$33B sitting dead on-chain - BeInCrypto

SubscribeSign in

$33B sitting dead on-chain<br>Our new report exposes massive on-chain stagnation

BeInCrypto<br>Jul 04, 2026

12

Share

Happy Saturday one and all!<br>Brian McGleenon, Global Head of News at BeInCrypto here.<br>At every conference this year, the same gospel has been preached with zealous fervor: tokenized Real-World Assets (RWAs) are the ultimate convergence of Wall Street and public blockchains, destined to unlock trillions in stagnant capital.<br>But, please read on as we have what might just be a massive reality check for you!<br>For the past few months, BeInCrypto Intelligence has been working quietly behind the scenes with our data partner RWA.xyz to map out the actual plumbing of this market. We didn’t just look at headline numbers; we brought in our Expert Council, including S&P Global’s Andrew O’Neill, CFA , to strictly audit our compliance methodology, and strip away the hyperbole.<br>The result is our brand-new report, Tokenization 2026 & Beyond .

While the promise of tokenizing real-world assets (RWAs) has long been heralded as the ultimate convergence of TradFi and decentralized rails, our findings deliver an anecdote to all the hype.<br>While the research tracks roughly $60 billion in tokenized RWAs across more than 7,000 products and 12 asset classes (excluding stablecoins), the findings expose a deeply bifurcated market defined by extreme concentration and massive liquidity stagnation.<br>The Hard Data: A Market Frozen in Place

The Core is Tiny: Just 62 assets hold 88% of the entire RWA market value.

The Oligopoly of Five: Roughly half of the market’s total value is concentrated in just five products (Figure HELOC, Circle USYC, Tether Gold, BlackRock BUIDL, and Justoken JMWH).

Widespread Stagnation: Across 1,289 tokenized assets valued above $100,000, 910 assets representing $32.9 billion had zero weekly transfers .

The Retail Exclusion: 97% of the market sits outside US retail access , leaving a mere $1.7 billion accessible to the public.

Synthetic Ownership: Tokenized stocks are growing fast, but 59% provide synthetic price exposure rather than actual ownership of the underlying shares.

To find out whether tokenization is fundamentally failing or simply maturing, we got direct reactions from five prominent CEOs leading the charge.<br>The Executive Consensus: Is “Dormancy” by Design?

1. Tal Elyashiv (Securitize): On the Equity and Issuance Reality

Addressing the finding that $32.9 billion sits completely stagnant on-chain, Elyashiv counters that this “dormancy” is actually a sign of institutional infrastructure working exactly as intended. Highlighting BlackRock’s BUIDL, he notes that the first wave of tokenization was engineered for operational architecture, not daily retail volume:<br>“Many of the first assets tokenized were funds (VC funds, private funds). Tokenization in these cases was not done to facilitate retail/public trading, but rather to upgrade institutional issuance infrastructure, compliance, and settlement.”

Rather than viewing the report’s data as a permanent limitation, Elyashiv frames these highly controlled, early-stage structures as a mandatory prologue to open secondary markets:<br>“The next stage as manifested by the NYSE creating a digital (tokenized) exchange venue and Continental and Computershare partnering with Securitize, etc., is bringing the efficiency of the same infrastructure as better rails for public trading... But we are entering that phase.”

2. Robin Nordnes (Raiku): Contextualizing On-Chain Stagnation

Confronted with the data showing that over half of tokenized value is functionally ledger-locked, Robin Nordnes evaluates the finding from an infrastructure standpoint. To Nordnes, the root cause isn’t asset quality, but a fundamental lack of execution predictability on public networks. He points out that traditional allocators require deterministic answers regarding if and when a trade will settle, rather than competing in a volatile, probabilistic mempool.<br>“The dormancy finding doesn’t surprise me... What we hear consistently from institutional allocators is that they won’t actively manage capital on-chain until they can answer two questions with confidence: will my transaction execute, and when... For passive holding that’s tolerable. For active trading, collateral management or intraday rebalancing, it isn’t.”

Nordnes stresses that introducing predictable infrastructure completely shifts the baseline calculus for institutional adoption far beyond simply saving on network gas fees:<br>“Predictable execution doesn’t just reduce what you pay to transact, it changes what you’re willing to do at all. That’s the shift that allows serious allocators to treat on-chain venues as primary infrastructure rather than a parallel experiment... blockspace auction revenue as a yield source only makes sense if the underlying blockspace market has pricing integrity...”

3. Fred Hsu (D3): A Map of Experimental Asset Classes

Addressing...