When banks put deposit tokens on an L2 like @base you get an interesting finality gap A transfer on Base can be confirmed almost instantly from the user's perspective But Base has different levels of L2 finality. Its latest state can be unsafe, then become safe once derived from canonical Ethereum data, and eventually finalized once that underlying L1 data reaches @ethereum finality That creates an important question for banks When should a token transfer be considered “settled”? A bank could use @base for fast transaction execution while waiting for stronger @ethereum -backed finality before treating the transfer as irreversible in its core systems And there is another layer If the deposit-token contract gives the issuer powers such as freeze, mint, burn or revocation, the token can have issuer-level controls that exist independently of Ethereum's consensus finality So who has the final say? Ethereum determines the canonical blockchain state issuer and legal framework determine how that state is recognized economically That suggests tokenized deposits may have two different notions of finality Blockchain finality → Ethereum Economic / legal finality → Issuer + banking framework The interesting part is that these two moments don't necessarily have to be the same For tokenized bank money, “final” may depend on which layer you're asking about What do you think?