Tokenized Fund Statistics 2026
By Axis Intelligence Research
Co-author: Sarah Davis, Digital Finance & Fintech | Last updated: September 5, 2026 | License: CC BY 4.0
Across the thirteen largest tokenized funds the European Central Bank profiled at the end of 2025, the mean On-Chain Depth Index (OCDI) reading compiled by Axis Intelligence Research is 45.5 out of 100. Only one fund tokenizes both sides of its balance sheet. Funds holding 89.2% of the sector’s net asset value tokenize none of their assets at all.
Quick Answer
Tokenized funds in 2026 are a cash product wearing new plumbing. The ECB puts the global tokenized money market fund market at around €7 billion, of which €725 million is EU-domiciled — roughly 4.2 basis points of the €1.73 trillion in MMF Regulation-governed funds. Axis Intelligence Research finds the sector’s average On-Chain Depth Index reading is 45.5 of 100, and that a fund’s size tells you almost nothing about how much of it actually runs on a ledger: the asset-weighted reading, 45.9, is statistically indistinguishable from the unweighted one.
Key Findings
- Axis Intelligence Research finds the mean On-Chain Depth Index reading across the thirteen largest tokenized funds is 45.5 of a possible 100, ranging from 87.5 (JTRSY) to 12.75 (AAULF), on ECB fund-level data dated December 31, 2025.
- Axis Intelligence Research calculates that 89.2% of tokenized fund net asset value sits in funds whose underlying assets carry no tokenization whatsoever, and 64.4% sits in funds where a traditional book-entry ledger, not the blockchain, is the legal record of ownership.
- According to the European Central Bank, the global tokenized money market fund market is worth around €7 billion, its capitalisation grew about 110% during 2025 against 49% for stablecoins and a decline of 11% for MMF Regulation funds, and the ten largest funds account for more than 90% of it.
- Axis Intelligence Research finds that 96.8% of WisdomTree’s SEC-registered tokenized fund complex sat in a single money market fund at June 30, 2026; its six non-money-market digital funds held $24.07 million combined.
- According to the Bank for International Settlements, tokenized money market fund total value locked rose from about $770 million at end-2023 to almost $9 billion by end-October 2025 — a multiple of roughly 11.7 times in twenty-two months.
What Is the On-Chain Depth Index (OCDI)?
Almost every published tokenized fund ranking sorts by assets under management. That ordering answers a marketing question, not an operational one. A fund can carry two billion dollars of tokenized share value and still keep its shareholder register in a transfer agent’s database, buy its Treasury bills through a conventional broker, settle subscriptions by wire, and calculate net asset value from an off-chain price feed. The token, in that configuration, is a mirror. Break the mirror and nothing about the fund changes.
OCDI — the On-Chain Depth Index — measures the opposite thing: how much of a fund genuinely operates on a distributed ledger. Axis Intelligence Research built it because in April 2026 the ECB did something no vendor tracker had done — it hand-collected and published the structural attributes of the largest tokenized funds, one row per fund, from prospectuses and tokenizing agents. That table is a reproducible input set. Anyone can recompute our readings from it.
OCDI components and scoring
The index scores four components, 25 points each, from attributes the ECB discloses directly.
| Component | Code | What it measures | Scoring |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability tokenization | LIA | Share of fund units issued as tokens | 25 × disclosed tokenized share |
| Asset tokenization | AST | Share of the portfolio held in tokenized form | 25 × disclosed tokenized share |
| Official record | REC | Whether the DLT, not a book-entry ledger, is the legal record of ownership | 25 if DLT, 0 if traditional |
| Money leg | MNY | Whether subscription and redemption move on-chain | 25 stablecoin-only · 12.5 fiat and stablecoin · 6.25 one leg only · 0 fiat-only |
OCDI = LIA + AST + REC + MNY, maximum 100. Snapshot: fund attributes and tokenized NAV as of December 31, 2025, with tokenization shares as disclosed on February 4, 2026. Source: Axis Intelligence Research, computed from ECB Macroprudential Bulletin 33, Table 1.
Where the ECB discloses a partial share rather than a binary, we scale rather than round to a tier. USTB’s liabilities were approximately 80% tokenized, so LIA scores 20.0. AAULF’s were under 1%, so LIA scores 0.25 — a truthful 0.25 rather than a flattering “partial.” CUMIU’s asset tokenization is disclosed as 10% or less, so its AST score of 2.5 is an upper bound and its 27.5 reading should be read as a ceiling.
OCDI readings, thirteen largest tokenized funds
| Rank | Ticker | Tokenized NAV (€m) | LIA | AST | REC | MNY | OCDI | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | JTRSY | 224 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 87.5 | ECB MPB 33, Apr 2026 |
| 2= | USYC | 1,294 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 75.0 | ECB MPB 33, Apr 2026 |
| 2= | TBILL | 91 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 75.0 | ECB MPB 33, Apr 2026 |
| 4= | EUTBL | 440 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 50.0 | ECB MPB 33, Apr 2026 |
| 4= | USTBL | 121 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 50.0 | ECB MPB 33, Apr 2026 |
| 4= | UKTBL | 2 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 50.0 | ECB MPB 33, Apr 2026 |
| 7= | BENJI | 690 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 12.5 | 37.5 | ECB MPB 33, Apr 2026 |
| 7= | WTGXX | 624 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 12.5 | 37.5 | ECB MPB 33, Apr 2026 |
| 9 | USTB | 467 | 20.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 12.5 | 32.5 | ECB MPB 33, Apr 2026 |
| 10 | BUIDL | 1,481 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.25 | 31.25 | ECB MPB 33, Apr 2026 |
| 11 | CUMIU | 435 | 25.0 | ≤2.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ≤27.5 | ECB MPB 33, Apr 2026 |
| 12 | FDIT | 225 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 | ECB MPB 33, Apr 2026 |
| 13 | AAULF | 13 | 0.25 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 12.5 | 12.75 | ECB MPB 33, Apr 2026 |
| — | Mean | 6,107 | 22.7 | 2.1 | 11.5 | 9.2 | 45.5 | Axis Intelligence Research |
Source: Axis Intelligence Research, computed from European Central Bank, Macroprudential Bulletin Issue 33, Table 1, published April 13, 2026. Tokenized NAV as of December 31, 2025.
Three readings carry the whole story. The asset tokenization column averages 2.1 of 25 — the lowest of the four by a wide margin, and only two funds score on it at all. The official record column averages 11.5, meaning most of this market’s ownership still lives in a database that the chain is periodically reconciled against. And the single highest reading belongs to JTRSY at 224 million euros, the eleventh-largest fund in the table.
Sarah Davis: Run the weighted version and the illusion dies quickly. Weight each reading by tokenized NAV and the index barely moves — 45.9 against 45.5 unweighted, a gap of four tenths of a point. In most markets, scale and sophistication travel together; the big platform is the mature one. Here they are uncorrelated. The largest fund in the table scores 31.25. The deepest scores 87.5 on a fifteenth of the assets. Size is buying distribution, not architecture.
How Big Is the Tokenized Fund Market in 2026?
Small, and growing fast enough that the two facts are constantly confused.
The ECB’s April 2026 analysis puts the global tokenized money market fund market at around €7 billion, with EU-domiciled funds accounting for about €725 million. Most of the ten largest are domiciled outside the EU — in the United States, the British Virgin Islands and Hong Kong — with only two based in France, and those ten hold more than 90% of the market.
The growth differential is the number that will get quoted. During 2025, TMMF market capitalisation grew by around 110%. Stablecoins grew 49% over the same period. Money market funds regulated under the EU’s MMF Regulation shrank by 11%.
Axis Intelligence Research calculates the 2025 spread between tokenized and MMFR-regulated money fund growth at 121 percentage points. Formula: 110% minus (−11%). Inputs: ECB Macroprudential Bulletin 33, footnote 7, both figures for calendar 2025.
Where the sector sits against its neighbours
| Comparison | Value | As-of | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Global TMMF market | €7bn | Feb 4, 2026 | ECB MPB 33 |
| EU-domiciled TMMFs | €725m | Feb 4, 2026 | ECB MPB 33 |
| MMFR-regulated MMFs | €1.73tn | Dec 31, 2025 | ECB MPB 33 |
| Tokenized financial and physical assets on public chains | €41bn | Feb 4, 2026 | ECB MPB 33 |
| Global stablecoin market | €248bn | Feb 4, 2026 | ECB MPB 33 |
| EU TMMFs as share of MMFR MMFs | 4.2 bp | Feb 2026 | Axis Intelligence Research |
| TMMF share of tokenized assets on public chains | ~17% | Feb 4, 2026 | ECB MPB 33 |
| Stablecoins per €1 of TMMF | €35.4 | Feb 4, 2026 | Axis Intelligence Research |
Axis Intelligence Research finds that EU-domiciled tokenized money market funds equal 4.2 basis points of the EU’s MMF Regulation universe. Formula: €725m ÷ €1.73tn. Both figures are ECB-sourced and both sit inside the same regulatory perimeter, which is why we compute this ratio and not the tempting global one.
A ratio we will not publish. Dividing the €7 billion global TMMF figure into the €1.73 trillion MMFR total would produce a clean-looking 0.40% and would be meaningless: the numerator is a worldwide count dominated by US, BVI and Hong Kong domiciles, the denominator covers only funds authorised under an EU regulation. The two do not describe the same market. Both figures are reported separately in the dataset.
The longer arc comes from the BIS. In its November 2025 bulletin, the Bank for International Settlements recorded total value locked rising from about $770 million at the end of 2023 to almost $9 billion by the end of October 2025 — a multiple of roughly 11.7 times across twenty-two months.
Sarah Davis: Four point two basis points is the number an allocation committee needs to hear before it hears anything else. This is not a market with a take rate, a liquidity profile or a secondary depth worth modelling yet. What it has is a growth differential of 121 points against a shrinking incumbent, and that is a different kind of argument — not “this is where the assets are” but “this is where the assets are moving.” Those two sentences justify very different budgets.
Which Tokenized Funds Actually Run On-Chain?
The ECB’s own framing is blunt: none of the largest tokenized funds, globally or in the EU, can be classified as fully on-chain, because their underlying assets and key processes remain partly off-chain. Around half still use a traditional book-entry ledger as the primary record of ownership, so fund shares legally change hands only once that ledger is reconciled with the DLT.
Axis Intelligence Research put net asset value behind that qualitative statement.
Tokenized fund NAV by structural attribute
| Attribute | NAV (€m) | Share of total | Axis-calculated |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blockchain is the legal record of ownership | 2,172 | 35.6% | Yes |
| Traditional book-entry ledger is the legal record | 3,935 | 64.4% | Yes |
| Portfolio assets fully tokenized | 224 | 3.7% | Yes |
| Portfolio assets partially tokenized | 435 | 7.1% | Yes |
| Portfolio assets not tokenized at all | 5,448 | 89.2% | Yes |
| Three largest funds | 3,465 | 56.7% | Yes |
Source: Axis Intelligence Research, computed from ECB Macroprudential Bulletin 33, Table 1. Denominator: €6,107m, the sum of tokenized NAV across the thirteen funds in the ECB table as of December 31, 2025.
The 89.2% figure is the one worth carrying into a meeting. It means that for nearly nine dollars in ten, “tokenized fund” describes the share register and nothing below it. The Treasury bills are still at a custodian. The repo is still a phone-and-screen market. What changed is who can hold the claim and how fast it moves between approved wallets.
The plumbing beneath that is thinner than the headline suggests. The ECB reports that roughly one-third of the largest TMMFs outsource both the tokenization of their shares and the fiat and stablecoin access their investors use, and that over half rely on third-party transfer agents. Most of the largest funds that touch stablecoins at all rely on a single one, USDC — a concentration the ECB flags as a direct channel for disruption to redemptions.
There is also a gap between what the marketing says and what the operating model permits. Tokenized funds are routinely described as 24/7. The ECB’s finding is that cut-off times persist in practice: investors may submit at any hour, but redemptions with the issuer can be delayed or require off-chain steps during business hours, because most of these funds remain subject to the legal and operational framework of a conventional fund.
Sarah Davis: The wrapper decides the investor protections, not the token. Two funds can present identical interfaces — same wallet, same daily accrual, same dollar NAV — and sit on opposite sides of a legal line, one inside a money market fund regulation with liquidity tools and a gate, one a private placement relying on an exemption. The ECB’s table is useful precisely because it refuses to let the interface do the talking. It asks who holds the register and what the money leg is made of, which is what you would ask about any other fund.
Who Are the Largest Tokenized Fund Managers?
Manager identity in this market is genuinely hard to establish from primary documents, because several of the largest funds are offshore private placements that publish no periodic filings. Where the ECB or a filing names the manager, we name it. Where they do not, we say so rather than guess.
| Ticker | Manager / issuer | Basis for attribution | Tokenized NAV (€m) |
|---|---|---|---|
| BUIDL | BlackRock, issued via Securitize | Named in trade press; not in fetched primary sources | 1,481 |
| USYC | Hashnote, acquired by Circle in January 2025 | ECB MPB 33, footnote 31 | 1,294 |
| BENJI | Franklin Templeton (Franklin OnChain U.S. Government Money Fund) | ECB MPB 33, footnote 17; SEC staff letter, Aug 12, 2026 | 690 |
| WTGXX | WisdomTree Digital Trust | SEC Form N-CSR, FY2026 | 624 |
| USTB | Superstate (Short Duration U.S. Government Securities Fund) | ECB MPB 33, footnote 17 | 467 |
| CUMIU | Not identified in fetched primary sources | — | 435 |
| FDIT | Fidelity (token of the Fidelity Treasury Digital Fund) | Named in trade press; not in fetched primary sources | 225 |
| JTRSY | Janus Henderson Anemoy Treasury Fund, tokenized by Centrifuge | Named in trade press; not in fetched primary sources | 224 |
| EUTBL / USTBL / UKTBL | Spiko | ECB MPB 33, footnotes 6 and 9 | 563 combined |
| AAULF | abrdn (Liquidity US fund) | ECB MPB 33, footnotes 6 and 9 | 13 |
| TBILL | Not identified in fetched primary sources | — | 91 |
Source: tokenized NAV from ECB Macroprudential Bulletin 33, Table 1, December 31, 2025. Manager attribution per the basis column.
The 2026 entrant that matters most did not exist when the ECB drew its table. On May 13, 2026, J.P. Morgan Asset Management launched JLTXX, a US-registered government money market fund on public Ethereum, seeded with $100 million of the firm’s own capital and designed to be an eligible reserve asset for stablecoin issuers under the GENIUS Act. It is the firm’s second tokenized fund after MONY, a Rule 506(c) private placement launched in 2025. The manager behind both reported $4.3 trillion in assets under management as of March 31, 2026.
Two structural details in that announcement are worth more than the seed number. Subscriptions and redemptions run through Morgan Money, the firm’s institutional liquidity platform, using cash or stablecoins via a third-party vendor — so the money leg is intermediated, not native. And the fund is a registered vehicle rather than a private placement, which puts it in the same regulatory category as BENJI and WTGXX rather than the offshore majority of the top ten.
Sarah Davis: Read the seeding, not the size. A hundred million dollars of the manager’s own balance sheet is not distribution, it is inventory — the same move a bank makes when it warehouses a new instrument until a two-sided market shows up. The interesting question is not how fast JLTXX grows but who the second and third buyers are and whether they are stablecoin issuers looking for GENIUS Act-eligible reserves. If the answer is yes, this is not an asset management product at all. It is collateral manufacturing, and it will be priced like it.
What Happens When a Manager Tokenizes Something Other Than Cash?
Every credible projection for this market assumes tokenized funds expand beyond Treasury bills into equities, credit and alternatives. One manager has already run that experiment across an entire fund complex, and because it did so inside SEC-registered vehicles, the results are on the public record.
WisdomTree Digital Trust filed its annual shareholder reports for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2026. Axis Intelligence Research read the filing and pulled the total net assets of every digital fund in the complex.
WisdomTree digital fund complex, net assets at June 30, 2026
| Fund | Ticker | Total net assets | Expense ratio | FY2026 return | Benchmark return |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treasury Money Market Digital Fund | WTGXX | ~$717.4m (Axis-derived) | — | — | — |
| WisdomTree 500 Digital Fund | SPXUX | $18,063,015 | 0.05% | 22.32% | 22.33% |
| Floating Rate Treasury Digital Fund | FLTTX | $1,651,547 | 0.05% | 4.05% | 4.10% |
| Equity Premium Income Digital Fund | WTPIX | $1,626,573 | 0.44% | 4.84%* | 10.24%* |
| 3-7 Year Treasury Digital Fund | WTTSX | $981,427 | 0.05% | 2.24% | 2.39% |
| 7-10 Year Treasury Digital Fund | WTSTX | $950,445 | 0.05% | 2.62% | 2.72% |
| Long-Term Treasury Digital Fund | WTLGX | $797,757 | 0.05% | 2.58% | 2.59% |
| Private Credit and Alternative Income Digital Fund | CRDYX | Not captured | 0.50% | −9.84%* | 3.39%* |
Source: WisdomTree Digital Trust, Form N-CSR for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2026, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Investment Company Act file 811-23659). *Since-inception returns: WTPIX from December 3, 2025; CRDYX from September 11, 2025.
The money market fund’s net assets are not stated directly in the shareholder report, so we derived them. The fund’s schedule of investments at June 30, 2026 lists $459,893,331 of Treasury bills at 64.1% of net assets and $120,517,420 of Treasury floating rate notes at 16.8%, summing to $580,410,751 at a stated 80.9%.
Axis Intelligence Research estimates WTGXX net assets at approximately $717.4 million. Formula: $580,410,751 ÷ 0.809. Because the filed percentage is rounded to one decimal, the true value lies between $717.0 million and $717.9 million. Two independent cross-checks against the same filing agree: $459,893,331 ÷ 0.641 gives $717.5 million, and $120,517,420 ÷ 0.168 gives $717.4 million.
That derivation produces the finding.
Axis Intelligence Research finds that 96.8% of WisdomTree’s tokenized fund complex sat in a single money market fund at June 30, 2026. Formula: $717,442,214 ÷ ($717,442,214 + $24,070,764). The six non-money-market digital funds held $24.07 million combined — and $18.06 million of that, three-quarters, was one S&P 500 tracker. The three Treasury-duration funds together held $2.73 million, less than four tenths of one percent of the complex.
The ratio is 29.8 to 1. A manager that has built, registered, staffed and filed for eight tokenized funds across four asset classes has attracted essentially all of its tokenized assets into the one that behaves like cash.
Performance is the second half of the answer. The passive Treasury and equity funds tracked their benchmarks within 15 basis points, which is what a 5 basis point expense ratio predicts and confirms the tokenization layer is not leaking value. The two funds doing something other than tracking did not fare as well. The equity premium income fund returned 4.84% since its December 2025 inception against 10.24% for the S&P 500. The private credit fund returned −9.84% since September 2025 against +3.39% for its high yield benchmark, with the filing attributing the shortfall to business development company and private corporate lending exposure amid weaker earnings, dividend pressure and credit concerns.
Sarah Davis: This is the most useful table on this page and the one nobody publishes, because reading it requires opening an N-CSR rather than an API. The tokenized fund thesis has always contained a quiet assumption — that cash was the beachhead and everything else follows. Here is a manager who built the everything-else, registered it properly, priced it at five basis points, and got two point seven million dollars into three Treasury funds. The demand is not for tokenized funds. It is for on-chain dollars that pay a coupon, and that is a much narrower product than the decks describe.
What Did Regulators Decide About Tokenized Funds in 2026?
2026 was the year the rulebook stopped being a consultation. Three supervisors in three jurisdictions moved from discussion to binding text within four months of each other, and each addressed the same load-bearing question: who owns the register.
The 2026 fund tokenization rulebook
| Date | Authority | Instrument | Core effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 20, 2026 | Securities and Futures Commission, Hong Kong | Circulars on tokenisation and on secondary trading of tokenised SFC-authorised investment products | Permits secondary trading of tokenised authorised products on licensed platforms; replaces the November 2023 circular |
| Apr 30, 2026 | Financial Conduct Authority, UK | Policy Statement PS26/7, Progressing Fund Tokenisation | Final guidance on DLT fund registers plus a new direct-to-fund dealing model; in force on publication |
| Aug 12, 2026 | Securities and Exchange Commission, US | Division of Investment Management no-action letter to Franklin Templeton | Relief from custody paragraphs of Rule 17f-2 for registered funds holding shares of a tokenized money fund |
The FCA’s policy statement drew 64 responses to the consultation that preceded it and, on the regulator’s own account, near-universal support for accelerating fund tokenization. Two elements matter operationally. The FCA confirmed that firms may use public DLT networks for fund management with appropriate controls, and that doing so does not constitute outsourcing — a determination that removes a compliance workload most managers had budgeted for. And it held that the authorised fund manager must retain authority over the register to correct errors, assist investors and give effect to court decisions, however the ledger is built.
Hong Kong went further on tradability. The SFC’s April 2026 circulars opened secondary trading of tokenised authorised products through licensed virtual asset trading platforms — the first regime among the three to address what happens after subscription. Until then only primary dealing was permitted, which is precisely the constraint the ECB identifies as keeping TMMF secondary markets thin.
The US answer arrived last and was the narrowest in scope and the widest in consequence. The SEC staff letter to Franklin Templeton is conditioned on the affiliated transfer agent maintaining the master securityholder file and retaining the administrative controls to freeze, migrate and restore wallet records.
Read the three together and the common finding is unmistakable: none of them made the blockchain sovereign. Each preserved a named, licensed entity with unilateral authority to override the ledger. That is why the OCDI’s official-record component averages 11.5 out of 25, and why it is unlikely to average much more.
Sarah Davis: Every regulator asked the same question and reached the same answer within four months without coordinating. Not “is the chain secure” — “who fixes it at 3pm on a Tuesday when a wallet is compromised and two parties claim the same units.” The answer everywhere was the transfer agent or the fund manager. That settles a five-year industry argument in favour of the least exciting party in the room, and it means the ceiling on on-chain depth is a legal ceiling, not a technical one.
Methodology
Collection. Every figure in this article was retrieved from a primary document during production on September 3 and 4, 2026: an ECB Macroprudential Bulletin article, a BIS bulletin, an SEC-filed annual shareholder report, an SEC staff no-action letter, an FCA publication page, an SFC circular, and an asset manager press release. No vendor tracker, aggregator or forecast is the source of any figure. Where the ECB’s own chart notes cite third-party data, that dependency is recorded in the dataset’s method notes rather than obscured.
OCDI construction. The index scores four components, 25 points each, drawn directly from the columns of ECB Macroprudential Bulletin 33, Table 1. Equal weighting is deliberate: no public evidence establishes that any one of these four attributes is more decisive than another, and an unweighted index is reproducible by a third party from the same published table. Where the ECB discloses a partial tokenization share, the component is scored proportionally rather than assigned to a tier, so that a fund with under 1% tokenized liabilities does not receive the same credit as one at 80%. The money-leg component treats stablecoin-only subscription and redemption as the deepest configuration because it is the only one in which the cash side never leaves the ledger; this is a judgement about on-chain depth, not about prudence or investor protection.
What OCDI measures and what it does not. It measures the structural depth of tokenization as disclosed in one dated dataset. It does not measure fund quality, credit risk, liquidity, yield, operational resilience, or suitability for any investor. A high reading is not an endorsement and a low reading is not a criticism — several of the lowest-scoring funds are the most conventionally regulated vehicles in the table.
Currency. No conversion is performed between the euro-denominated ECB figures and the dollar-denominated SEC and BIS figures. Euro figures are reported in euro, dollar figures in dollars. Ratios are computed only within a single currency.
Derived net assets. The WTGXX estimate divides a stated dollar holding total by a filed percentage of net assets rounded to one decimal place, so it carries a rounding band, which is published. Two independent component cross-checks from the same filing were run and agreed to within one tenth of one percent. The estimate is labelled an estimate throughout.
Arithmetic control. Every Axis-calculated figure was computed twice — once in floating point and once in exact rational arithmetic using Python’s fractions module — and reconciled before drafting.
Scope. Three deliberate exclusions. First, cross-source ratios combining figures with incompatible measurement perimeters are not published; the global-TMMF-to-MMFR case is documented on the page rather than silently computed. Second, the WisdomTree complex total excludes CRDYX, whose net assets were not captured in the portion of the filing retrieved; including it would raise the non-money-market share modestly above 3.25%. Third, tokenized funds outside the money market and registered-fund perimeter — tokenized private equity and private credit feeder structures offered under exemptions — are out of scope for this page, with the single exception of the SEC-registered CRDYX.
About This Dataset
Contents. 231 observations covering On-Chain Depth Index component scores and readings for thirteen tokenized funds, fund-level tokenized net asset values, market size and growth aggregates, SEC-filed net assets and returns for a full tokenized fund complex, manager attributions with their evidentiary basis, and dated regulatory milestones, spanning December 2023 to August 2026.
Format. UTF-8 CSV, one row per observation, with source_org, source_document, source_url, retrieved_date, is_primary, axis_calculated and method_note columns on every row.
Licence. CC BY 4.0. Free to reuse, including commercially, with attribution.
Citation format: Axis Intelligence Research, Tokenized Fund Statistics 2026, 2026.
Distribution. The dataset is published to Hugging Face, Kaggle and GitHub alongside this page.
Cite this page
APA: Axis Intelligence Research, & Davis, S. (2026). Tokenized fund statistics 2026: Assets, managers and the On-Chain Depth Index. Axis Intelligence Research. https://axis-intelligence.com/tokenized-fund-statistics/
MLA: Axis Intelligence Research, and Sarah Davis. “Tokenized Fund Statistics 2026: Assets, Managers and the On-Chain Depth Index.” Axis Intelligence Research, 4 Sept. 2026, axis-intelligence.com/tokenized-fund-statistics/.
Chicago: Axis Intelligence Research and Sarah Davis. “Tokenized Fund Statistics 2026: Assets, Managers and the On-Chain Depth Index.” Axis Intelligence Research. September 5, 2026. https://axis-intelligence.com/tokenized-fund-statistics/.
Frequently Asked Questions
If a tokenized fund’s assets are not tokenized, what exactly has been tokenized?
The liability side — the fund’s own units. Investors hold a token that represents a share, transferable between approved wallets, with ownership visible on-chain in real time. The portfolio underneath is unchanged: Treasury bills held at a conventional custodian, repo transacted in traditional money markets, net asset value calculated from off-chain price feeds delivered to the chain by oracles. Axis Intelligence Research finds that funds holding 89.2% of tokenized fund net asset value tokenize none of their assets. Only JTRSY, at €224 million, tokenizes both sides.
Does the blockchain or the transfer agent decide who owns a tokenized fund share?
It depends on the fund, and roughly half the market answers “the transfer agent.” Where a traditional book-entry ledger remains the official record, shares legally change hands only once that ledger is reconciled with the DLT — so the chain is a fast mirror of the register, not the register. Axis Intelligence Research finds that funds holding 64.4% of tokenized fund NAV are in that configuration. Every 2026 regulatory decision reinforced it: the FCA requires the authorised fund manager to retain authority over the register, and the SEC’s Franklin relief was conditioned on the affiliated transfer agent keeping unilateral control of the master securityholder file.
Are tokenized funds really redeemable 24/7?
Often not, despite the marketing. The ECB’s finding is that cut-off times like those of traditional funds persist in practice: an investor may submit a request at any hour, but redemption with the issuer can be delayed or require off-chain steps during standard business hours, because most of these funds remain inside conventional legal and operational frameworks. The gap between an instantly transferable token and a fund that settles on conventional cycles is the liquidity mismatch both the ECB and the BIS identify as the sector’s principal financial stability concern.
Why do stablecoin issuers care about tokenized money market funds?
Because of reserve eligibility. The GENIUS Act permits eligible reserve assets, including money market funds, to be held in tokenized form. That turns a tokenized government money fund into infrastructure for a much larger market: J.P. Morgan Asset Management’s JLTXX, launched May 13, 2026, is explicitly described as designed to invest in a manner supporting stablecoin issuers under the Act. Under MiCAR the position is not yet settled, since the relevant implementing regulation has not been adopted. The ECB also notes the exposure runs both ways — most of the largest TMMFs that touch stablecoins rely on a single one, USDC.
Has any manager successfully tokenized a fund that is not a cash product?
Registered them, yes. Filled them, not yet. WisdomTree operates SEC-registered digital funds across Treasury durations, US large-cap equity, an option-writing strategy and private credit. At June 30, 2026, Axis Intelligence Research finds those six non-money-market funds held $24.07 million combined against approximately $717.4 million in the money market fund — 96.8% of the complex in the cash product. The three Treasury-duration digital funds held $2.73 million between them. The constraint is demand, not capability.
Do tokenized share classes cost investors performance?
Not measurably, on the only complex with a full audited year on file. WisdomTree’s passive digital funds tracked their benchmarks within 15 basis points in the fiscal year to June 30, 2026 — the 500 fund returned 22.32% against 22.33%, the floating rate Treasury fund 4.05% against 4.10% — which is what a 5 basis point expense ratio predicts. Where those funds underperformed materially it was strategy, not settlement: the private credit digital fund returned −9.84% since its September 2025 inception against +3.39% for its high yield benchmark, which the filing attributes to business development company and private corporate lending exposure.
Which jurisdiction moved furthest on tokenized funds in 2026?
Hong Kong on tradability, the UK on operating rules. The SFC’s April 20, 2026 circulars permit secondary trading of tokenised SFC-authorised investment products through licensed virtual asset trading platforms — the only one of the three regimes to address what happens after subscription. The FCA’s PS26/7, in force April 30, 2026, went furthest on day-to-day mechanics, confirming that public DLT use in fund management is not outsourcing and introducing an optional direct-to-fund dealing model available to conventional and tokenized funds alike. The US relief is the narrowest in scope but removes a specific custody obstacle for registered funds.
What would move a fund’s On-Chain Depth Index reading?
Four events, each worth 6.25 to 25 points. Moving the legal record of ownership from a book-entry ledger to the DLT is worth 25 and would lift the market’s largest funds out of the bottom half. Holding tokenized assets in the portfolio is worth up to 25 and is currently scored by two funds. Opening a stablecoin subscription leg where only redemption exists is worth 6.25 to BUIDL. Adding a stablecoin channel to a fiat-only fund is worth 12.5 and would move FDIT and the Spiko funds. A new reading will be computed when the ECB or another supervisor publishes a comparable fund-level dataset.