Posts

Tessera's piece Something That Moves argued in September that retail adoption of tokenized assets was arriving through convenience rather than rights-first design, and it ended with the evidence that would show it wrong. One of its two tests was that if RWA.xyz's holder count fell back as launchpad activity quieted, it was a trade rather than adoption. Three weeks of data give a first answer, and it is not the one we would like to claim. Launchpad activity has certainly quieted. DefiLlama's daily figures for StonkFun peaked at $63.0 million on 21 September, stood at $24.6 million when the test was set on 28 September, and reached $1.7 million on 20 October, about 93% below the day the test was set and 97% below the peak. By week, the seven days to 20 October came to $11.6 million against $148.9 million three weeks earlier. That is half the test met, and only for part of the period. The piece sets out what the holder count did alongside it, and what the result says about the test as much as about the argument.

A CoreWeave co-founder told the Financial Times this week where the next round of AI-chip financing could come from. Brannin McBee, who leads CoreWeave's financing, said that winning investment-grade ratings for more of its chip-backed debt would let it borrow from insurers, whose capital "is unlimited". The FT's insurance correspondent had already supplied the other half, saying many large traditional insurers are at their limit for exposure to AI companies. Both can be true at once. Insurance money is already in this market, in investment-grade paper and below it, and the filings name the insurers: 58 purchasers of IREN's notes, more than half of them US life and annuity insurers, and insurers among the lenders on CoreWeave's GPU facilities. Where they are named, the amounts are redacted or not given. What is new is the scale being discussed and the ratings it would take. For scale, the NAIC estimates US insurers' exposure to all private credit at $1.2 trillion at the end of 2025, about 13% of cash and invested assets. It does not break out data centers or AI, and no official figure does.

Tessera's piece of 2 September held back on supplier-side residual value guarantees, saying that whether any given arrangement qualified as circular "depends on documents we have not read". The filings have now been read, and they had been on file all along. AMD disclosed a $4.1 billion guarantee of a partner's data center lease obligations in February, Nvidia disclosed guarantees of partners' facility lease obligations "in exchange for warrants" the same month, Broadcom's backstop appeared on 9 June, and Nvidia's largest guarantee in an 8-K on 17 August. Every one was public before the 2 September piece said otherwise. Checking those sources against Tessera's August work turned up errors in three pieces, corrected here and in a note on each page. They cover the date at which anyone first had to price AI hardware, four telecom figures from the Nortel and Lucent era that were wrong or unsupported, and the shape of AMD's investment in Anthropic. One argument is weaker as a result. Staging was offered as what separates today's commitments from the telecom era, and Lucent's were largely undrawn too. Revenue separates them more.

Renaissance Capital counts three sizable US IPOs postponed before pricing in the third quarter, all within a few weeks of each other in September: Oura, Holtec Nuclear and Bamboo Insurance. Postponements are usually read as a verdict on the market. The more useful thing to look at is who was selling. Holtec offered 50 million shares at $15 to $18, all of them sold by the company and none by existing holders, and asked the SEC on 25 September to withdraw its registration. Bamboo offered 35 million at $18 to $20, none sold by the company and all of them by existing holders. Oura offered 50 million at $40 to $44, of which 13.5 million were to come from the company and 36.5 million from existing holders. All three were profitable on the figures in their filings. As of 7 October, neither Bamboo nor Oura had filed to withdraw. The seller column is the part of these deals that gets read last and says the most.

RWA.xyz counted 4,010,763 addresses holding tokenized stocks on 28 September, up 67% in thirty days. The industry took two routes to get there. One camp put the registered share itself on-chain, with rights verified, holders checked in advance and transfers restricted to approved wallets; the other built tokens that give economic exposure and that eligible holders can keep in any wallet and move freely. The holder counts on the two sides are not close. bStocks reports 1,402,291 and xStocks 666,831, both classified as transferable. Superstate Opening Bell, which puts the registered shares themselves on-chain under token-level permissioning and KYC'd wallets, reports 84. The caveats are real: these are addresses rather than people, Opening Bell lists only three assets, and two large platforms fit neatly on neither side. The gap that remains is read here as a preference for tokens that are easy to hold and move. Tessera sits in the second camp and has a commercial interest in that reading being right. The data counts addresses; the preference is an interpretation of them.

For years the standard defense of private markets ran like this: illiquidity is a feature rather than a bug, lock-ups force discipline, and the absence of a daily price is what lets managers think long-term. If an investor cannot sell for ten years, that is the price of admission to the best returns in finance. It was always a convenient story, and the people telling it were the ones who benefited from investors being unable to leave. This year the people who built that system started dismantling it. Morgan Stanley, with roughly $8 trillion under management, is building blockchain settlement infrastructure in-house rather than renting it. At an industry summit in March, its head of digital asset strategy said the firm needs to build this internally because it cannot simply rent the technology. The bank is preparing an institutional digital wallet for tokenized assets, support for tokenized equities on its own trading venue and, most tellingly, it is advancing tokenized private equity secondary markets. That last item deserves a second reading. A bulge-bracket bank is building secondary markets for private equity. The entire point of a secondary market is to let people sell something before it matures. That is liquidity, the thing private markets spent a generation insisting investors did not need. Morgan Stanley is not alone, and none of this is new in principle. Hamilton Lane and KKR have offered tokenized feeder funds through Securitize for several years, cutting minimums on institutional-only funds from millions to tens of thousands. What changed in 2026 is that the work stopped being a fintech experiment at the edge and became core infrastructure strategy at the center of Wall Street. When the incumbents start building the exit that investors were told they did not need, the original argument is finished.

Putting an asset on-chain is no longer the hard problem. Anyone can mint a token. The harder problem, and the one the rest of the industry is now racing to solve, is telling the chain what that token is actually worth. The distinction gets lost in most tokenization coverage, and it is worth being precise about, because it is also the problem Tessera is working on. There are two separate data problems for any tokenized real-world asset, and they are not the same problem. The first is proving the asset exists. Does the token have something real behind it, and are the reserves backing it actually there? This is what Chainlink Proof of Reserve does. Tessera's Proof of Reserve feed is live on Solana mainnet, verifying on-chain that the reserves backing T-Tokens exist. That is the integrity layer, and it answers the question of whether the thing is real. The second problem is pricing the asset. What is it worth right now? What net asset value does a lending protocol use to compute a loan-to-value ratio? What number does a perpetual futures exchange reference to mark a position? This is a net asset value and price-feed problem, and it is a fundamentally different piece of infrastructure from Proof of Reserve. Proof of Reserve tells you the backing is there. It says nothing about what the asset is worth. Those are two different oracles answering two different questions, and conflating them is one of the most common mistakes in this space. For most of tokenization's history the industry has concentrated on the first problem, meaning issuance and backing. The last few weeks have made it clear that the frontier has moved to the second. In May, DTCC, the backbone of US securities settlement, said it would use Chainlink for a tokenized collateral platform that automates pricing, valuation and settlement, building on an earlier net asset value pilot run with JPMorgan and BNY Mellon. That is the plumbing of traditional finance treating on-chain valuation as a problem worth solving at scale. It is already in production elsewhere. VanEck and Securitize's tokenized Treasury fund became one of the first assets to qualify as collateral on a major decentralized finance lending market, using a verified net asset value feed to price it. A tokenized asset cannot be used as collateral until a protocol can trust what it is worth. The feed is the precondition: no feed, no collateral. That is the whole story in one line. The valuation layer is what turns a token from something a holder can keep into something a holder can use.

Six days ago these pages argued that SpaceX's Analyst Day on 21 April was the most consequential scheduled event of the month for anyone trying to understand where this listing is headed. It happens tomorrow, and several things have changed since. When the 14 April piece was written, the working target was $1.75 trillion. That figure has since been revised upward, and SpaceX is reported to be testing a valuation above $2 trillion in conversations with prospective investors. At that level the company would list at a valuation no company has carried from its first day of trading. The questions Analyst Day needs to answer have become correspondingly harder. At $2 trillion, SpaceX would trade at roughly 125 times 2025 revenue. What management says tomorrow about Starlink's subscriber economics, the xAI merger's contribution and Starship's commercial timeline has to support a number with no public market comparable. Reported valuation targets in advance of a filing are expectations rather than prices, and they move.

On 1 April, SpaceX confidentially filed its S-1 with the SEC. A June Nasdaq listing, a targeted $1.75 trillion valuation and up to $75 billion to raise, which would be more than two and a half times the largest US IPO on record. Those figures are reported rather than confirmed, and a confidential filing is an option to list rather than a listing. What the filing settles is less whether than when, and the question worth asking alongside it is who is structurally positioned when it happens. An IPO is not the beginning of the story. It is often closer to the end. When SpaceX goes public, three groups will hold exposure to the event. The first group, private equity holders, have been in for years. They have the lowest cost basis and the largest unrealized gain on paper, and they are subject to a 180-day lock-up from the date of listing. They cannot sell into the public market during the period of peak post-listing enthusiasm. By the time they can, the initial enthusiasm has typically faded and insider supply is weighing on the price. Their gain is real. The window they are excluded from is often the most active one. The second group, buyers on the day, get access at the listing price. That sounds attractive until oversubscription is considered. Circle's listing in June 2025 was twenty-five times oversubscribed, and Robinhood allocated retail investors roughly 11% of what they requested. Effective position sizes are small, and the outcome is timing-dependent in both directions: sell early and the position was a short-term trade, hold long and post-lock-up selling pressure from the first group erodes the gain. The third group are T-SpaceX holders. T-SpaceX is structured as a loan participation right trading on a decentralized exchange on Solana. Because it is not an equity instrument, its holders are not subject to the 180-day lock-up governing the underlying shares. Circle's trajectory illustrates what that asymmetry meant in one case. The stock listed at $31, rose to nearly $299 within three weeks, and had round-tripped almost entirely to its opening price by the time the lock-up expired six months later. The most active window was narrow, roughly three to six weeks, and it was structurally inaccessible to private equity holders. Buyers on the day who caught it held small positions. T-SpaceX holders face neither constraint. They entered at a pre-IPO price, they hold a token that trades continuously, and they face no lock-up. That combination, pre-IPO entry pricing with unconstrained post-listing liquidity, has not historically been available to any single investor class. Two limits belong on that. Continuous tradability describes what the instrument permits rather than what any market will offer, and a token that can be sold still requires somebody willing to buy it. And T-Tokens are not available in the US or other restricted territories.

An earlier piece traced the evolution of tokenized private equity and the structures that might make it liquid. That leaves a question behind it. If private equity exposure can be structured as a non-security bearer instrument, who actually trades it? The answer shapes what kind of market this becomes, and it is the question Tessera works on. The thesis here is that retail investors rather than institutions will dominate trading demand in on-chain private equity, while institutional participants serve mainly as suppliers of the underlying assets through off-chain arrangements. If that holds, the resulting market looks structurally different from traditional private equity, with tokenization acting as both a price discovery mechanism and a source of exit liquidity. Momentum behind that idea has built through 2025. The Blockworks Research analyst Carlos Gonzalez Campo has predicted that shares of private companies including SpaceX and OpenAI will be tokenized over the following four years, and the tokenized asset market is projected to grow from $40 billion to $317 billion by 2028. The regulatory environment has turned more accommodating this year, and several major platforms are preparing tokenized private equity offerings. Robinhood is working on tokenization technology to give retail investors fractionalized ownership of US private assets, though it remains constrained by current accredited investor definitions. As of May 2025 the Security Token Market reports 826 tokenized projects totaling $63 billion in value, with large institutions actively tokenizing traditional financial assets. McKinsey projects the underlying value of tokenized assets reaching $2 trillion by 2030, with private equity among the more promising categories. Projections of that kind are estimates, and the gap between $317 billion and $2 trillion in overlapping forecasts is a reminder of how wide the uncertainty is.