An updated 2026 mid-year report from insights4vc says the distributed value of tokenized stocks tracked by RWA.xyz climbed from $951 million in March to about $1.89 billion in July. The report also makes a blunt point: that jump does not mean equities have fully moved on-chain. What has emerged instead is a more credible infrastructure layer for security distribution, ownership claims, and blockchain-based settlement.
Compiled by insights4vc and translated by TechFlow, the piece revisits the firm’s March 2026 analysis, “The State of On-Chain Real-World Assets,” to assess what has materially changed since then.
The market has grown, but public equities have not simply moved on-chain
According to the report, the tokenized stock segment has expanded fast, but the gains were driven mainly by a small number of products and platforms rather than by broad-based market development.
RWA.xyz data shows distributed tokenized stock value rising from $951 million in March 2026 to $1.89 billion in July. The most visible progress came from regulated market infrastructure, especially Nasdaq’s same-CUSIP settlement model and DTC’s planned commercial rollout. Even so, liquidity, investor distribution, and independent on-chain price discovery remain limited. The report adds that tokenized U.S. Treasuries continue to show stronger product-market fit, while stock ETFs may scale more easily than single-name equities.
That leaves the market in what the report calls a split “Layer 2.5” structure. Products with the strongest legal foundations often have the weakest liquidity and distribution. The wrappers that trade more actively often offer much thinner ownership rights.
Two paths have become clearer since March
The report keeps a distinction it introduced in March: assets recorded on-chain are not the same as assets that can be transferred to external wallets. It says that distinction still matters.
Under the RWA.xyz framework, “represented assets” remain inside the issuer or platform environment. “Distributed assets” can move outside that environment, though transfers may still be limited to approved or whitelisted wallets. The report says transferability alone is no longer enough to judge product maturity.
Since March, offshore products have become easier to use across chains and in decentralized markets. Ondo expanded to Ethereum, BNB Chain, and Solana, added decentralized routing, and introduced continuous mint-and-redeem functions for some products. xStocks also widened its distribution footprint and collateral integrations.
Regulated U.S. infrastructure moved in another direction. The focus there is not unrestricted portability but legal certainty, controlled wallets, compliant custody, transfer-agent records, and integration with DTC.
The two tracks solve different problems. Offshore wrappers improve access and composability. Regulated infrastructure tightens the link between a token and a legally recognized ownership claim.
The report also highlights the idea of a “canonical share,” meaning the issuer-authorized base form of a security whose transfer is recognized in the official ownership system. That is fundamentally different from third-party instruments that only track a stock’s price or performance.
As of now, the report says no product has achieved all four elements at scale: canonical ownership, broad wallet distribution, institutional liquidity, and independent on-chain price discovery.
Top-line RWA figures should not be read as fund flows
The report urges caution with broader RWA totals as well. On July 29, RWA.xyz reported $36.81 billion in distributed value and $218.27 billion in represented value. The apparent $124.33 billion drop in represented value should not be read as capital outflows or a wave of redemptions.
The reason, it says, is that large parts of the dataset were added, removed, reclassified, or revalued between observation dates. Those figures describe the value of claims covered by the methodology at a given point in time. They are not a clean measure of investor money moving in or out.
The tokenized stock series is more useful for comparison because the same “bridged token value” method was applied across both periods. Still, the reported 98.5% increase cannot be cleanly split into new issuance, price appreciation, and classification changes.
FGRS is presented as an example. Figure raised funds by issuing 4.375 million blockchain shares at $32 each, but the reported value later moved with market pricing. Without daily mint, burn, and net asset value data for each product, the report says there is no reliable way to reconstruct net issuance for the whole market.
Why the $1.888 billion headline can mislead
RWA.xyz measures tokenized stocks using “bridged token value,” calculated as bridged circulating supply multiplied by net asset value.
That circulating supply excludes balances identified as treasury holdings or pre-minted inventory. It also removes tokens locked in known bridge contracts so the same asset is not counted twice when it is locked on one network and issued on another.
The report says this is a valid way to measure distributed value, but it is not the same as free float. Free float refers to the portion of securities actually available for public trading after restricted positions, strategic holdings, and concentrated ownership are excluded.
Timing matters too. Asset-level export data shows total distributed value at $1.8879 billion on July 27, matching the dashboard reading of about $1.888 billion. Platform and network snapshots taken on July 29 add up to about $1.872 billion.
The gap between the two is $15.8 million, or 0.84%, which the report says is consistent with price and token-supply changes between the two dates. For that reason, the report uses July 27 data for product-level growth calculations and July 29 snapshots for platform and network market share, without mixing the two datasets in the same calculation.
A handful of instruments drove much of the increase
Growth was concentrated at the product level. Three named instruments accounted for roughly half of the increase in distributed value: SECZ added $169 million after listing, FGRS added $162.9 million, and STRCx added $126.6 million.
Together, they contributed $458.6 million, equal to 49% of the total $936.8 million increase. Long-tail products added another $150.5 million, or 16.1% of the gain.
The report stresses that these numbers reflect changes in distributed value, not investor subscriptions. It also separates the economic drivers behind each one. SECZ is influenced by both represented share count and Securitize’s NYSE stock price. FGRS reflects issuance, conversion activity, and market price changes. STRCx depends on the circulating supply and valuation of certificates tied to Strategy floating-rate preferred shares.
Calling all three moves “tokenized stock inflows,” the report says, would collapse economically different events into one number and risk misleading readers.
Platform concentration is sharper than network concentration
At the platform level, the market is even more concentrated. In the July 29 snapshot, Ondo and xStocks together made up 72.7% of distributed value. Adding Securitize lifts the combined share of the top three platforms to 85.1%.
Across blockchains, the spread looks broader, but the underlying dependencies do not disappear. Ethereum led with a 36.2% value share, followed by Solana at 19.6% and BNB Chain at 15.8%. Provenance and Avalanche were driven mainly by Figure and Securitize, respectively.
Products issued on different networks may still depend on the same wrapper issuer, broker, custodian, transfer agent, or reference-price provider.
Similar references do not mean identical legal rights
The report ends with another warning. The market has broadened in coverage, but it has not converged legally. Multiple tokens may reference Apple shares or the SPDR S&P 500 ETF, yet each remains a separate legal liability under a different jurisdiction and with a different stack of intermediaries.
Bridge adjustments can prevent the same token from being counted twice across networks. They cannot, and should not, merge products that reference similar assets but grant materially different legal rights.
For investors looking at on-chain securities, the message is not that the market failed to grow. It did. The message is that tradability and legal ownership still do not travel together in one unified structure.