RWA tokenization has moved beyond its MVP stage. TVL still signals scale and liquidity, and by that measure, Ethereum looks far ahead of Solana in RWAs. But velocity, how often the tokenized value moves, puts this in context. Solana’s velocity above 1, driven by frequent, lower-notational public equity trades, means it generates more transactions relative to its size. Ethereum leads in TVL and remains top three in velocity, showing that velocity is a complementary metric capturing a dimension of value accrual that TVL alone misses.

For the analysis below, we look into tokenized assets EXCLUDING stablecoins

In this piece we argue that, for RWAs, TVL shows only half the story. To understand how blockchains are truly used, TVL should be paired with other metrics, as different asset types come on-chain at once.

One such metric is velocity, how often tokenized assets (in $ notional) change hands on-chain, generating transaction fees and value for the chain. As shown below, some chains are relatively large or small in TVL but active or idle in velocity.

For the analysis below, we look into RWA EXCLUDING stablecoins.

TVL is only half the story

RWA tokenization is clearly having its time in the sun. Eight years after initially being pushed as a strong use-case for blockchain/DLT, we’re moving beyond the MVP stage. In that early phase, TVL made sense as the primary measure. It showed that collateral existed, that there was liquidity behind it, and that the market had enough depth to matter.

Below we look at the relative share of TVL across some of the prominent RWA chains. On pure TVL, Ethereum is the clear winner, followed by zkSync Era and Aptos.

While TVL still matters, in this piece we make the case that in order to understand the value accrual and momentum of different blockchains across the RWA spectrum, we need to combine TVL with other metrics. One of those metrics is asset velocity.

Velocity

Velocity, or in this case monthly velocity, measures how many times the TVL circulates or changes hands in a month. In short, it is a proxy for utilization, how much real on-chain activity and fee/settlement flow each dollar of TVL generates. It is calculated as:

Looking at the same blockchains ranked by velocity tells a very different story. While Ethereum again appears in the top three, high-TVL chains like Aptos and zkSync show relatively low activity, indicating that much of their tokenized value remains idle. 

In contrast, smaller-TVL chains such as Solana, Mandle, Plume, and BSC record comparatively high velocity. The standout is Solana, with a velocity greater than 1 in July 2025, meaning that more RWA dollar value changed hands in a single month than the total amount of RWA assets minted on the chain.

So why does velocity matter?

Velocity shows whether the tokenized value is actively moving or sitting idle. High velocity means more transactions, more smart contract interactions, and more opportunities for fees and MEV capture. Since blockspace is size-agnostic, a $1 transfer and a $1 billion transfer both take one slot—chains with higher velocity extract more value from the same TVL.

Every chain is different

Every blockchain holds a unique combination of technology specs, ecosystem builders, and users. As a result, they offer different value propositions for different asset classes. Chains with similar TVL may attract different types of assets, which naturally have different velocity profiles. Their specs, such as fees or security trade-offs, may also make them better or worse suited for certain types of assets.For example, institutional-grade, large-notional assets like U.S. Treasuries require high integrity and prioritize security. Transaction fees are negligible in the context of their overall notional value. On the other hand, consumer stocks that are fractionalized into small notional tokens still care about security, but not to the same degree. They are much more sensitive to transaction fees and throughput as they are likely to be more actively traded.

Below we show how each blockchain is attracting different types of assets. Some blockchains cover most categories, while others are becoming specialists in a particular underlying due to their specs and ecosystem focus.

It is important to remember that blockchain is a supportive technology; its role is to improve market formation for existing financial instruments that already trade with long-established specifications. As a result, different tokenized assets can trade very differently in terms of notional and velocity.

Below, we compare the velocity of different financial instruments across Ethereum and Solana. Analysing velocity by asset class helps identify where velocity comes from, which is a strong indication of momentum.

For Solana, much of this velocity is driven by public equities, which in July generated nearly 6× velocity, meaning the dollar notional traded in this asset class was about six times the TVL minted on-chain, highlighting its strong adoption and turnover within the ecosystem.

Why don’t public equities generate the same velocity on Ethereum as on Solana?While there are multiple reasons, one leading factor is the type of users holding these assets. It is always difficult to gauge this without tagging individual wallets, but a good proxy is average value per holder, calculated as:

The smaller this number, the more retail-driven the ecosystem tends to be. Based on the type of assets that currently live on chain, retail investors typically have shorter holding periods than institutional investors, which increases velocity. The data confirms this: the average value per holder on Ethereum is around $86k, while on Solana it is about $7.6k, an order of magnitude smaller. Plume goes even lower, with an average value per holder of roughly $980.

So in short, TVL remains a core measure for RWA tokenization, capturing scale, liquidity, and collateral depth, but it only tells part of the story. Velocity adds a crucial dimension, showing how actively tokenized value circulates and, by extension, how much transaction activity and fee potential accrues to the chain. Our analysis shows that Solana’s smaller TVL is far more active than headline figures suggest, while Ethereum’s scale is complemented by steady usage. To fully understand value accrual and momentum, we must enrich TVL not just with velocity but also with breadth, the share of assets that are truly active, to capture both scale and utilization.