Tokenized Treasury funds grow to $11.39 for every $100 held in stablecoins

Crypto Briefing does not give the stablecoin total from two years ago. The ratio's 3.8-fold rise ^[1][1] therefore shows tokenized funds growing faster than stablecoins. It does not show how many dollars left USDT or USDC for fund shares. In their fastest stretches, some of these products grew 8% to 10% or more in a month ^[14].

"A handful of products from heavyweight issuers account for most of the action," Crypto Briefing wrote ^[5]. Circle's USYC, BlackRock's BUIDL and Ondo's USDY add up to $6.8 billion to $8.0 billion ^[4]. Against a $15 billion category, that is 45% to 53% ^[5]. Against $33 billion it falls to 21% to 24% ^[6]. Apply the ratio to roughly $300 billion of stablecoins and it implies about $34.2 billion of funds ^[2], a little above the top of the range. At that size the three leaders hold 20% to 23% ^[9].

So a few issuers take most of the flow only on the smallest count of the category ^[5][6]. Crypto Briefing puts the growth down to yield ^[15]. A payment stablecoin's issuer earns the return on its reserves and keeps it, while a tokenized fund passes short-term Treasury yield through to the holder ^[7]. As Crypto Briefing describes it, the GENIUS Act would push the ratio up in two ways ^[8]. The yield restriction sends holders who want income toward funds. The reserve provision lets stablecoin issuers buy the funds themselves. A fund share held in a stablecoin's reserves adds to the numerator while it backs a dollar in the denominator. I'd expect some of the next rise in the ratio to come from holdings like that, with no end-holder leaving a stablecoin.

Two other outcomes fit the same data. Transfer rules could stay as they are, capping the funds at the 10% to 15% share JPMorgan analysts described ^[10]. Or the funds could keep growing as collateral, the route Ethena has taken by building tokenized assets into its reserve structure ^[12]. I think collateral is the likelier way past 15%. A protocol that clears the compliance layers once can hold a large balance for months, while a person moving small sums meets the same checks each time. The counter-case is that a protocol holding fund shares still faces redemption windows ^[11] on the day its own users all want out. If the ratio stalls near 15% while protocols keep adding fund shares to their reserves, the collateral route was not enough and the analysts' ceiling was right.