KlariVis sample reveals concentrated deposit migration tied to Coinbase

A recent transaction-level review by KlariVis measured flows between retail customers and a major crypto exchange and found a clear imbalance: transfers leaving banks were substantially larger in frequency and total than those returning. The analysis covered more than 225,000 Coinbase-linked transactions across 92 community institutions and tracked directional activity for 53 banks in detail.

Outflows dominated. Across the directional subset, the ratio of funds sent to the exchange versus funds coming back averaged about 2.77 to 1, producing a net deposit shift of roughly $78.3 million over a 13-month measurement window. Total outbound volume in that sample was approximately $122.4 million, with inbound flows near $44.2 million.

The movement was concentrated in specific product buckets: identifiable transfers from money market balances accounted for a large share of the net leakage, with mass transfers averaging several thousand dollars per withdrawal. By contrast, transfers that returned to banks were fewer and larger on average, indicating sporadic reconciliation rather than steady two-way activity.

Smaller community institutions showed higher relative exposure. Banks holding less than $1 billion in deposits recorded roughly 82–84% of Coinbase-linked transactions as outbound, while larger community peers registered lower but still substantial outbound shares near 66–67%.

• Average outbound move size: $851.
• Average inbound move size: $2,999.
• Money market average transfer in the sample: $3,593.

Projecting the sample nationally, KlariVis suggests more than 3,500 of roughly 3,950 community banks could exhibit similar customer routing to crypto platforms. Using empirical lending-deposit multipliers from academic work, the report estimates that the observed net outflow could reduce small-bank lending capacity by about $30.5 million.

The timing of the study intersects with ongoing policy debates over how to regulate stablecoin interest and whether crypto intermediaries should be allowed to offer ― or facilitate ― yield. Banking trade groups and some large banks warn that permitting interest-bearing stablecoin products or third-party rewards could accelerate deposit migration at scale, an argument gaining traction in legislative discussions.

Taken together, the data highlight a concentrated mechanism — digital-asset platforms pulling liquidity from specific deposit products — that may quietly erode community-bank funding at a tempo that outpaces traditional risk controls. For smaller lenders, the pattern is particularly pronounced and could impair credit availability if sustained.