The
Facts from RWA.xyz indicate that the Ledger has approximately $1.756 billion in total on-chain real-world asset value, excluding stablecoins, compared to approximately $1.682 billion for Solana.
While this gap isn’t large, the shift is notable because it reflects a sudden burst of issuance-like activity on a network that spent much of the last cycle in the shadows of faster, retail-heavy chains.
The speed of the movement is the bigger surprise. RWA.xyz shows the represented asset value of the XRPL at approximately $1.45 billion, up 276.75% in the past 30 days.
In the same 30-day period, RWA.xyz shows that Solana’s distributed asset value increased by 43.34%, Ethereum’s distributed asset value increased by 16.58%, and Polygon’s distributed asset value increased by 22.48%.
These numbers do not mean that the XRPL has become the busiest tokenization venue in crypto.
However, they point out that
Represented versus distributed, and why the split matters
RWA.xyz divides tokenized assets into two categories: distributed assets and represented assets.
Distributed assets are built to move. They can be transferred peer-to-peer and moved to external wallets, which more closely reflects the way crypto markets typically define token activity: broad ownership, high transfer numbers, and visible secondary flows.
On the other hand, represented assets are registered on-chain, but are not freely transferable outside the participant group of the issuer or platform.
In this model, the chain functions more like a shared ledger for tracking and reconciling data, with restrictions, participant access, and operational controls.
That distinction helps explain how XRPL can lead in value while remaining quiet by crypto standards.
The vast majority of growth on XRPL is in represented assets. This is the version of tokenization that can quickly scale in nominal value, as it does not require a large number of retail holders or deep on-chain turnover to be recognized as having ‘on-chain value’.
It may also look from the outside like a network that has suddenly grown in “RWA TVL” without showing a comparable increase in the activity metrics typically tracked by merchants.
A value change based on concentration, not throughput
The same data set that shows the XRP Ledger ahead of Solana in total real-world asset value also shows how concentrated the XRP Ledger’s footprint appears to be.
RWA.xyz reports the XRP Ledger with 22 real asset holders and a 30-day transfer volume of approximately $10.11 million, down approximately 91% over 30 days.
That profile fits a market with a handful of large on-chain issuances held in controlled structures, rather than widespread, actively traded tokens moving through many wallets.
Solana’s profile is different. RWA.xyz reports approximately $1.64 billion in distributed asset value on Solana, up 43.34% over 30 days; approximately 285,007 real asset holders, an increase of 114.81%; and approximately $2.18 billion in 30-day transfer volumes, up 36.92%.
All told, the contrast is stark: XRPL wins on value concentration, while Solana wins on participation and throughput.
Essentially, this suggests that the market is currently rewarding tokenization that can accumulate significant value under strict controls, even if the assets are not yet moving widely across portfolios.
That’s a familiar pattern in early institutional adoption. Companies often start by recording assets in a ledger for lifecycle management and reconciliation. They will expand distribution and secondary transfer later, once the compliance model and operating procedures are proven.
Why institutions are currently choosing XRPL
XRPL’s rise in assets is consistent with the design choices the network has emphasized for institutional users: controls first, locations second.
Institutions that tokenize assets early often want the on-chain system to resemble existing market infrastructure. That means controlled access, limited transfers and clear operational boundaries.
It reduces friction by allowing publishers to mirror compliance and participant rules that already exist off-chain, rather than rebuilding everything in a completely permissionless environment.
XRPL has pushed to make that control layer native. PermissionedDomains is enabled and provides publishers with an on-chain mechanism to limit participation via access controls with access controls.
This is important because it transforms “consent” from a business process promise to a protocol-level function, one that can be incorporated into the structure of assets and locations.
The next step is the market location layer. PermissionedDEX is intended for a trading environment that is limited to approved participants and not open to the public.
That’s the direction institutions typically take once assets are represented on-chain, a controlled environment in which they can trade, handle and manage lifecycle events within defined access rules.
MPTokensV1 is also enabled and adds token primitives intended to meet common issuance requirements.
It’s the kind of feature that matters more to issuers than to traders because it’s about how assets are created and managed rather than how quickly they can be moved between retail portfolios.
Taken together, the feature set supports an institutional set, represents on-chain assets under rules similar to known transfer restrictions, and then expands to controlled trading as the permitted market infrastructure matures.
That sequencing also helps explain why XRPL can show a large represented value with a small holder base. The first goal is regulated issuance, not mass distribution.
The recent activities of issuers in particular fit that pattern on the blockchain network.
On February 11, Aviva Investors announced a partnership with Ripple to tokenize traditional fund structures on the XRPL.
The market significance of this move is that the entry of a regulated asset manager into the tokenized fund infrastructure can broaden the range of credible issuers building on a blockchain.
Nigel Khakoo, Ripple’s Vice President of Trading and Markets, said:
“Of [XRPL] built-in compliance tools, near-instant settlement and proprietary liquidity, the [blockchain] provides the secure and scalable infrastructure needed to support the next generation of institutional assets.”
This followed the $280 million diamond tokenization initiative in the United Arab Emirates, implemented through a partnership between Ctrl Alt, a Ripple-backed custody technology provider, and Billiton Diamond.
What to watch next
The headline is that the XRP Ledger has surpassed Solana in real asset value, tokenized on-chain, and has done so with the fastest growth rate reflected in the asset represented metric.
In light of this, the next phase for the network is about whether that asset constitutes an active market.
A base case is that XRPL continues to record a small number of large represented issues.
If the represented value is around $1.45 billion and the distributed value grows only modestly, XRPL can remain competitive in value-based rankings, even if it remains a smaller story in terms of crypto-native activity.
Meanwhile, one potential upside is that the market structure stack is maturing, with permitted trading and credit changes being actively used, and institutions beginning to treat tokenized assets as collateral.
If that happens, it should be reflected not only in value, but also in transfer volume and participation, as controlled markets become more than a ledger entry.
A downside is that the recent jump appears to be a one-off concentration.
If assets remain largely non-transferable and transfer volume remains low, the turnaround may look more like accounting dominance than market dominance as Solana continues to increase participation and liquidity through distributed assets.