XRP’s Market Value Outpaces Stellar Despite Stellar’s Tokenization Lead
Stellar hosts $3.5 billion in tokenized real-world assets, more than the XRP Ledger’s $2.5 billion, but XLM’s market cap is far smaller than XRP’s. XRP’s larger value is tied to a spot ETF and corporate treasury purchases that create direct demand, while Stellar’s tokenized funds put new money into Treasuries rather than XLM. This disconnect helps explain why XRP remains worth about 12.8 times more than Stellar despite lower tokenized asset value.
Stellar’s $3.5 billion in tokenized real-world assets leads chains, ahead of Solana’s $3 billion, the XRP Ledger’s $2.5 billion, and Avalanche’s $1.7 billion. Franklin Templeton money-market products and tokenized U.S. Treasuries supply much of that total, while Circle’s USDC and EURC stablecoins handle transaction payments. The XRP Ledger still leads tokenized commodities at $2.2 billion, versus Ethereum’s $1.6 billion.
XLM trades near $0.20, giving a $6.85 billion market value, and remains 77.7% below its 2018 high. XRP, at $1.39 and $88 billion, is 12.8 times larger. A spot ETF holding $1.57 billion and corporate treasury purchases like Evernorth create direct XRP demand. Stellar’s tokenized funds route new money into Treasuries, not XLM, and its tiny XLM fees discourage large holdings.
Count words. First para: Stellar’s(1) $3.5(2) billion(3) in(4) tokenized(5) real-world(6) assets(7) leads(8) chains,(9) ahead(10) of(11) Solana’s(12) $3(13) billion,(14) the(15) XRP(16) Ledger’s(17) $2.5(18) billion,(19) and(20) Avalanche’s(21) $1.7(22) billion.(23) Franklin(24) Templeton(25) money-market(26) products(27) and(28) tokenized(29) U.S.(30) Treasuries(31) supply(32) much(33) of(34) that(35) total,(36) while(37) Circle’s(38) USDC(39) and(40) EURC(41) stablecoins(42) handle(43) transaction(44) payments.(45) The(46) XRP(47) Ledger(48) still(49) leads(50) tokenized(51) commodities(52) at(53) $2.2(54) billion,(55) versus(56) Ethereum’s(57) $1.6(58) billion.(59)
Second: XLM(1) trad
This gap may affect investors who assume network activity automatically lifts a token’s price. Stellar users could benefit from tokenized Treasuries and money-market funds moving on-chain, while XLM holders may see little direct value capture from that growth. XRP holders, by contrast, may remain exposed to ETF flows and corporate treasury buying. The contrast could encourage more careful evaluation of how tokenization, fees, and demand mechanisms actually connect—or fail to connect—with the assets people hold. Count: This(1) gap(2) may(3) affect(4) investors(5) who(6) assume(7) network(8) activity(9) automatically(10) lifts(11) a(12) token’s(13) price.(14) Stellar(15) users(16) could(17) benefit(18) from(19) tokenized(20) Treasuries(21) and(22) money-market(23) funds(24) moving(25) on-chain,(26) while(27) XLM(28) holders(29) may(30) see(31) little(32) direct(33) value(34) capture(35) from(36) that(37) growth.(38) XRP(39) holders,(40) by(41) contrast,(42) may(43) remain(44) exposed(45