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

ambcryptoОпубликовано 2026-02-18Обновлено 2026-02-18

Введение

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

Связанные с этим вопросы

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.

Похожее

From Survival to Accelerated Growth: The Journey of Zcash's Three-Year Rise as Told by the Founder of ZODL

**From Survival to Accelerated Growth: Zcash Founder Details the 3-Year Rise** Three years ago, Zcash (ZEC) was a struggling pioneer in privacy technology, with a price near $30, low shielded supply (11%), and a community mired in governance disputes. Today, ZEC trades around $600, with over 31% of its supply (~$3B) in user-controlled shielded pools. This transformation resulted from breaking key constraints. First, **governance shackles were removed**. The old model guaranteed funding to two entities (ECC and ZF) regardless of performance, creating a monopoly. In 2024, ECC rejected further direct funding, forcing a change. The NU6 upgrade ended direct funding, allocating 8% to community grants and 12% to a protocol-controlled treasury for retroactive rewards, expiring in 2028 unless renewed by overwhelming consensus. The entities also relinquished their trademark-based veto power, freeing community governance. Second, the **product focus shifted** from pure cryptography to user growth. Previously, engineering excelled at privacy tech but failed to attract users. In early 2024, the team (later ZODL) pivoted to building products users wanted, like the Zodl wallet (default privacy, hardware support, cross-asset swaps). This drove shielded supply to grow over 400% in ZEC terms, with 86.5% of recent transactions being shielded, representing real user adoption. Third, the **narrative evolved** from the limiting "privacy coin" label to "unstoppable private money." This clarified Zcash's value proposition: a Bitcoin-like monetary policy with verifiable private payments via advanced cryptography. This structural narrative—protocol (Zcash), asset (ZEC), gateway (Zodl)—enabled broader exchange listings, institutional interest, and ETF filings. Finally, **organizational constraints were broken**. In early 2026, the ECC team left its non-profit structure after disputes over control, forming Zcash Open Development Lab (ZODL). ZODL raised $25M from top VCs (Paradigm, a16z, etc.), gaining the capital and agility of a startup to scale consumer products. Current metrics show strong momentum: social discussion volume for ZEC surged 15,245% in a year, with 81% positive sentiment. The focus is now on enhancing user experience (Zodl wallet), scalability (Tachyon project targeting Visa-level throughput with 25-second blocks), and post-quantum security (quantum-recoverable wallets coming soon). Zcash is positioned to become faster, more usable, scalable, and quantum-resistant.

marsbit2 мин. назад

From Survival to Accelerated Growth: The Journey of Zcash's Three-Year Rise as Told by the Founder of ZODL

marsbit2 мин. назад

Five Counterparty Risk Architectures: A Settlement-Layer Methodology for Classifying TradFi Models in Crypto Exchanges

**Summary:** This companion piece reframes the five TradFi-on-crypto exchange architectures, previously classified by "architectural fingerprint," through the lens of counterparty risk. The core question is: whose balance sheet bears the loss first in a stress scenario, and has it historically done so? Each of the five models corresponds to a distinct risk holder with its own documented failure modes. * **Model 1 (Stablecoin-Settled CEX Perpetuals):** Risk is held by the stablecoin issuer (e.g., reserve composition, bank connectivity) and the CEX's own book. History includes Tether's banking disconnections (2017) and reserve misrepresentations (CFTC 2021 Order). * **Model 2 (CFD Brokers):** Risk resides on the broker's balance sheet (B-book model). Regulatory differences (e.g., ESMA's mandatory negative balance protection vs. Mauritius FSC's lack thereof) define loss allocation rules, as seen in the 2015 SNB event (Alpari UK insolvency). * **Model 3 (Off-Chain Custody & Transfer Agent Chain):** Risk lies with the off-chain custodian/platform. User asset recovery depends on Terms of Use and corporate structure, exemplified by the Celsius bankruptcy ruling (2023) where Earn Account assets were deemed property of the estate. * **Model 4 (DEX Perpetual Protocols):** No single balance sheet bears risk. Loss absorption relies on a protocol's insurance fund and Auto-Deleveraging (ADL) mechanism, as demonstrated in the GMX V1 (2022) and dYdX v3 YFI (2023) incidents. * **Model 5 (Regulated CCP - DCM-DCO-FCM):** The most institutionalized model concentrates risk in the Central Counterparty (CCP). However, history shows CCPs can employ non-standard tools under extreme stress, such as mass trade cancellation (LME Nickel, 2022) or enabling negative price settlements (CME WTI, 2020). The report argues that regulatory choices and counterparty risk structures are co-extensive, not in an upstream-downstream relationship. It concludes with five separate observation checklists (not predictions) for monitoring the structural vulnerabilities of each risk model.

marsbit19 мин. назад

Five Counterparty Risk Architectures: A Settlement-Layer Methodology for Classifying TradFi Models in Crypto Exchanges

marsbit19 мин. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片