RWA Quality Index · Jul 7, 2026
Measuring the quality of tokenized capital.
Institutional-grade capital
$7.46B
Scoring ≥70 · 63% of coverage
Verified Capital (≥85)
$3.60B
Strict ≥85 bar · 30% of coverage
Coverage
$11.83B
Tokenized RWA under OCB coverage
OCB measures the quality of tokenized real-world asset capital — not just how much exists, but how much is structured, governed, and behaving healthily onchain. Every instrument is scored on a coverage-weighted composite of four dimensions: structural trust (94% coverage), holder concentration (88%), redemption liquidity, and disclosure quality. Instruments scoring ≥70 are Institutional-grade; those scoring ≥85 are Verified Capital and are also counted as Verified Capital — the strict sub-index measuring capital that clears the highest disclosure bar. The gap between Coverage and Verified Capital is published daily as a market signal, not a footnote.
Independent verification means
Governance, legal structure, and issuer standing — the onchain-readable backbone of quality. 94% pipeline coverage.
Ownership distribution and transfer velocity — an onchain-native behavioral signal unique to OCB. 88% pipeline coverage.
Exit capacity: DEX depth and stated redemption rights. Mostly issuer-declared; onchain depth measured where available.
Whether an issuer's published value or yield claim can be independently verified against a public attestation or benchmark. Currently 18% machine-fetchable across the covered universe.
Live across 7 networks
The tokenized RWA market is growing fast.
- —Capital moves in, but the quality of disclosure behind that capital varies widely.
- —Some assets publish independent audits, hold reserves with regulated custodians, and prove their backing on-chain.
- —Others don’t.
- —The market needs a way to tell them apart.
Quality = structural integrity + onchain behavior.
- —The composite is coverage-weighted: structural trust (94% pipeline coverage) and holder concentration (88%) are the backbone.
- —Disclosure quality carries less weight because only 18% of covered instruments publish machine-fetchable attestations — the grade reflects real data, not coverage gaps.
- —Instruments scoring ≥70 are Institutional-grade. Those scoring ≥85 clear the strict bar and count as Verified Capital.
How it's moving
Institutional-grade and Verified Capital against the covered universe.
Institutional-grade capital (≥70) is the primary quality marker — structured, governed, and behaving healthily onchain. Verified Capital (≥85) is the strict sub-tier within it: the highest disclosure bar. Coverage is the full OCB-tracked universe. The gap between Verified Capital and Coverage shows capital we measure but that hasn't reached the ≥85 bar; each gap dollar has a specific issuer-side action that would close it.
Insight
74% of this month's Verified Capital growth came from score upgrades ($1.91B), not incumbent supply growth (26%).
Based on 30-day maturation decomp: score-upgrade vs. new-entrant vs. incumbent supply delta · Jul 7, 2026
OCB-RWA Quality Index
Verified Capital (≥85) · Coverage and the gap
Tokenized RWA capital cleared at OCB’s ≥85 disclosure threshold, alongside the covered universe.
$3.60B verified·$11.83B coverage·30.5% derived ratio·as of 2026-07-07 00:00 UTC
How the quality tiers work
From the OCB-tracked market to the institutional-grade and Verified Capital subsets.
Every covered instrument is scored on the composite. Three published tiers surface at different bars — each a distinct, citable number. Verified Capital is the strict ≥85 subset of institutional-grade.
Tokenized real-world assets actively covered by OCB across public chains.
Instruments with enough clean, consistent data for the rubric to produce a stable composite quality score.
Instruments scoring ≥70 on the composite — structured, governed, and behaving healthily onchain. The primary quality marker.
Instruments scoring ≥85 are Verified Capital — the strict subset of institutional-grade that also clears the highest disclosure bar.
What makes this view different
Other trackers aggregate what issuers report. OCB applies a published rubric to onchain evidence — independent of issuer self-reporting — and separates the share that clears it.
The institutional-grade tier is the marker.
- —Instruments scoring ≥70 on the composite are Institutional-grade — structured, governed, and behaving healthily onchain.
- —Verified Capital (≥85) is the strict top tier within that set — where issuers must reach to count as independently disclosed.
Weighted by what we can actually measure.
- —Methodology v1.1 weights structural trust (94% data coverage) and holder concentration (88%) more heavily than disclosure quality (18% — the thinnest-signal dimension).
- —The grade reflects measurable quality, not OCB's disclosure-data gaps. Every version bump is logged; historical values are never silently rewritten.
The gap is the signal.
- —Competing trackers report total tokenized AUM. OCB separates Verified Capital (≥85 strict bar) from covered capital as a distinct, citable number.
What it's made of
Quality tiers across four asset classes.
Each card sizes an asset class by its share of OCB's observed onchain RWA universe and shows how much of that class reaches the ≥85 Verified Capital bar. Instrument pills show the public quality tier — Verified Capital (≥85), Institutional-grade (≥70), Developing (≥55), or Limited. The four dimension scores are expanded per instrument so the reader can see not just the tier, but where each instrument gains or loses points against the rubric.
Constituent data — full table
Where the bar isn't set yet
Three structural facts to read this Index correctly.
These figures reflect what is verifiable today — not what is true. Where the industry has not established a disclosure norm, where a category is too new for the rubric to read confidently, or where attestations are published in a format the pipeline cannot yet parse, OCB observes without scoring. Each item below is a fact about the present state of the market.
Industry norm
Private credit has no disclosure standard.
Tokenized credit pools represent a small share of onchain RWA capital today. None publish loan tapes onchain at a cadence comparable to the monthly attestations treasury issuers publish. The disclosure standard the rubric applies to T-bill instruments has no equivalent in credit — because the industry has not yet established one. Coverage begins when an issuer publishes loan-tape evidence the pipeline can verify independently.
Emerging market
Tokenized equities are measured from inception.
Tokenized equity wrappers are an early market — live onchain, but mostly pre-distribution, so holder concentration and liquidity read low by nature rather than by defect. OCB tracks and scores them from inception so the measurement is in place as the category grows. They are not part of this index; they graduate to headline coverage once the market clears the published materiality bar.
How it's computed
The rubric is published and reproducible.
The composite score is built from four quality dimensions, coverage-weighted by how much real pipeline data backs each one (methodology v1.1, 2026-06-15). Structural trust and holder concentration carry more weight because OCB has 94% and 88% real-data coverage for them, respectively — the grade should reflect measurable quality, not penalize instruments for OCB's disclosure-data gaps. Band thresholds: Institutional-grade ≥70, Verified Capital ≥85 (strict subset). Any analyst applying the same rubric to the same onchain evidence should arrive at the same number. Methodology changes are version-bumped, marked on the chart, and logged in the public changelog.
Quality dimensions · v1.1 coverage-weighted
Cite: OnChain Benchmark (OCB). RWA Quality Index, methodology v1.1. Published daily. Retrieved from onchainbenchmark.com/index/rwa-quality.
Read the methodology →