Thailand has already made significant progress in digital payments. PromptPay has become part of everyday life, making it easy to transfer money between bank accounts and payment providers in just a few seconds.
So, with the country exploring regulated Thai baht (THB) stablecoins, it’s tempting to see this as the next step in the evolution of PromptPay. But that comparison misses something important. A THB stablecoin isn’t designed to replace PromptPay. It’s a different kind of digital money, one that could eventually make payments programmable and allow value to move between different platforms in new ways.
To understand why this matters, it’s worth looking at how the Bank of Thailand (BOT) distinguishes between the different forms of tokenised baht.
Not all tokenised baht is the same
The BOT’s proposed framework makes an important distinction between tokenised versions of existing money and stablecoins. At first glance, they might seem similar. Both use digital tokens, and both can be built on distributed ledger technology (DLT). But their underlying nature is quite different. The first group consists of tokenised bank deposits and tokenised e-money.
In simple terms, these are existing forms of money recorded on a different type of technology infrastructure. A tokenised bank deposit is still a bank deposit, while tokenised e-money remains e-money issued by an authorised provider. The technology changes, but the underlying legal status, rights and obligations remain tied to the existing financial framework.
These arrangements will generally operate within the networks of individual providers, although broader applications are also being explored. One example is the development of interbank tokenised deposits through BAHTNET for wholesale use.
A THB stablecoin is a different proposition. Rather than representing an existing bank deposit or e-money balance, it is a separate digital instrument issued under its own regulatory framework. The basic idea is straightforward: one token should be worth one Thai baht, with the initial model backed by bank deposits held as reserves.
There is another important difference. The issuer doesn’t necessarily need to be the organisation providing the wallet. This is what makes the model open-loop. Multiple licensed wallet providers could potentially support the same stablecoin, allowing it to circulate across different platforms rather than being restricted to one provider’s ecosystem.
PromptPay moves money. A stablecoin is money.
This is probably the most important distinction to understand. PromptPay is a payment infrastructure. It allows people and businesses to transfer money between accounts, but it isn’t money itself. When someone sends money through PromptPay, the payment instruction is processed by the relevant financial institutions. Their systems update the account balances to reflect the transaction.
A THB stablecoin works differently. The distinction comes down to two concepts: account-based money and bearer-based money. With account-based money, such as a bank deposit or conventional e-money, you instruct your bank or payment provider to make a transfer. The institution updates its records to show who owns the money.
With bearer-based money, the digital token itself is transferred. Whoever holds and controls the token has control over the associated value. Think of physical cash. When you hand someone a 100-baht banknote, you don’t ask your bank to update its ledger. You simply transfer the banknote. The BOT uses cash as the basic example of a bearer instrument.
A THB stablecoin is conceptually closer to a digital banknote than a digital bank account, although there is an important difference: its circulation would be subject to regulatory requirements, including KYC and eligible wallet arrangements. This changes how we should think about its role in the financial system.
So, what exactly is a THB stablecoin?
It’s a regulated digital payment instrument designed to maintain a one-to-one value with the Thai baht. It’s also a claim against the issuer, supported by segregated reserves, rather than a bank deposit held directly by the wallet user.
That means it shouldn’t be confused with a savings account or investment product. The proposed model is designed for payments, not for earning interest or receiving rewards for holding tokens.
It’s also different from the cryptocurrencies most people are familiar with. Its purpose isn’t to offer exposure to a floating market price or operate as an anonymous payment instrument.
And it’s not a CBDC. A central bank digital currency would be issued by the central bank itself. A THB stablecoin, by contrast, would be issued by licensed private-sector entities under the relevant regulatory framework.
These distinctions might sound technical, but they matter. They determine who is responsible for the money, how it is backed, what rights holders have and how the system is regulated.
Why is the BOT taking a cautious approach?
Moving digital tokens between wallets sounds simple enough. But when those tokens represent real money and can circulate across different platforms, the risks become more complicated.
The first challenge is maintaining the peg. If one token is supposed to be worth one baht, users need confidence that they can redeem it at that value.
Then there are the technology risks. Smart contract vulnerabilities, cyberattacks and wallet security issues can all affect the reliability of the system.
Liquidity is another concern. If a large number of users decide to redeem their tokens at the same time, issuers need sufficient reserves and operational capacity to meet those demands.
Finally, there is the question of financial crime prevention. Digital tokens that can move between wallets create challenges around transaction monitoring, identity verification and money laundering controls.
This helps explain the BOT’s cautious approach, including limiting the number of issuers, requiring full reserve backing through bank deposits in the initial model and restricting transactions to eligible or whitelisted wallets.
The idea is to create room for innovation without putting confidence in the baht or the wider financial system at risk.
The bigger opportunity is programmability
For me, this is where things get interesting. Thailand doesn’t really need another payment system that simply makes transfers faster. PromptPay already does that very well. The more interesting question is what happens when money itself becomes programmable.
Today, most payment instructions and business rules sit within the systems operated by banks and payment providers. The money remains in their account-based infrastructure, and transactions are processed according to the rules of those systems.
A bearer-style digital token introduces another possibility. Because the token can move between participating wallets and interact with smart contracts, conditions can potentially be attached to how and when value is transferred.
Imagine a business paying a supplier only after goods have been delivered and confirmed. Or a marketplace automatically releasing payment once a buyer receives a digital asset. Payments could also be linked to invoices, contractual milestones or specific events in a supply chain.
These are not necessarily things that will happen immediately, and they depend on the final regulatory framework, technical standards and adoption by businesses. But they illustrate why programmable money could be more significant than simply having another way to make a payment.
The potential is not just about moving money from A to B. It’s about making the movement of money part of a larger automated process.
A complement to PromptPay, not a replacement
It’s easy to look at each new financial technology as a competitor to what already exists. But that’s probably the wrong way to look at Thailand’s evolving digital payment landscape.
Bank deposits and e-money will continue to play an important role. PromptPay will remain a key part of the country’s payment infrastructure. Tokenisation can bring existing forms of money onto new technology platforms, while stablecoins introduce a different way of representing and transferring value.
These systems don’t necessarily need to compete. They could serve different purposes and work alongside one another. PromptPay helped make digital payments fast, convenient and accessible across Thailand.
A regulated THB stablecoin could take things in a different direction, making money more portable across platforms and opening the door to programmable transactions.
So, is it the next PromptPay? Not really.
It could be something more interesting: another layer of financial infrastructure that changes not just how we move money, but what we can actually do with it.
The views expressed are the author’s own and do not constitute legal or investment advice.
About the Author
Sasipong Pewkaw is a Thai Fintech and payments professional with more than 20 years of experience in banking, digital payments and financial infrastructure. He is Co-Founder and CEO of consulting firm Sam’Oand payment technology provide OneScheme, where he focuses on payment infrastructure, open payment networks and cross-border payment solutions.
Throughout his career, Sasipong has held leadership roles at National ITMX and Liquid Group, contributing to the development of Thailand’s digital payment ecosystem, including PromptPay, QR payments and regional payment connectivity. His experience spans payment networks, banking technology, financial services strategy and the evolution of digital money.
He regularly shares his perspectives on Fintech innovation, payment interoperability and the future of financial infrastructure in Southeast Asia.
