FedNow Readiness Gaps That Keep Banks in Receive-Only Mode

Why the receive-only hurdle is the strategic constraint

For most institutions, joining FedNow has been a connectivity milestone rather than an operating model transition. The resulting ecosystem dynamic is predictable: participation grows, but meaningful ubiquity is delayed because send capability is the harder change. Receive-only profiles reduce risk exposure and limit customer disruption, but they also cap the strategic benefits that real-time rails can unlock across treasury, corporate payments, consumer disbursements, and fraud prevention modernization.

Industry reporting and survey-based research consistently describe a lopsided adoption pattern: most participants start with receive, while a smaller share are positioned to send. Forward-looking adoption studies forecast that by 2028 a materially larger share of financial institutions will be enabled to receive instant payments than to send them, reinforcing that the gating factor is not network reach alone but the internal capability set required for always-on initiation, controls, and funding.

For executives validating real-time rails strategy, the key question is not whether FedNow participation is “on the roadmap.” It is whether the bank’s current capabilities can support irrevocable settlement and continuous operations without creating unacceptable fraud loss, compliance exposure, liquidity volatility, or customer harm. Receive-only is often an accurate reflection of that capability gap.

The critical FedNow readiness gaps in 2026

Implementation experience across the industry points to a recurring set of readiness gaps. They surface most visibly when institutions attempt to move from receive-only to send, because send introduces immediate settlement finality and compresses every control window into seconds.

Gap category	Specific readiness challenges
Operational	24/7/365 support, uptime, and incident response moving from batch-based operating rhythms to continuous processing and customer expectations
Compliance	Sanctions screening and financial crime controls that must complete within seconds without relying on manual investigation cycles
Technical	Legacy core and downstream constraints integrating real-time initiation, posting, notifications, and reconciliation into architectures built for end-of-day settlement
Risk	Irrevocability and fraud, especially account takeover patterns where the settlement window is too short for traditional detection and intervention
Liquidity	Real-time funding and prefunded account management requiring continuous visibility and controls rather than next-day settlement assumptions

Where the gaps show up most sharply when moving to send

Operational readiness is a staffing and governance problem, not only a technology problem

Instant rails require an “always-on institution,” not only always-on systems. The operational gap typically appears as unresolved questions of ownership and escalation: who triages abnormal payment behavior at 2 a.m., who authorizes liquidity actions in a time-compressed event, and who communicates customer-impacting outcomes when the payment cannot be reversed. Many institutions discover that the real constraint is not the payments platform but the absence of a 24/7 operating design with clear decision rights, runbooks, and service-level commitments.

Sanctions screening latency exposes limits in compliance operating models

Real-time payments compress compliance timelines. Screening and interdiction controls must run within the settlement window, which makes traditional review processes incompatible with send at scale. Real-time compliance analyses of instant payments repeatedly highlight the operational and technical challenge of completing sanctions and financial crime checks quickly enough, especially when screening tools are not embedded in the processing path and when exception handling depends on humans.

When banks cannot engineer screening and exception workflows that operate within seconds, they face a hard trade-off: constrain the use cases and limits, accept higher residual risk, or over-invest in costly manual coverage that does not scale.

Legacy integration is the dominant scaling constraint

Moving money instantly is only one step. The bank must also post correctly, update balances, reconcile, notify, and produce compliant records in near real time. Survey findings cited across industry research show that a large share of institutions report material difficulty managing instant payment send capabilities within legacy environments. The practical implication is that “send” requires a broader modernization footprint than many initial business cases assume: core integration, eventing patterns, exception handling, and observability must mature together.

Irrevocability forces a fraud and customer-protection reset

Instant payments are final once settled, so fraud prevention cannot rely on recall or delayed intervention. Industry commentary on FedNow adoption has repeatedly pointed to account takeover and authorized push payment risk concerns as reasons institutions hesitate to enable send broadly. The gap is not simply the absence of fraud tools; it is the mismatch between real-time risk and legacy controls designed for slower rails.

Where detection and intervention cannot occur before settlement, banks must reframe their control strategy around earlier signals (identity and device assurance, behavioral monitoring, payee verification, and customer friction calibrated to risk), and around post-event containment that limits repeat loss and customer harm.

Liquidity management shifts from end-of-day discipline to continuous visibility

Real-time rails create real-time treasury requirements. Institutions must manage prefunding, intraday liquidity, and exception scenarios without relying on the predictability of batch settlement. This demands integrated visibility across payment flows, collateral and liquidity buffers, and operational triggers that can be executed outside traditional treasury windows. For many banks, this is where strategy meets a hard operating constraint: liquidity management becomes a cross-functional capability spanning payments, treasury, risk, and operations.

The strategic gaps that delay prioritization even after connectivity

Prioritization vapor lock across competing mandates

Many institutions face simultaneous constraints: ISO 20022 delivery, modernization of data foundations, scaling AI, operational resilience programs, and cloud transitions. Payments innovation research has described a common paralysis pattern where portfolios stall because dependencies, risk implications, and value cases are not reconciled into a clear sequencing logic. In this environment, FedNow can remain “important but not urgent,” especially for banks that can meet immediate customer needs through other rails.

Revenue displacement concerns and internal incentive conflicts

Institutions may hesitate to scale real-time payments where they expect substitution away from higher-margin wire or fee-based services. This is less a pricing question than an incentive design question: if product and channel leadership are measured on short-term fee outcomes, the portfolio will rationally avoid initiatives that shift revenue composition even when the long-term competitive risk of delay is high.

Service enhancements and limits that change the readiness calculus

Recent FedNow enhancements affect which use cases are economically and operationally realistic, but they do not remove the underlying capability constraints. The increase in the network transaction limit to $10 million expands the addressable set of corporate and treasury use cases, while tools such as payee name verification are intended to reduce misdirected payments and support safer scaling. The 2026 fee schedule and related communications also indicate continuity in pricing while adding capabilities intended to improve risk controls and operational usability.

For executives, the practical implication is that higher-value instant payments raise the maturity threshold. As limits expand, the bank’s governance, fraud strategy, liquidity design, and compliance evidence must be strong enough to support larger exposures per transaction, not only higher volumes.

Executive tests for identifying FedNow capability gaps before scaling

Capability gaps become visible when leaders ask questions framed around outcomes and constraints rather than implementation tasks. The following tests help isolate whether the institution is realistically positioned to move beyond receive-only and scale send safely.

• 24/7 institution test: Can the bank sustain round-the-clock decisioning, communications, and recovery for payment incidents without relying on ad hoc escalation?
• Sub-10-second controls test: Are sanctions screening, fraud checks, and exceptions handled within the settlement window with clear fallback rules and evidence capture?
• End-to-end posting test: Can the bank post, reconcile, notify, and report accurately in near real time across the full dependency chain, including core and downstream systems?
• Irrevocability risk test: Does the fraud strategy assume recall-like interventions, or is it designed for pre-settlement prevention and post-settlement containment?
• Liquidity operating model test: Are real-time funding and prefunding decisions integrated across treasury, payments operations, and risk, with continuous visibility and clear triggers?
• Use-case sequencing test: Is there a disciplined path from low-risk use cases to higher-value corporate use cases that matches the bank’s current maturity and control evidence?

Validating real-time payments strategy by identifying FedNow readiness gaps

Strategy validation and prioritization for real-time rails depends on whether the institution can distinguish between connectivity and capability. A maturity assessment becomes valuable when it measures what matters for send at scale: continuous operating readiness, control latency under sub-10-second constraints, end-to-end architectural integration, fraud and customer protection design for irrevocable settlement, and liquidity governance that functions outside batch cycles.

Used as a sequencing tool, this assessment supports executive decisions about where to constrain scope, where to invest in foundational capabilities, and which use cases to unlock first without compounding risk. It also clarifies which dependencies most often drive delivery and risk outcomes, such as sanctions screening integration, core posting and reconciliation design, and the operational model for 24/7 coverage.

Within this decision context, the DUNNIXER Digital Maturity Assessment helps leaders identify the specific capability gaps that keep FedNow programs in receive-only mode and prioritize remediation in a way that matches strategic ambition to current digital capabilities. By evaluating governance, risk controls, data and integration foundations, operational resilience, and measurement discipline together, executives gain a defensible basis to sequence initiatives, set realistic scaling thresholds, and reduce decision risk as transaction limits and competitive expectations rise.

References

• https://www.castellum.ai/insights/real-time-compliance-for-instant-payments-fednow-and-sepa#:~:text=Current%20Gaps%20in%20Compliance%20Readiness,the%2010%2Dsecond%20settlement%20windows.
• https://finzly.com/resources/blogs/fednow-at-two-astounding-growth-with-plenty-of-room-to-grow/#:~:text=What%20is%20FedNow's%20current%20transaction,payment%20processing%20across%20multiple%20rails.
• https://www.bottomline.com/resources/blog/what-us-banks-and-fis-need-know-about-adopting-real-time-payments-2025#:~:text=For%20most%20financial%20institutions%2C%20it,to%20support%2024/7%20availability.&text=Integration%20Costs:%20Connecting%20to%20RTP,complexities%20as%20a%20major%20impediment.&text=Security%20Risks:%20Real%2Dtime%20payments,adopt%20RTP%20may%20be%20misaligned.
• https://www.castellum.ai/insights/real-time-compliance-for-instant-payments-fednow-and-sepa#:~:text=Key%20Challenges%20of%20Sanctions%20Compliance,are%20both%20technical%20and%20operational.
• https://www.frbservices.org/news/fed360/issues/121625/general-2026-fees-payment-system-enhancements#:~:text=2026%20plans,services%20and%20leaving%20others%20unchanged.
• https://bankingjournal.aba.com/2024/03/evaluating-fednow-banks-are-still-warming-up-to-instant-payments/#:~:text=What%20most%20banks%20still%20want,the%20benefits%20outweigh%20the%20risks.
• https://www.progressoft.com/blogs/strategic-investments-for-banks-in-2026-unlocking-value-beyond-iso-20022-migration#:~:text=Data%20Governance%20and%20Quality:%20Establish,automated%20liquidity%20management%20for%20stability
• https://www.redcompasslabs.com/insights/5-challenges-us-banks-instant-payments-send/#:~:text=More%20banks%20can%20receive%20instant,US%20banks%20to%20find%20out.
• https://www.paymentsjournal.com/the-7-trillion-bottleneck-why-banks-are-paralyzed-by-payments-innovation/#:~:text=And%20how%20intelligent%20orchestration%20is,Three%20barriers%20dominate.
• https://www.progressoft.com/blogs/strategic-investments-for-banks-in-2026-unlocking-value-beyond-iso-20022-migration#:~:text=Conduct%20a%20maturity%20assessment%20by,and%20unlock%20new%20revenue%20streams
• https://www.paymentsjournal.com/the-7-trillion-bottleneck-why-banks-are-paralyzed-by-payments-innovation/#:~:text=And%20how%20intelligent%20orchestration%20is,frozen%20at%20the%20starting%20line.
• https://plaid.com/resources/payments/what-is-fednow/#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20if%20a%20person,system%20to%20gain%20traction%20overall.
• https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/12/09/2025-22268/federal-reserve-bank-services#:~:text=2.,and%20FedGlobal%C2%AE%20ACH%20Payments.
• https://www.alogent.com/blog/instant-payments-explained-what-banks-and-credit-unions-need-know-part-1
• https://www.americanbanker.com/payments/news/fednow-plans-to-boost-limits-for-real-time-payments#:~:text=The%20two%20largest%20real%2Dtime,according%20to%20the%20U.S.%20Treasury.
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/rociowu/2023/04/20/there-are-gaps-in-the-us-real-time-payment-system-who-will-fill-them/#:~:text=Historically%2C%20liquidity%20challenges%20have%20been,placed%20to%20fill%20this%20gap.
• https://www.pidgin.net/where-are-you-on-your-fednow-r-service-journey#:~:text=With%20the%20FedNow%20Service%20now%20live%2C%20many,and%20are%20actively%20supporting%20live%20transactions%20today.
• https://www.pwc.com/us/en/industries/financial-services/library/payments-technology-modernization.html#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Reserve's%20FedNow%20system%2C%20initially%20released,adopted%20by%20over%20285%20financial%20institutions%20(FIs).
• https://www.frbservices.org/news/press-releases#:~:text=2025,October%2009