Tokenized US Treasuries are close to $11 billion, but the chain war is shifting from issuance to distribution and utility. Where yield tokens actually sit, how often they move, and whether they plug into stablecoin settlement and collateral workflows are what matters.
Last week, XRP Ledger (XRPL) got two signals that it’s trying to matter in that “venue” fight.
First, Aviva Investors said it’s partnering with Ripple to tokenize traditional fund structures on the XRP Ledger, framing tokenization as moving from experiments to “large-scale production” over the next decade.
Second, OpenEden’s TBILL token supply is skewed toward XRPL: more of the supply resides there than on Ethereum.
Yet the early activity data raises a harder question: is XRPL becoming a real RWA venue, or just another issuance endpoint while trading and collateral gravity remain on Ethereum and layer 2s?
Tokenized T-bills here mean tokenized fund shares or vault tokens backed by short-dated US Treasuries, held and transferred on-chain.
Stablecoins matter because they’re the cash leg for subscriptions and redemptions and the settlement rail that makes “24/7 treasury liquidity” plausible.
This story tests three credibility checks to decide whether XRPL is seeing a real venue shift or a narrative spike: issuance, distribution and usage, and financial utility.
Three credibility tests
Credibility concerns whether regulated issuers and asset managers are actually choosing XRPL over crypto-native firms.
Distribution and usage ponder whether meaningful balances and transfers live on XRPL, instead of just “launched on XRPL” headlines.
Financial utility assesses whether these assets are used for settlement and collateral flows or are mostly parked.
Collateral is where “venue” becomes durable.
Aviva and OpenEden
Aviva Investors and Ripple announced a partnership to tokenize traditional fund structures on XRPL.
The companies explicitly position it as multi-year work “over 2026 and beyond.” Aviva describes “tokenized funds” and “traditional fund structures,” not “T-bills only.” This matters because it’s an institutional distribution narrative as much as a specific product narrative.
What success would look like: a named tokenized fund product goes live with prospectus, terms, and eligible investors. Additionally, a growing holder base on XRPL beyond single-digit wallets, and repeated transfer volume consistent with settlement, not just mint-and-sit.
Right now, Aviva’s commitment is a partnership intention and a multi-year build, not a launched fund on XRPL today.
OpenEden’s TBILL vault token is explicitly a T-bill-backed vault token, consisting of short-dated US Treasuries with 1:1 backing, tracked on RWA.xyz.
TBILL’s circulating supply is 54.41 million on XRPL, 32.02 million on Ethereum, and smaller amounts on Solana and Arbitrum. That’s roughly 62.6% of TBILL supply sitting on XRPL.
However, usage is the tell. In the same dataset, TBILL’s monthly transfer volume is $200 on XRPL, $3.09 million on Ethereum, and $3.62 million on Arbitrum. That’s roughly 0.003% of TBILL’s monthly transfer volume happening on XRPL.
It’s a clean example of “issued and held here” versus “moved and used there.” This is an early indicator, not “XRPL wins.” It can signal controlled distribution, custody preferences, or just low on-chain velocity.
XRPL scoreboard
The tokenized Treasuries market size across all chains is $10.7 billion, per RWA.xyz.
XRPL’s share of tokenized treasury value is most clearly reflected in TBILL: XRPL holds 54.41 million of the 86.90 million circulating tokens, representing about 62.6% of the TBILL supply.
Ondo’s footprint on XRPL also appears as a meaningful platform line item on the XRPL network table and is up sharply over 30 days, but that’s venue momentum, not category dominance.
Stablecoin settlement rails on XRPL show a stablecoin market cap of roughly $424.9 million, up 6.65% over 30 days, and a monthly stablecoin transfer volume of over $1 billion in January, up 34.3%.
Secondary activity for treasury tokens is the venue test. TBILL’s total monthly transfer volume is $6.76 million, and the chain split is extremely uneven.
The question is whether these tokens are actually moving, not just where they’re minted.
| Metric | Latest | 30D change | Why it matters | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tokenized U.S. Treasuries total value (category size) | $10.00B (as of 01/28/2026) | N/A (public view shows 7D: +2.53%) | Sets the TAM for the “venue war”: a large enough category that custody/settlement venues start to matter. | RWA.xyz “Tokenized U.S. Treasuries.” (RWA.xyz) |
| XRPL distributed RWA value | $422.95M (as of 02/12/2026) | +54.76% | Measures whether XRPL is becoming a real home for non-stablecoin RWAs (inventory living on-chain). | RWA.xyz XRPL network page. (RWA.xyz) |
| XRPL stablecoin market cap | $424.87M (as of 02/12/2026) | +6.65% | Stablecoins are the cash leg—without them, tokenized T-bills can’t be a settlement venue at scale. | RWA.xyz XRPL network page. (RWA.xyz) |
| XRPL stablecoin 30D transfer volume | $1.19B (as of 02/12/2026) | +57.52% | “Venue” requires flow, not just balances—this is the best quick proxy for settlement activity on XRPL. | RWA.xyz XRPL network page. (RWA.xyz) |
| TBILL supply share on XRPL | 54.41M / 86.90M ≈ 62.6% | — | Shows where treasury-token inventory sits (distribution/custody footprint). | RWA.xyz TBILL token table (XRPL + total circulating supply). (RWA.xyz) |
| TBILL activity share on XRPL | $200 / $6,759,808 ≈ 0.003% | — | The cleanest “utility” test: if it doesn’t move, XRPL is an issuance/parking venue, not a trading/settlement venue. | RWA.xyz TBILL monthly transfer volume (XRPL + total). (RWA.xyz) |
| Issuer credibility signal | Aviva Investors + Ripple intend to tokenize traditional fund structures on XRPL (announced Feb 11, 2026) | — | Answers the first credibility test: a major asset manager is signaling XRPL as a target venue (even if product launch is still future-tense). | Aviva Investors press release. (avivainvestors.com) |
XRPL vs. Ethereum layer 2s countercase
XRPL’s distribution-first posture shows up in how Aviva and Ripple pitch the ledger: “built-in compliance tools” and near-instant settlement, language that reads like regulated distribution more than DeFi composability.
That framing matters if institutions prioritize operational simplicity and predictable execution over deep liquidity pools.
XRPL already centers on payments, and the natural bundle is stablecoins as the cash leg and treasury tokens as the yield leg.
If institutions prefer “boring rails” first, a venue can win by minimizing moving parts, such as custody, compliance, predictable execution, even if DeFi depth is thinner early on.
However, liquidity gravity is real. Tokenized treasuries become “venues” when they can be swapped against stablecoins and routed through institutional market makers at scale.
Uniswap Labs and Securitize’s Feb. 11 integration to make BlackRock’s BUIDL tradable on UniswapX is the Ethereum and layer-2 thesis in one announcement.
Ethereum’s advantage is that it already has the most mature on-chain liquidity infrastructure, and layer 2s are inheriting that depth while reducing costs.
The collateral loop is the moat. Tokenized treasuries are increasingly discussed as collateral in the broader financial system.
Reuters reported that the Bank of England is exploring broader acceptance of tokenized assets as collateral, and that the European Central Bank is planning around the timing of tokenized collateral.
Ethereum’s advantage is that it already has the most mature collateral plumbing, and institutions building settlement and lending flows are defaulting to where the infrastructure already exists.
The fork to name explicitly: Is XRPL choosing “regulated distribution” over “composable finance,” and can that win meaningfully in tokenized treasuries?
If the answer is yes, XRPL becomes a custody and compliance venue where assets sit but don’t move much on-chain. If the answer is no, XRPL needs to build liquidity and collateral depth fast, which means competing directly with Ethereum’s existing infrastructure.
Hype or shift potential? The 30-to-90-day watchlist
A glimpse of a potential venue shift could emerge over the next 30 to 90 days if XRPL’s treasury-token transfer volumes rise materially and chain-level activity starts to match the balances.
TBILL is the stress test. Stablecoin settlement on XRPL continues to scale, with transfer volume growth tracking supply growth, supporting “cash leg plus yield leg” behavior.
A second regulated issuer follows Aviva, or Aviva progresses from “intention” to a live tokenized fund product with measurable holders.
However, it becomes hype if balances are static, holder counts remain small, and activity remains elsewhere. For example, if TBILL moves on Ethereum and layer 2s while remaining on XRPL.
The watchlist is printable: TBILL chain transfer share, XRPL stablecoin 30-day transfer volume, XRPL “distributed asset value” trend, and any Aviva follow-through disclosures.
Right now, the signals are mixed. XRPL has supply skew and stablecoin momentum, but usage is overwhelmingly elsewhere. Aviva is a credible institutional partner, but the commitment is multi-year intent, not a live product.
The next 90 days will show whether XRPL is building a real venue or just hosting another issuance narrative, while the actual settlement and collateral flows occur on Ethereum and layer 2s.