Author: insights4vc
Compiled by DeepChain TechFlow
DeepChain Overview: The on-chain tokenized asset market size looks impressive, but it hides a fundamental contradiction—assets that can circulate freely often lack genuine ownership rights, while those with real legal validity lack liquidity. This report breaks down, with concrete data, how much of this "$1.89 billion market" is truly backed by real value—a must-read wake-up call for any investor considering on-chain securities.
The stock market has not been moved onto the blockchain. What has truly emerged is a more trustworthy infrastructure layer for distributing securities, recording ownership claims, and settling trades through blockchain-based systems.
Data from RWA.xyz shows that the value of tokenized equities distributed on-chain grew from $951 million in March 2026 to $1.89 billion in July, nearly doubling. However, this growth was primarily driven by a small number of products and platforms.
The most significant progress has come from regulated market infrastructure, particularly Nasdaq’s same-CUSIP settlement model and the commercial rollout within the DTC program. Liquidity, investor distribution, and independent on-chain price discovery mechanisms remain severely limited. Tokenized Treasuries continue to demonstrate stronger product-market fit, while equity ETFs may be easier to scale than individual stocks.
Therefore, this market is best understood as a fragmented "Layer 2.5" system: products with the strongest legal foundations often have the weakest liquidity and distribution capabilities, while the most actively traded packaged products typically have the weakest ownership rights.
This report updates insights4vc’s March 2026 analysis, “The State of On-Chain Real Assets,” with a focus on substantial changes since its release.
The current state of on-chain real assets
What substantial changes occurred after March?
The March report distinguished between two types of assets: those recorded on the blockchain and those that can be transferred to external wallets. This distinction remains important today. Under the RWA.xyz framework, a "represented asset" remains within the issuer’s or platform’s own environment, while a "distributed asset" can be transferred externally, although transfers may still be restricted to approved or whitelisted wallets.
However, transferability alone is no longer sufficient to judge a product's maturity.
Since March, offshore products have become more accessible for cross-chain transfers and use in decentralized markets. Ondo has expanded to Ethereum, BNB Chain, and Solana, introducing decentralized routing and adding continuous minting and redemption features for select products. xStocks has also expanded its distribution channels and collateral integrations.
Meanwhile, regulated U.S. infrastructure has taken a different path: focusing on legal certainty, controlled wallets, compliant custody, transfer agent records, and integration with DTC.
Chart: Market Capitalization Evolution of Various RWA Assets from 2019 to 2026 (Including Tokenized Stocks, Government Bonds, etc.)
These two pathways address different issues: offshore wrapped products enhance accessibility and composability, while regulated infrastructure strengthens the connection between tokens and legal ownership claims.
The canonical share is the foundational form of security authorized by the issuer, with transfers recognized in the official ownership system. It is fundamentally distinct from third-party tools that merely track stock prices or performance.
Currently, no product exists that simultaneously achieves all four of these elements at scale: standard ownership, widespread wallet distribution, institutional liquidity, and independent on-chain price discovery.
Chart: On-chain Real Asset Statistics Summary (as of July 28, totaling approximately $36.78 billion, with U.S. Treasuries accounting for 43.95%)
Broader RWA total data must also be interpreted with caution. According to data reported by RWA.xyz on July 29: distributed value of $36.81 billion and representative value of $218.27 billion. The apparent decrease of $124.33 billion in representative value should not be interpreted as capital outflows or a redemption wave. Between the two observation dates, numerous datasets underwent additions, deletions, recategorizations, or revaluations.
These figures represent the value of assets covered by the platform's methodology at a specific point in time, not a measure of investor fund flows.
The tokenized stock series is more informative because the same "bridging token value" methodology can be applied to both periods. Nevertheless, the reported 98.5% increase cannot be clearly broken down into new issuances, price appreciation, and reclassification adjustments.
FGRS provides a useful example. Figure raised funds by issuing 4.375 million blockchain shares at $32 per share, but the reported value subsequently fluctuated with market prices. Without daily data on minting, burning, and net asset value for each product, it is impossible to reliably reconstruct the total net issuance across the market.
Why the $1.888 billion headline figure is misleading
RWA.xyz measures tokenized stocks using "bridged token value," calculated as: bridged circulating supply multiplied by net asset value.
The circulating supply excludes balances identified as treasury holdings or pre-minted inventory. The bridged figures also exclude tokens locked in known bridge contracts to avoid double-counting assets that are locked on one network and issued on another.
This is an effective metric for measuring distributed value, but it differs from free-floating shares, which refer to the portion of securities genuinely available for public trading after excluding restricted positions, strategic positions, and concentrated holdings.
The timing of the data is equally important. The asset-level export data shows that the distributed total value on July 27 was $1.8879 billion, consistent with the approximately $1.888 billion displayed on the dashboard. The combined snapshots across platforms and networks on July 29 totaled approximately $1.872 billion.
The difference between the two is $15.8 million, accounting for 0.84%, which is consistent with the changes in price and token supply between the two observation dates. Therefore, this report uses the data from July 27 for calculations of specific tool growth, and the snapshot from July 29 for platform and network market share, ensuring that the two datasets are not mixed within the same calculation.
Chart: Tokenized Stock Details (10 underlying assets, categorized by issuing platform and network; FGRS highest at approximately $191 million)
Three named tools contributed approximately half of the increase: SECZ added $169 million after listing, FGRS added $162.9 million, and STRCx added $126.6 million. Together, they contributed $458.6 million, accounting for 49% of the total increase of $936.8 million. Long-tail products collectively added another $150.5 million, representing 16.1% of the increase.
These figures reflect changes in distributed value, not investor subscriptions.
SECZ is influenced by both the number of representative shares and Securitize’s NYSE stock price. FGRS comprehensively reflects issuance, conversion activities, and market price changes. STRCx depends on the circulating supply and value of tokens linked to Strategy’s floating-rate preferred shares.
Labeling the three aforementioned growths as "tokenized stock inflows" would combine several economically distinct events into a single, potentially misleading metric.
Concentration is more pronounced at the platform level. As of the July 29 snapshot, Ondo and xStocks together accounted for 72.7% of the distributed value. Including Securitize, the top three platforms represented 85.1%.
Chart: RWA.xyz Platform Rankings — Ondo (45.21%), xStocks (27.51%), Securitize (12.40%) rank top three
The distribution across blockchain networks is more dispersed, but this does not eliminate underlying common dependencies. Ethereum leads with a 36.2% value share, followed by Solana (19.6%) and BNB Chain (15.8%). Provenance and Avalanche are primarily driven by Figure and Securitize, respectively.
Products issued on different networks may still rely on the same packaging issuer, broker, custodian, securities agent, or reference price provider.
Chart: RWA.xyz Network Rankings — Ethereum (36.24%), Solana (19.63%), and BNB Chain (15.82%) rank top three.
The market has expanded in breadth, but remains unharmonized at the legal level. Multiple tokens can simultaneously reference Apple stock or the S&P 500 ETF, but each is a separate legal liability, subject to different jurisdictions and reliant on distinct intermediaries.
Bridge adjustments prevent the same token from being counted twice across different networks, but they cannot—and should not—consolidate products that reference similar assets yet offer materially different legal rights.