One Firm Tokenized Three-Quarters of the Onchain Stock Market. It Holds Almost None of the Money.
The tokenized-stock market's headline is its size — 786 onchain equities across 674 companies — and one firm, Backed, issued 76% of them. But that catalog holds almost no money: measured by the value actually held onchain, Backed's share rounds to zero. A different firm, Ondo, issued a tenth of the tokens and holds about 62% of the value and 70% of the buyers. The breadth that makes tokenized equities look like a broad market and the capital that makes them a real one sit with different companies — which means the number everyone quotes to size this market is measuring the empty part of it.
- The firm that issued three-quarters of the tokenized-stock catalog holds almost none of its money. Backed minted about 76% of all tokenized-stock tokens but holds a value share that rounds to zero and about 21% of the holders. Ondo, with roughly 10% of the tokens, holds about 62% of the value and 70% of the holders. Issuance breadth and the capital that gives a market weight point at different companies. see data →
- Backed's lead is a long tail; the value sits in the head. Of the 674 stocks tokenized onchain, 606 exist in a single version — largely the obscure names Backed has minted broadly, which hold few dollars. The seven most-tokenized mega-caps exist in five competing versions each, and on every one Ondo holds the most buyers (about 74% of mega-cap holders to Backed's under 2%). (Value and holders diverge for smaller issuers — bStocks holds only ~3% of holders but ~35% of mega-cap value, a few large positions — so this is a picture of where capital and buyers sit, read together.) see data →
- Why it matters: the token count is how the industry sizes the tokenized-stock opportunity, and it is measuring the empty part. The investable market — the tokens that actually hold value and buyers — is one or two issuers deep, a concentration and single-issuer dependence the breadth number hides and that anything built on tokenized equities (venues, collateral, indices) inherits. Tokenization was pitched as widening access; so far the capital has consolidated rather than dispersed. Whether the long catalog ever converts into distributed ownership, or onchain equity stays a two-issuer market wearing a 674-company costume, is the open question.
Tokenized equities have been one of 2026's breakout onchain stories, their market share tripling since the start of the year, and the usual way to describe the market is by who issues the most of it. On that measure it has a clear leader: Backed, a crypto-native issuer that has minted roughly three-quarters of all the tokenized stocks onchain. Then ask a harder question — not how many tokens each firm issued, but how much money sits in them — and the leader vanishes. Backed's share of the value actually held onchain rounds to zero. The firm that built most of the market holds almost none of its capital.
The issuance side is not close. Of the 786 tokenized stocks we track, Backed has minted about 76%— hundreds of names, most of the catalog. But weigh the market by the value held onchain and Ondo, with roughly a tenth of the tokens, holds about 62% of it (and about 70% of the holders). The leaderboard does not just shift when you stop counting tokens and start counting money — it inverts.
The gap is widest exactly where demand is
The inversion is sharpest on the stocks people actually want. Seven mega-caps — Apple, Nvidia, Tesla, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and AMD — each exist in five competing tokenized versions, one from each of five issuers. On every one of the seven, Ondo holds the most onchain buyers; Backed, the firm that issued three-quarters of the catalog, holds under 2% of those mega-cap holders. Where the demand concentrates, the breadth leader is barely present.
Fig 1 — Share of the value held onchain across tokenized stocks, by issuer, Sep 8, 2026
The firm with 76% of the tokens holds ~0% of the value
Each issuer's share of the value actually held onchain across all tokenized stocks. Ondo holds ~62% on roughly 10% of the tokens; Backed, which issued 76% of all tokenized-stock tokens, holds a share that rounds to zero. Value and holders diverge for smaller issuers (bStocks: ~3% of holders but ~35% of value, a few large positions), so read value and holders together — but both put the market's weight far from its breadth leader.
Two different bets on the same market
Neither position is a mistake; they are different strategies. Backed's is breadth — tokenize as much of the market as possible, including the long tail of names no one else has bothered with. Of the 674 stocks tokenized onchain, 606 exist in a single version, and that single-issuer tail is largely Backed's. It is real coverage, and across the whole tail it carries real holders: Backed holds about 21% of all tokenized-stock holders. Its demand is spread thin over hundreds of rarely-held names rather than concentrated in the popular ones.
Ondo's bet is the opposite — a narrow set of the names that draw onchain interest, and the wrappers that have captured the buyers for them. It is the short head of the market rather than the long tail. Which bet defines “the tokenized-stock market” depends entirely on what you are counting: the catalog says breadth wins, the holders say the head does. Both are true, and they name different firms.
Why the breadth number is the wrong number
This matters because the token count is how the market gets sized. A pitch deck or a headline that says “674 stocks, 786 tokens, growing” is quoting the catalog — the part led by the firm that holds almost none of the money. The investable tokenized-stock market, the tokens that actually carry value and buyers, is one or two issuers deep. Anything built on top of tokenized equities — a trading venue, a lending desk that takes them as collateral, an index — inherits that concentration whether it prices it or not: it is not building on a broad market of 674 names, it is building on a couple of issuers' books. Ownership is only one axis on which that breadth thins out; we have found the same narrowing in what these tokens let a holder actually redeem and in the regulators they answer to.
It also cuts against the case tokenization is usually sold on. The promise was wider access — any stock, any wallet, no gatekeeper. The catalog delivers that in form: hundreds of names are now technically ownable onchain. But the capital has done the opposite of disperse; it has pooled into a few issuers and a short list of names, much as attention and liquidity already concentrate offchain. The open question is whether the long catalog is an early-stage asset that demand eventually reaches, or a permanent façade — whether onchain equity grows into the broad market its token count implies, or stays a two-issuer market wearing a 674-company costume. Until the value spreads out, the honest way to size this market is by where the money is, not by how many tickers have been minted.
Backed issues 76.1% of tokenized-stock tokens but holds a value share that rounds to 0% and about 21.2% of the holders. Ondo issues 10.4% and holds about 61.7% of the value and 70.2% of the holders. On the seven mega-caps (Apple, Nvidia, Tesla, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, AMD), Ondo holds ~74% of buyers to Backed's under 2%, and is the top holder-wrapper on all seven. Totals: 786 tokens, 43,369 all-stock holders.
Verified Sep 8, 2026 · onchainbenchmark.com/methodologyValue share and holder share track each other for the leaders (Ondo tops both) but split for smaller issuers: bStocks holds ~2.9% of holders yet ~34.7% of the value (a few large positions), while Robinhood is ~2.9% of holders and ~3.4% of value. Both measures are reported so neither the count of buyers nor the size of positions stands in alone. Either way, Backed's breadth lead does not appear on either.
Coverage notes · onchainbenchmark.com/methodologyCounts are of stocks tokenized onchain (674 underlyings / 786 tokens), not all listed equities. 'Value held onchain' is the summed onchain token balances per issuer — a defensible weight for where capital sits, but not an audited dollar AUM or a trading-venue liquidity measure (market-liquidity coverage is not populated for these). Holder counts are distinct holding addresses. Multiple issuers tokenizing the same stock is competition; the finding is a structural observation about issuance vs value, not a verdict on any issuer.
Coverage notes · onchainbenchmark.com/methodology- Who leads the tokenized-stock market?
- It depends what you count. By issuance, Backed leads decisively — about 76% of all tokenized-stock tokens. But by the value held onchain, Backed's share rounds to zero; Ondo, with roughly 10% of the tokens, holds about 62% of the value and 70% of the holders. The firm that built most of the catalog holds almost none of its capital.
- How can Backed issue 76% of the tokens but hold ~0% of the value?
- Its issuance is a long tail — of the 674 stocks tokenized onchain, 606 exist in a single version, largely obscure names Backed minted broadly. They carry buyers (Backed holds ~21% of all tokenized-stock holders) but little money. The value has pooled into a short head of popular names held mostly through Ondo. Breadth and capital have gone to different firms.
- Why does the breadth number matter, then?
- Because it's how the market gets sized — '674 stocks, 786 tokens, growing' is the figure quoted to describe the opportunity, and it's the empty part. The investable market, the tokens that hold value and buyers, is one or two issuers deep. Anything built on tokenized equities — a venue, a lending desk, an index — is building on that narrow base, not on the broad catalog the count implies.
- Is 'value held onchain' the same as dollar AUM?
- No — it's the summed onchain token balances per issuer, a defensible weight for where capital sits, not an audited AUM figure or a trading-venue liquidity measure (onchain liquidity data isn't populated for these tokens). We report it alongside the holder count because the two can diverge, and read together they place the market's weight far from its breadth leader either way.