperability is essential for meeting the diverse needs of businesses and consumers in a rapidly evolving financial landscape.