Estimates of how much tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) are actually being used in decentralized finance (DeFi) range from less than 1% to 7%, 11.7% and nearly 20%. All of these figures were published this year, and each can be defended. The problem is that they do not measure the same thing.
The lowest estimate receives the most attention. Of the roughly $51 billion in tokenized real-world assets on public blockchains, it suggests that only a single-digit percentage is actively used. The figure is often cited as evidence that onchain finance remains a toy: a great deal of tokenized “value,” but very little of it operating in public markets.
That criticism is not without merit. An asset that moves onchain, incurs transaction fees and gains no additional utility is a worse product than the traditional asset it replicates. However, the statistic used to support that criticism is nearly meaningless—not because the percentage is too low, but because both sides of the calculation are misleading.
Where tokenized RWA utilization figures come from
The sub-1% estimate covers only three tokenized money market funds, rather than the broader market. BlackRock’s BUIDL, Circle’s USYC and Franklin Templeton’s iBENJI hold a combined $7.2 billion and have approximately $50 million deployed.
Expanding the sample produces a utilization rate of 11.7% according to DeFiLlama. Using CoinShares’ $7.4 billion second-quarter estimate against RWA.xyz’s $38 billion total produces a figure of about 19%. The resulting 20-fold gap reflects the lack of agreement over what should be measured, not necessarily a change in the underlying market.
Why the denominator distorts the calculation
According to Bernstein research, private credit accounts for approximately 47% of the $51 billion in tokenized real-world assets onchain. Private credit also tends to move infrequently in traditional finance. Tokenization does not change its redemption schedule or its holder base.
Including private credit in the denominator of a metric intended to measure composability is therefore a category error rather than evidence of disappointing adoption. A meaningful assessment of DeFi usage must distinguish between assets designed for frequent onchain activity and assets whose underlying structure makes limited movement normal.
