US$3.8 Billion of Tokenized-Treasury Capital Has Left the Chain It Was Issued On

A tokenized fund has two addresses that are supposed to be the same place. There is the chain it is issued on — the network named in its launch, the one its documentation leads with, the venue the industry reads as its home. And there is the chain its money actually sits on. For most of the short history of tokenized Treasuries, those were assumed to be identical, and the assumed answer was Ethereum.

They have come apart. Across the seven multi-chain tokenized-Treasury funds measured here across every network they are issued on, US$3.80 billion — 52% of their US$7.30 billion in combined supply — sits off the chain each was issued on. The majority of this capital no longer lives where its fund was minted. The issuance chain still carries the legal and reporting identity; it increasingly does not carry the balance.

The thesis, stated plainly

The claim is not that Ethereum is losing tokenization. It is that issuance and residence are decoupling — and that the split is now the more informative of the two. Where a fund is issued reflects a decision made once, at launch, on legal and reputational grounds: regulators recognize it, custodians support it, the press understands it. Where a fund's capital comes to rest reflects a decision made continuously, by the holders who move it, on the grounds that actually bind institutional money — where it can be used as collateral, where it settles cheaply, where the counterparties already are. The first number is a formality. The second is a market.

Read that way, the issuance chain is becoming something closer to a fund's state of incorporation than its place of business — the address on the paperwork, not the building the work happens in. A Delaware C-corp is "in Delaware" the way BUIDL is "on Ethereum": true, load-bearing for legal purposes, and nearly silent about where the operation actually runs.

One fund was the tell; seven are the pattern

The first clear case was BlackRock's BUIDL, the largest tokenized Treasury fund and the one most often cited as proof Wall Street chose Ethereum. BlackRock and Securitize launched it on Ethereum in March 2024, then expanded it to five more chains in November 2024 and to Solana in March 2025. Measured across all of those chains today, it holds just 35% on Ethereum — Ethereum remains its single largest chain, but barely, with Avalanche nearly level and roughly two-thirds of the fund spread across seven networks. That could have been idiosyncratic: one fund, a handful of large counterparties, a fee-and-access quirk. The question the single case could not answer was whether it was the leading edge or the exception.

The other funds answer it. Ondo's USDY keeps 52.6% at home. Franklin Templeton's BENJI keeps 67.7% — but on Stellar, not Ethereum; its home chain is not the default one at all. Spiko's euro T-bill fund EUTBL keeps 3.6% on its Ethereum issuance address and holds the rest on Arbitrum and beyond. OpenEden's TBILL keeps 17.3%. Only WisdomTree's WTGXX, at 98.4% home, still behaves the way the whole category was assumed to. Not every fund keeps a minority at home — four of the seven still hold a majority on their issuance chain. But the spread is wide, it is present across issuers and asset structures, and it is the largest funds that lean furthest off-chain — which is why, dollar-weighted, the category's center of gravity has already moved.

Issuance concentrates; residence disperses

The chain-level view makes the mechanism legible. Ethereum still hosts the most tokenized-Treasury capital of any single network — US$3.03 billion across these funds. But almost none of that is capital that traveled there: under US$50 million of Ethereum's balance belongs to funds issued elsewhere. Ethereum's total is, to within a rounding error, its own issued funds sitting on their home address. It is the issuance floor, not a destination.

Every other chain is the mirror image: almost all of its balance is capital that came from a fund issued somewhere else. Avalanche holds US$940 million of these funds and effectively all of it is off-home. Solana holds US$812 million, Stellar over US$1 billion, Arbitrum US$527 million spread across seven different funds, BNB Chain US$397 million. These are not funds domiciling on those chains; they are funds distributing onto them. Issuance is a hub-and-spoke pattern centered on Ethereum; residence is a dispersion away from it.

Two strategies, now legible

The spread between funds is not noise; it is a choice, and the on-chain data makes the choice readable for the first time. One approach concentrates — WTGXX keeps 98% of its supply on a single chain, minimizing the operational surface of bridges, redeployments and multi-venue reconciliation. The other distributes — EUTBL and BUIDL push the large majority of their supply onto the networks where their holders actually operate, accepting more moving parts in exchange for being reachable where the demand is. Neither is the wrong answer. They are different bets about what a tokenized fund is for.

That this is now measurable is itself the development. Distribution strategy used to be invisible — announced one chain at a time, in press releases that never added up to a running total. An allocator could not price it because no one kept the scoreboard. Read off contract balances, it becomes a legible attribute of a fund, the way duration or expense ratio is: a concentrated fund is simpler to reason about and unwind; a distributed one is more accessible but carries more bridge and deployment surface. The choice was always being made. It is just no longer hidden.

Where this points

The direction is not a retreat from Ethereum but a maturation past the assumption that on-chain issuance and on-chain residence are the same question. Tokenized US Treasuries have grown into a multi-billion-dollar market in under two years, and a category in its first years issues where it is safe to issue; a category finding its feet lets capital settle where it is useful to hold. The gap between those two — 52% today, and wider for the funds furthest along — is a measure of how far the market has moved from "tokenize on the trusted chain" toward "issue on the trusted chain, then meet the money where it lives."

It also reframes what the chain-share numbers mean for the networks themselves. A chain's tokenized-Treasury balance is decreasingly a claim about where funds are born and increasingly a claim about where capital chooses to work — which is the harder thing to win and the more durable thing to hold. On that measure the competition is not for launch announcements, which cluster on one chain, but for residence, which is already spread across a dozen. The scoreboard the industry has been keeping — who launched where — turns out to be the less interesting one.

What this is not, yet, is a retail migration. Several of the largest off-home balances are concentrated institutional positions — capital placed by a small number of large holders, not a crowd voting with its feet. That makes the pattern a story about where institutions choose to custody and use their tokenized cash, which is precisely the capital the category was built to attract. The open question is whether the next funds to become fully measurable settle the same way. If a distributed footprint is what tokenized funds converge to as they scale, the industry's mental map — issuance chain as home chain — is already a generation behind the balances.