RWAs post 13.5% monthly gains as $1T exits the crypto market

ambcryptoPublished on 2026-02-18Last updated on 2026-02-18

Abstract

Real-world assets (RWAs) on public blockchains grew by 13.5% in the past month, even as $1 trillion exited the broader crypto market. Ethereum remains the dominant platform with $178.9 billion in tokenized assets, followed by Solana and BNB Chain. Over 30 days, Ethereum added $1.7 billion in new value, nearly doubling Arbitrum’s growth. According to Coin Bureau’s Nic Puckrin, this trend signals a major shift in the digital asset sector, with capital rotating toward yield-bearing, cash-flow-backed instruments rather than simply leaving the ecosystem. Tokenization is expanding beyond a single chain, reflecting a long-term foundational change in the market.

Real-world assets (RWAs) on public blockchains have grown by 13.5% over the past 30 days, despite the market downturn. While Ethereum [ETH] is a key platform for this growth, other networks are also gaining space.

About the same, Nic Puckrin, investment analyst and co-founder of Coin Bureau, told AMBCrypto,

“The steady growth that we’ve seen in tokenized real-world assets (RWAs)... is one of the clearest signs yet of the transition the digital asset sector and the wider economy is undergoing right now.”

Ethereum at the center of RWAs growth

The network held approximately $178.9 billion in tokenized asset value at press time, far ahead of competitors.

Solana [SOL] followed with $17.3 billion, while BNB Chain [BNB] accounted for $15 billion and Arbitrum [ARB] held $8.6 billion. Base and Polygon [POL] trailed with $4.6 billion and $3.5 billion, respectively.

Over the past 30 days, Ethereum added $1.7 billion in new value, nearly double Arbitrum’s $880 million increase and significantly ahead of Solana’s $528 million growth.

Other chains also saw gains, including Liquid Network ($281 million), BNB Chain ($171 million), and XRP Ledger [XRP] ($159 million).

Tokenization is no longer limited to one ecosystem.

According to Puckrin, these capital flows are a long-term foundational change.

“The divergence suggests capital isn’t simply leaving the ecosystem, but rather rotating toward yield-bearing, cash-flow-backed instruments.”

He further added,

“This is typical during liquidity regime shifts, but we’re seeing it clearly in crypto for the first time.”

Tokenized treasuries lead growth

Related Questions

QWhat was the monthly growth percentage of real-world assets (RWAs) on public blockchains despite the market downturn?

AReal-world assets (RWAs) on public blockchains grew by 13.5% over the past 30 days.

QWhich blockchain network held the highest value of tokenized assets and what was the amount?

AEthereum held the highest value of tokenized assets at approximately $178.9 billion.

QAccording to Nic Puckrin, what does the growth in tokenized RWAs signify for the digital asset sector and the wider economy?

ANic Puckrin stated that the growth in tokenized RWAs is 'one of the clearest signs yet of the transition the digital asset sector and the wider economy is undergoing right now.'

QHow much new value did the Ethereum network add in tokenized assets over the past 30 days, and how does it compare to Arbitrum and Solana?

AEthereum added $1.7 billion in new value, which was nearly double Arbitrum's $880 million increase and significantly ahead of Solana's $528 million growth.

QWhat does the analyst suggest is happening to capital in the crypto ecosystem based on the divergence in asset growth?

AThe analyst, Nic Puckrin, suggests that capital isn't simply leaving the ecosystem but is 'rotating toward yield-bearing, cash-flow-backed instruments,' which is typical during liquidity regime shifts.

Related Reads

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

OpenAI has announced a major internal reorganization just months before its anticipated IPO. The company is merging its three flagship product lines—ChatGPT, Codex, and the API platform—into a single, unified product organization. The most significant leadership change involves co-founder and President Greg Brockman moving from a background technical role to take full, permanent control over all product strategy. This follows the indefinite medical leave of AGI Deployment CEO Fidji Simo. Additionally, ChatGPT's longtime lead, Nick Turley, has been reassigned to enterprise products, with former Instagram executive Ashley Alexander taking over consumer offerings. The consolidation, internally framed as a strategic move towards an "Agentic Future," aims to break down internal silos and create a cohesive "Super App." This planned desktop application would integrate ChatGPT's conversational abilities, Codex's coding power, and a rumored internal web browser named "Atlas" to autonomously perform complex user tasks. The reorganization occurs amid significant internal and external pressures. OpenAI has recently seen a wave of high-profile departures, including Sora co-lead Bill Peebles and other senior technical leaders, leading to concerns about a thinning executive bench. Externally, rival Anthropic recently secured funding at a staggering $900 billion valuation, surpassing OpenAI's own. Google's upcoming I/O developer conference also poses a competitive threat. Analysts suggest the dramatic restructure is a pre-IPO move to present a clearer, more focused narrative to Wall Street—streamlining operations and demonstrating decisive leadership under Brockman to counter internal turbulence and intense market competition.

marsbit1h ago

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

marsbit1h ago

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

Market makers and arbitrageurs represent two distinct survival structures in high-frequency trading. Market makers primarily use limit orders (makers) to profit from the bid-ask spread, enjoying high capital efficiency (nominally 100%) but bearing inventory risk. This "inventory risk" arises from passive, fragmented, and discontinuous order fills in the limit order book (LOB). This risk, while a potential cost, can also contribute to excess profit if managed within control boundaries, allowing for mean reversion. Market makers essentially sell "time" (uncertainty over execution timing) to the market for price control and low fees. In contrast, cross-exchange arbitrageurs typically use market orders (takers) to exploit price differences or funding rates, resulting in lower nominal capital efficiency (requiring capital on both exchanges) and higher transaction costs. Their risk exposure stems from asymmetries in exchange rules (e.g., minimum order sizes), execution latency, and infrastructure risks (e.g., ADL, oracle drift). These exposures are active, exogenous gaps that primarily erode profits rather than contribute to them. Arbitrageurs essentially sell "space" (capital sunk across venues) for localized, immediate certainty. Both strategies engage in a trade-off between execution friction and residual risk. Optimal systems allow for temporary, controlled risk exposure rather than enforcing zero exposure at all costs. Their evolution converges towards hybrid models: arbitrageurs may use maker orders to reduce costs, while market makers may use taker orders or hedges for risk management. Ultimately, both use different forms of risk exposure—market makers exposing inventory, arbitrageurs immobilizing capital—to extract marginal, hard-won certainty from the market.

链捕手1h ago

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

链捕手1h ago

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

This article, based on Anthropic's analysis, outlines the intensifying systemic competition between the U.S./allies and China for AI leadership by 2028. It argues that access to advanced computing power ("compute") is the critical bottleneck, where the U.S. currently holds a significant advantage through chip export controls and allied innovation. However, China's AI labs remain competitive by exploiting policy loopholes—via chip smuggling, overseas data center access, and "model distillation" attacks to copy U.S. model capabilities—keeping them close to the frontier. The piece presents two contrasting scenarios for 2028. In the first, decisive U.S. action to tighten compute controls and curb distillation locks in a 12-24 month AI capability lead, cementing democratic influence over global AI norms, security, and economic infrastructure. In the second, policy inaction allows China to achieve near-parity through continued access to U.S. technology, enabling Beijing to promote its AI stack globally and integrate advanced AI into its military and governance systems, altering the strategic balance. Anthropic contends that maintaining a decisive U.S. lead is essential for shaping safe AI development and governance. The core recommendation is for U.S. policymakers to urgently close compute and model access loopholes while promoting global adoption of the U.S. AI technology stack to secure a lasting strategic advantage.

marsbit3h ago

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

marsbit3h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片