Tokenized treasury funds compared

Ten products, roughly $15.2 billion in the category, and one column no other comparison carries: whether an EU professional investor can actually access each one. The answer, for every product here, is that none is offered under an EU fund passport.

Which tokenized treasury products exist today?

Around seventy-six tokenized US Treasury products were live as of 4 May 2026, holding roughly $15.2 billion across approximately 58,700 holders, according to the RWA.xyz tokenized treasuries dashboard. Ten products account for the overwhelming majority of that, and five account for most of it: USYC, BUIDL, USDY, BENJI and JTRSY.

Aggregators count differently and the discrepancies are large enough to matter. Narrower definitions that exclude notes, non-US fund structures or strategy funds produce totals nearer $7 billion for the same period. We use one named source per figure and state it in the table rather than blending them, because a blended number cannot be checked.

The products divide into three types, and the distinction matters more than the league table. Registered fund share classes, such as Franklin Templeton’s BENJI within FOBXX and WisdomTree’s WTGXX, are shares in US registered funds that happen to be tokenized. Private-placement funds, such as BUIDL, OUSG, USTB and VBILL, are fund interests offered to qualified investors. Notes, principally Ondo’s USDY, are debt instruments backed by Treasuries and bank deposits rather than fund shares.

One product worth naming because it is still listed in older comparisons: Mountain Protocol’s USDM, which has been reported as winding down. Where a product on any comparison table has no current issuer disclosure, treat its inclusion as a data-freshness problem rather than as evidence it is live.

What are their sizes, yields and chains?

Sizes range from roughly $2.9 billion at the top to products too small to be separately listed by aggregators. Reported yields cluster between about 4% and 4.8% for Treasury-only strategies, which is where short-duration government paper has been. Chain coverage splits between Ethereum-anchored products and multichain-first products, principally USDY and BENJI.

Three cautions on reading this table. Yields are as most recently reported by each issuer, on different bases — some net, some gross, some seven-day, some monthly — and they change daily, so they are indicative rather than comparable to the basis point. AUM moves quickly in this category: a single institutional allocation can move a product several hundred million in a week. And "chains" records where the token has been deployed, not where liquidity actually sits, which is usually one chain regardless of how many are listed.

The yield question that matters for an allocator is not which product reports the highest number but what the number is net of, and what it is exposed to. A Treasury-only fund reporting 4.2% net of fees and a strategy fund reporting more are not comparable instruments. Superstate’s USCC is a carry strategy rather than a Treasury fund, and it is included here only because it is routinely listed alongside them.

Which are accessible to EU professional investors?

None of these products is offered under an EU fund passport. That is the honest headline, and it is the column no other comparison publishes. EU professional investors reach these products, where they reach them at all, through reverse solicitation, through non-EU structures, or not at all — not through an EU-authorised offering.

The pattern is structural rather than accidental. These are predominantly US products: US registered funds, US private placements to qualified purchasers, or notes issued to non-US persons under Reg S. Each is well-constructed for its own market. None was built to be marketed into the EEA, because doing so requires an EU wrapper and an EU-authorised distributor, which is a different project with different economics.

What that means practically for a European institution. Reverse solicitation is a narrow and increasingly scrutinised route, and relying on it as a distribution strategy rather than as an occasional fact is a supervisory risk for the party doing the soliciting. If a European allocator wants tokenized Treasury exposure inside an EU wrapper with an EU-authorised manager and depositary, the honest answer today is that it generally has to be commissioned rather than bought — which is the fund tokenization process, not a product purchase.

Who issues, custodies and administers each?

Issuance, transfer agency, custody and administration are split across different firms in every product here, and the names repeat. Securitize appears as transfer agent for several of the largest, including BUIDL and VBILL. Fund custody sits with conventional custodians, because the underlying assets are Treasuries and cash rather than crypto. Administration is conventional fund administration.

This is the most under-examined part of the category. The token is the least novel component: the assets are custodied the way Treasuries have always been custodied, the NAV is struck by a fund administrator, and the register is maintained by a transfer agent. What is new is the register’s form and the 24/7 mint and redeem mechanics on top of a fund that still values itself on a conventional schedule.

Two questions to ask about any product on this list, because they are where the risk actually sits. Who is the transfer agent and what happens to the register if the token infrastructure provider fails? And what is the redemption mechanic when the fund’s own liquidity cycle and the token’s 24/7 promise diverge — during a Treasury market stress, for example, or a US bank holiday. The answers are in the offering documents rather than in the marketing.

How do they compare on fees?

Honestly: fee comparison in this category is not currently possible from public data, and any table claiming otherwise is filling gaps with assumptions. Registered funds publish an expense ratio in the prospectus. Private-placement funds state a management fee in documents available to eligible investors. Notes such as USDY state no explicit management fee, earning instead on the spread between the underlying yield and what is passed to holders.

What can be said structurally. Registered fund share classes are the most transparent, because the expense ratio is published and standardised. Private placements are comparable only once you have the documents, and the headline management fee is not the whole cost — minimums, subscription and redemption mechanics, and any platform fee charged by the distributor all matter. Note structures look cheapest on stated fees and are not necessarily cheapest in net yield, because the spread is where the economics sit.

The comparison that actually matters is net yield to the holder, on the same basis, over the same period, after all costs including access. That number is knowable for a specific allocation with the documents in hand, and it is not knowable from a public table. We would rather record "not publicly stated" than publish an estimate that reads like a fact.

Two fee-adjacent items to price in. Access cost: reaching several of these products requires onboarding with a distributor, and for a European institution possibly a structure. And operational cost: holding a tokenized fund means custody or key management, whitelisting maintenance, and reconciliation, which is real cost even where the fund charges nothing extra for it.

How does a tokenized treasury differ from a stablecoin?

A tokenized treasury is a claim on a fund or note that holds Treasuries, and it pays the yield of those holdings to the holder. A stablecoin is a payment instrument designed to hold a stable value, and its issuer generally keeps the reserve yield. The first is an investment; the second is money-like. Conflating them is the most common error in this category.

In EU terms the distinction is regulatory as well as economic. A tokenized fund share or note is a financial instrument, so MiFID II applies and MiCA excludes it by Article 2(4). A euro-referenced stablecoin redeemable at par is an e-money token under MiCA, and its issuer must be an authorised credit or electronic money institution holding full backing in low-risk liquid reserves. Different instruments, different regimes, different issuers.

The practical consequences follow from that. A tokenized treasury has a NAV, a redemption cycle governed by fund documents, transfer restrictions enforced at the token level, and investor-eligibility requirements. A stablecoin has par redemption on demand, no eligibility gate for holding in most cases, and no yield to the holder. Using a tokenized treasury as a payment instrument imports a settlement and eligibility model it was not designed for.

Where the two meet is the cash leg. An e-money token on the same ledger is what makes atomic settlement of a tokenized fund subscription possible, which is why the two categories are complementary rather than competing. Read the definitions of EMT and tokenized treasury, what a tokenized fund is, or how EU law treats tokenized securities.