These figures should not be read as a single perfectly consistent time series. Market trackers can differ on whether they include stocks only or stocks plus ETFs, how they treat issuer products, and which assets or wallet addresses are counted. RWA.xyz, for example, listed 3,959 tokenized stocks in a snapshot dated August 20, illustrating how asset counts vary by methodology.
The growth is therefore best understood as directional rather than as a precise, universally agreed market total: tokenized equities are expanding quickly, but the measurement boundaries are still developing.
Chain rankings change depending on the date and metric. A Token Terminal snapshot cited in July placed Ethereum at 34% of tokenized-stock market value, BNB Chain at 30%, and Solana at 23%—together representing about 87% of the market.
A later value snapshot produced a different ordering, with BNB Chain at approximately $946.9 million, Ethereum at $787.4 million, and Solana at $618.7 million in tokenized equities and ETFs.
Another August estimate attributed 49% to Ethereum, 23% to Solana, and 22% to BNB Chain. The differences do not necessarily indicate an error. They can result from:
The key conclusion is more stable than any individual percentage: Ethereum, BNB Chain, and Solana account for most measured tokenized-equity value, while their precise rankings can change quickly.
The sector’s adoption story looks different when measured by wallets rather than capitalization. BNB Chain and Robinhood Chain each approached 500,000 holders in the latest cited data, while Solana had roughly 332,000.
Robinhood’s example shows why the distinction matters. Soon after Robinhood Chain launched, the network had attracted about 328,000 holders, but its tokenized-stock value remained below that of larger issuers. A large holder base can reflect retail distribution and low-denomination access; it does not automatically mean that a platform holds the most capital or has the deepest liquidity.
This is one of the clearest signals from the market’s expansion: distribution can scale faster than assets under custody. A brokerage or consumer app can bring many new wallet addresses on-chain even while institutional issuers retain the majority of market value.
Three platforms accounted for approximately 77% of reported tokenized-equity value in a mid-August snapshot:
Binance’s bStocks illustrates how quickly an exchange-led product can scale. Binance reported that bStocks exceeded $500 million in capitalization and reached $8.7 billion in cumulative trading volume. Its July on-chain volume was reported at $7.4 billion.
Ondo has pursued a different but complementary role: acting as an issuer and distribution layer for tokenized stocks and ETFs. Binance made Ondo tokenized securities available through Binance Alpha and classified them as securities under the relevant product framework.
Backed’s xStocks represents a cross-platform model. The product launched on Solana and Ethereum through partnerships including Kraken and is aimed at eligible non-U.S. users. The result is a market in which the issuer, exchange, blockchain, custodian, and investor-access rules may all be different parts of the same product.
Robinhood first offered tokenized U.S. equities and ETFs to eligible EU and EEA users. It later launched Robinhood Chain, an Ethereum-compatible Layer 2 built using Arbitrum technology, alongside 24/7 trading for eligible tokenized stocks.
The platform’s growth demonstrates the power of app-based distribution. But its products also highlight the ownership question: reporting describes Robinhood Stock Tokens as instruments that track the underlying equity without giving holders direct ownership or voting rights.
Kraken offers xStocks through its partnership with Backed, giving eligible non-U.S. customers tokenized exposure to U.S. equities. This approach relies on a specialist issuer while using an established exchange as the customer-facing distribution channel.
Coinbase and Base have been reported to be developing one-for-one tokenized equities for non-U.S. customers. The proposed model is intended to compete with offerings from Robinhood and Kraken, but custody, issuance, eligibility, and regulatory details remain unresolved in the available reporting.
Across these models, the commercial proposition is similar: combine familiar brokerage-style access with blockchain features such as wallet portability, stablecoin funding, continuous trading, and potential DeFi integration.
The sector is also attracting more traditional financial infrastructure. A partnership involving Ondo and Broadridge announced the third-party tokenization of BlackRock’s iShares Core S&P 500 ETF and Micron shares on a public blockchain while retaining existing U.S. regulatory and market-infrastructure arrangements. The announcement said token holders would receive regulatory disclosures and participate in proxy voting.
That model differs materially from a token that merely tracks a stock’s price. Depending on the issuer and jurisdiction, a token may be:
Investors therefore need to verify the legal relationship between the token and the underlying asset. The important questions are whether the holder receives legal title, dividends, voting rights, redemption rights, and protection if the issuer or custodian fails.
Stablecoins are another part of the infrastructure. Binance’s bStocks launch materials describe USDC and USDT as funding rails and BNB Chain as the settlement network. In a broader tokenized-market design, stablecoins can support funding, collateral movement, settlement, and cross-border payments, while tokenized securities provide the investment exposure.
The supplied evidence does not establish Meritz Securities’ current tokenized-equity activity relative to the leading issuers, so it would be premature to assign the firm a measurable role in this market from the available data.
If the legal and market structure is sound, tokenized equities could offer several practical benefits:
These are potential advantages, not guarantees. Tokenization changes the technical distribution layer; it does not automatically eliminate custody, compliance, liquidity, or counterparty risk.
The most basic question is what the buyer actually owns. Product disclosures should identify the issuer, custodian, backing arrangement, redemption process, dividend treatment, voting rights, and protections available if an intermediary becomes insolvent.
A market that trades 24/7 across multiple chains can fragment liquidity and make it harder to detect manipulation, wash trading, insider dealing, and price gaps between a token and the underlying stock.
A token linked to a U.S. stock may be issued offshore, distributed through a global exchange, funded with a stablecoin, and held in a self-custody wallet. That combination can create overlapping obligations involving securities law, licensing, AML and KYC, sanctions, taxation, custody, and reporting.
Smart-contract exploits, bridge failures, lost keys, oracle errors, issuer insolvency, and disagreements over legal ownership can affect the token even when the referenced stock continues trading normally.
A token can trade at a premium or discount to the underlying share if market makers, redemption mechanisms, or trading access are limited. High reported volume is not the same as deep, two-way liquidity that can withstand stress.
At roughly $2.8 billion, tokenized stocks remain a very small market relative to global public equities. The scale matters because it puts the current surge in perspective: this is still primarily an experiment in financial distribution, settlement, and ownership infrastructure—not a replacement for conventional stock markets.
The next phase will be judged less by the number of tokens issued than by whether the sector can deliver legally credible ownership, reliable custody, deep liquidity, transparent disclosures, and consistent cross-border supervision. The market’s rapid growth shows that demand for on-chain access is real; its unresolved structure shows why growth alone is not yet proof of a mature financial market.