Where tokenized treasuries, funds, credit, gold and stocks are being issued, and who holds them.
Other languages: العربية · Français · Español · Türkçe
The tab covers real-world assets that exist as transferable tokens: government-bond funds, private credit, commodities such as gold, and shares of public companies issued on public chains. For each network it reports net issuance — tokens minted minus tokens redeemed — over the window you choose, from a week to a year. Positive means creation outran redemption; negative means redemption dominated.
Net issuance is deliberately an accounting identity rather than a flow of transfers. Minting and redemption are the two events that change the tokenized total; everything after minting is a secondary-market transfer that leaves the total untouched. Reading the series as money entering the sector would claim more than the data shows.
Tokenized stocks are broken down by chain, so you can see where the capitalization concentrates. The same asset class can sit on several networks at once, and the split records where issuers chose to deploy — not demand in the abstract.
Holder counts are reported per fund on each chain it lives on. A holder is an address, so the count is an upper bound on owners: one owner holding through several addresses appears several times, and custodial arrangements bundle many owners behind a single address. Read it as a measure of distribution, not a census of people.
One more reading the chain permits and most summaries skip: how a fund's distribution changes over time. A tokenized treasury that started with three large custodial addresses and now shows hundreds of smaller ones has genuinely broadened — concentration drifting toward dispersion, visible without any announcement. The reverse drift is equally visible, and both are structural signals measured in months rather than days: transfers within one owner's addresses can blur a single week, while a quarter of movement is harder to fake. It is one of the few series here that answers a question about ownership structure rather than issuance arithmetic. Slow signals deserve slow reading; that is their honesty, not a defect.
The leaderboard ranks each member of the RWA group by its own price return since the start of the year. It is a ranking of performed price changes, updated as prices update. Nothing in it measures fund quality, collateral strength, or how an issuer's attestation is constructed — those are different documents.
Several of these tokens trade in thin markets, and a single print can move a small capitalization visibly. When a rank jumps in one day, check the liquidity behind the token before treating the move as information; a ranking is only as meaningful as the market that produced it.
Open it in DeepGyre →A token that represents an off-chain asset such as a treasury bill, a fund share, gold or a stock.
No. It is net issuance on that network — a supply change, not a transfer that was observed.
Because inflows would imply observed transfers to a destination, which is not what changes the tokenized total. Minting minus redemption is the identity the data supports directly, and the page keeps the honest name for it.
Yes, easily. Addresses are counted, and one owner can hold through many of them. The figure reads best as how widely a fund is distributed across addresses on each chain, not as a count of users.
No. The leaderboard orders members by their own year-to-date price return, which mixes fundamentals with market noise. Collateral quality and issuer practice are separate questions the ranking does not address.