Start here
For "blackrock vaneck tokenized funds rlusd redemption" intent, run this blackrock tokenized fund news checker first to classify whether the latest BlackRock BUIDL size signal is actionable for your profile, then use the report sections to validate evidence quality and risk boundaries.
Ready to evaluate
Submit inputs to classify whether BUIDL 2024-2025 size signals are actionable for your profile.
Tool-first answer with on-Ethereum versus total-AUM boundary checks, freshness controls, and clear next actions.
Start with the checker for a fast fit result, then move to the report layer for evidence validation, denominator boundaries, and execution tradeoffs.
Canonical intent cluster on this URL includes blackrock buidl tokenized fund size 2025 assets under management, blackrock buidl tokenized fund assets under management 2025, plus RLUSD/redemption wording like blackrock vaneck tokenized funds rlusd redemption, on-Ethereum wording variants, and legacy phrasing like blackrock buidl tokenized fund 2024 2025 size. All variants route to one evidence stack and one action workflow.
Published: 2026-02-18 | Last reviewed: 2026-02-22 | Data captured: 2026-02-18 21:54 UTC (base snapshot) | Delta refresh: 2026-02-19 20:22 UTC | Stage1b refresh: 2026-02-20 21:04 UTC (DeFiLlama) / 2026-02-20 22:06 UTC (RWA) | Stage1b enhance: 2026-02-20 22:20 UTC (cross-source + peer + MMF-boundary refresh) | Current-round recheck: 2026-02-21 20:20 UTC (DeFiLlama) / 2026-02-21 06:21 UTC (RWA) / 2026-02-21 22:34 UTC (SEC + Treasury + BlackRock resources) | Deep-enhance recheck: 2026-02-22 16:10 UTC (DeFiLlama) / 2026-02-22 06:17 UTC (RWA) / 2026-02-22 18:32 UTC (Ripple + Securitize + NYDFS boundary refresh)
This card strip keeps the core numbers visible next to the tool so users can interpret score output with the same evidence base.
Core conclusions first. Every conclusion maps to dated evidence or explicit uncertainty labels.
| Checkpoint | Size | Source | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-07-06 | $491.83M | DeFiLlama /protocol/blackrock-buidl daily series | Earliest available point in this series after launch-year onboarding period. |
| 2024-11-13 | >$520M (issuer milestone statement) | PRNewswire issuer distribution release (BlackRock + Securitize expansion announcement) | Adds dated multi-chain milestone context (Aptos/Arbitrum/Avalanche/Optimism/Polygon) but should not be mixed with DeFiLlama point-in-time denominator math. |
| 2024-12-31 | $498.19M | DeFiLlama /protocol/blackrock-buidl daily series | Used as year-end 2024 baseline for the 2025 comparison in this page. |
| 2025-03-13 | $745.74M | DeFiLlama daily series | Intermediate checkpoint in the same method before late-2025 acceleration. |
| 2025-05-28 | $2.90B | DeFiLlama daily series | Highest 2025 daily point in this series. Useful for stress-testing peak anchoring risk. |
| 2025-11-11 | $2.53B | DeFiLlama daily series | Still a major late-2025 checkpoint, but not the annual peak in this series. |
| 2025-12-31 | $2.00B | DeFiLlama daily series | Year-end 2025 close point used in this page: +301.82% vs 2024 close baseline. |
| 2026-02-18 | $2.46B | DeFiLlama daily series | Latest point in this report snapshot window, showing +23.00% rebound after 2025 year-end pullback. |
This page keeps source differences visible. Base snapshot gap is 10.46% (2026-02-18), and delta refresh gap is 13.33% (2026-02-19). Stage1b late refresh on 2026-02-20 keeps the gap near 13.31% even when RWA is the newer source by 1h 02m 01s, and the 2026-02-21 recheck still shows 13.32% after lead flips back to DeFiLlama by 13h 59m 11s. Deep-enhance recheck on 2026-02-22 keeps the same 13.32% gap while lag compresses to 9h 52m 28s. This remains a denominator boundary to manage, not a detail to hide.
| Threshold | First crossed | Days in 2025 | Decision use |
|---|---|---|---|
| >= $1.0B | 2025-03-15 | 292 / 365 (80.00%) | Shows that scale was not a one-day anomaly after Q1 acceleration. |
| >= $2.0B | 2025-04-10 | 253 / 365 (69.32%) | Helps separate persistent large-fund regime from one-off spike framing. |
| >= $2.5B | 2025-05-01 | 131 / 365 (35.89%) | Useful for stress-testing plans that only work in high-liquidity windows. |
2025 mean daily size in this DeFiLlama method is about 2.08B USD, while median is about 2.38B USD. The median being higher than the mean indicates the year includes lower-value periods that still matter for execution planning.
Quartile checkpoints: Q1 close at 1.86B (2025-03-31), Q2 close at 2.85B (2025-06-30), Q3 close at 2.51B (2025-09-30), and Q4 close at 2.00B (2025-12-31). This path shows that late-year pullback can be significant even after strong spring growth.
Pending confirmation: no public source in this evidence set provides standardized intraday NAV timestamps across all dashboards, so cross-provider values should be compared as bounded snapshots instead of exact synchronous prints.
RWAMK intentionally answers this alias cluster in the canonical route/learn/blackrock-tokenized-fund-newsso users get one complete tool + report workflow instead of competing thin pages. Key variants such asblackrock buidl tokenized fund size 2025 assets under management,blackrock buidl tokenized fund assets under management 2025,blackrock buidl tokenized fund assets 2025 size,blackrock vaneck tokenized funds rlusd redemption, andblackrock buidl tokenized fund 2024 2025 sizeall stay routed here as one intent cluster with one evidence base.
Short answer: total BUIDL size rises from 498.19M (2024-12-31) to 2.00B (2025-12-31), but Ethereum-only size rises from 381.40M to 496.05M. Most 2025 growth sits outside Ethereum.
Short answer: public evidence now confirms RLUSD conversion support for BUIDL and rollout for VBILL, but route-level minimums, onboarding, and cutoffs still gate execution. Keep fund redemption terms and RLUSD redemption terms in separate checks.
| Layer | Known signal | Uncertainty | Decision rule |
|---|---|---|---|
BUIDL base route (RWA primary-market fields) Snapshot 2026-02-22 | $5,000,000 subscription minimum + $250,000 redemption minimum with 2:30 PM ET / 3:00 PM ET cutoffs | Public route fields do not publish guaranteed same-day processing latency or automatic RLUSD conversion rights for every channel. | Treat BUIDL route constraints as mandatory gate before modeling RLUSD as exit path. |
VanEck VBILL launch terms (Securitize) Press release 2025-05-13 | $100,000 minimum on Avalanche/BNB/Solana, $1,000,000 minimum on Ethereum; daily redemptions and no lockup | Launch release does not publish an RLUSD-specific conversion SLA, cutoff, or route-level fee schedule. | Use chain-tier threshold checks first, then confirm distributor onboarding path for redemption rails. |
RLUSD off-ramp integration (Securitize) Press release 2025-09-23 | BUIDL holders can exchange shares for RLUSD around the clock; VBILL support follows in coming days; live path starts on Ethereum then XRPL | Release does not state that all historical or future fund channels share one uniform intermediary stack or pricing model. | Model RLUSD as added settlement rail, not as replacement for fund-level eligibility or minimum-ticket rules. |
RLUSD legal redemption terms (Ripple) RLUSD user terms last updated 2024-10-03 | Each RLUSD can be redeemed by Customers for one U.S. dollar, and reserve valuation is defined against Business Day close in RLUSD user terms. | Terms explicitly limit direct purchase/redemption to Customers and allow suspension events, so not every fund investor has direct Ripple redemption onboarding by default. | Check customer-agreement eligibility and jurisdictional path before treating RLUSD as guaranteed fiat off-ramp. |
RLUSD reserve transparency (Ripple) Transparency page snapshot 2026-02-22 | Transparency page lists 1,521.9M circulating RLUSD and 1,592.6M reserve funds as of 2026-02-12, with monthly third-party attestations. | Public balances do not disclose investor-specific conversion fees, queue position, or whether a given BUIDL/VBILL channel can settle to fiat in one business cycle. | Use reserve surplus as solvency context only; still run channel-level timing and onboarding checks for execution. |
NYDFS stablecoin guidance baseline Guidance 2022-06-08; amended 2025-06-26 | NYDFS guidance requires a redemption policy and generally expects timely redemption no later than the end of the second business day after a request. | Guidance sets supervisory baseline and exceptions, but does not guarantee a universal 24/7 fiat settlement SLA for each fund-to-stablecoin rail combination. | Treat 24/7 token conversion claims as rail availability; validate business-day fiat redemption mechanics separately. |
Interpret this flow as layered constraints: fund-level route checks first, stablecoin redemption rail second.
| Liquidity rail | Latest evidence | What it improves | Key limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fund direct redemption (BUIDL / VBILL primary routes) | BUIDL route fields keep 5,000,000 subscription and 250,000 redemption minimums; VBILL launch terms publish 100,000 (AVAX/BNB/SOL) and 1,000,000 (ETH) minimum subscriptions. | Most explicit legal and operational route for fund-share lifecycle and fiat redemption instructions. | Eligibility checks, cutoff windows, and potential suspension language remain route-level constraints. |
| RLUSD smart-contract off-ramp | Securitize + Ripple (2025-09-23) announce 24/7 share-to-RLUSD exchange for BUIDL and staged VBILL support. | Adds continuous onchain settlement path and stablecoin portability across supported ecosystems. | Does not remove fund onboarding gates, and RLUSD user terms limit direct redemption to eligible Customers. |
| UniswapX liquidity path for BUIDL | Uniswap Labs + Securitize (2026-02-11) enable BUIDL trading through whitelisted RFQ subscribers with atomic settlement. | Introduces competitive quote path and additional secondary-liquidity option for whitelisted investors. | BlackRock disclosures state no assurance on liquidity, pricing, or availability; treat as conditional liquidity, not guaranteed execution. |
| Checkpoint | Total fund size | Ethereum size | Ethereum share | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-12-31 | $498,192,868 | $381,402,705 | 76.56% | Launch-year close is mostly Ethereum in this provider method. |
| 2025-05-28 | $2,903,604,587 | $2,715,725,732 | 93.53% | Within-year peak is heavily Ethereum-weighted in this same chain series. |
| 2025-12-31 | $2,001,839,286 | $496,053,446 | 24.78% | By year-end, total-fund scale stays high while Ethereum share is much lower. |
| 2026-02-20 | $2,462,345,282 | $688,887,585 | 27.98% | Latest refresh keeps Ethereum under one-third share despite multi-billion total size. |
| Window | Total growth | Ethereum growth | Non-Ethereum growth | Decision use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-12-31 -> 2025-12-31 | +$1,503,646,418 (+301.82%) | +$114,650,741 (+30.06%) | +$1,388,995,677 (+1,189.31%) | Only 7.62% of this growth is from Ethereum, so total AUM headlines are not an Ethereum-only proxy. |
| 2025-12-31 -> 2026-02-20 | +$460,505,996 (+23.00%) | +$192,834,139 (+38.87%) | +$267,671,857 (+17.78%) | Post-2025 rebound is split across Ethereum and non-Ethereum buckets, so monitoring should keep both in scope. |
| Metric | Value | Decision use |
|---|---|---|
| First non-Ethereum majority day (DeFiLlama chain sum) | 2025-10-24 (Ethereum $990.87M vs non-Ethereum $1.87B) | Stops teams from assuming Ethereum remains the dominant bucket through all 2025 checkpoints. |
| Non-Ethereum majority persistence in 2025 | 69 / 365 days (18.90%) | Shows the majority switch is not a one-day anomaly late in the year. |
| Quarterly Ethereum-share regime shift | Q2 average 93.78% -> Q4 average 41.77% | Highlights that year-level averages can hide late-year composition breaks relevant to execution planning. |
This layer explains why the tool output is trustworthy, where it can fail, and how key evidence gaps were repaired.
| Role | Named party | Evidence | Decision use | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Investment manager | BlackRock Financial Management, Inc. | Business Wire launch release (2024-03-20) names BlackRock Financial Management as investment manager of the fund. | Separates portfolio-management accountability from transfer, custody, and placement functions. | Release-level role disclosure does not provide incident-response SLAs or business-continuity playbooks. |
| Custodian + fund administrator | Bank of New York Mellon | Business Wire launch release states BNY Mellon serves as custodian and administrator for fund assets. | Adds custody and operational-bookkeeping dependency to execution risk mapping. | Public release does not disclose route-level concentration or failover arrangements. |
| Transfer agent + tokenization platform | Securitize | Launch release names Securitize as transfer agent and tokenization platform handling tokenized shares and reporting. | Clarifies where mint/burn, transfer-whitelisting, and subscription/redemption workflows are operationally anchored. | Public source does not provide per-step latency guarantees for subscription/redemption processing. |
| Placement agent | Securitize Markets, LLC | Launch release says investors subscribe through Securitize Markets and includes compensation/conflict disclosures. | Maps distribution and investor-introduction incentives into due-diligence workflow. | Disclosure identifies conflict mechanics but not investor-specific fee outcomes. |
| Initial ecosystem participants | Anchorage Digital Bank N.A., BitGo, Coinbase, Fireblocks | Launch release lists these names as part of the initial BUIDL ecosystem participant set. | Adds custody/infrastructure dependency surface beyond headline AUM and route thresholds. | Release does not publish usage share, concentration, or fallback routing by provider. |
| Audit provider (2024 period) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP | Launch release appoints PwC as auditor for the period ending 2024-12-31. | Improves governance due diligence by exposing named assurance counterparties. | Appointment disclosure does not replace current-period audit conclusions or investor reporting packs. |
| Boundary check | BUIDL evidence | MMF baseline | Decision use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory regime stated in fund filing | SEC Form D/D-A shows Rule 506(c) and Section 3(c)(7) selection for BUIDL offering structure. | SEC money-market-fund reforms discuss registered MMFs under Rule 2a-7 framework. | Treat BUIDL route as private-placement workflow, not an automatic substitute for registered MMF treatment. |
| Minimum liquidity-buffer expectations | No public filing/dashboard field in this source set confirms 25% daily and 50% weekly liquid-asset minimums for BUIDL. | SEC 2023 MMF fact sheet states amendments increase MMF minimums to at least 25% daily and 50% weekly liquid assets. | Do not import 2a-7 liquidity-buffer assumptions into BUIDL execution logic without explicit issuer/distributor documentation. |
| Redemption-control mechanics | RWA route fields show operational cutoffs (2:30 PM ET subscriptions, 3:00 PM ET redemptions) and route-specific redemption paths. | SEC MMF reforms remove temporary redemption gates and update liquidity-fee framework for registered MMFs. | Execution frictions should be modeled through route operations and counterparties, not by assuming MMF gate/fee behavior maps one-to-one. |
Priority order: query intent clustering, dated quantitative data, access constraints, then recommendation output.
| Scenario | Premise | Workflow | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scenario A: Institutional treasury desk (> $5M ticket) | Needs size trend confidence and direct channel checks for near-term decision window. | Use tool + filing reconciliation + source-gap table before requesting execution approvals. | Actionable if legal and onboarding checks pass; otherwise boundary mode with fallback to monitoring. |
| Scenario B: Professional analyst (signal-only mandate) | Needs 2024-2025 size interpretation but no direct subscription path today. | Use tool in signal mode, track 2025 volatility profile, compare peer transfer behavior. | Actionable for research prioritization; execution remains deferred. |
| Scenario C: Retail searcher using alias keyword | Wants a quick answer on BUIDL size/AUM wording variants (including "blackrock vaneck tokenized funds rlusd redemption") and whether direct execution is realistic for a retail profile. | Tool routes to boundary mode, then risk and fallback sections clarify access limits. | Not suitable for direct execution; use education + scanner path instead. |
| Gap | Severity | Fix action |
|---|---|---|
| Stage1b conclusions were not retested after another-day refresh with different lag direction. | High | Added current-round recheck table (2026-02-21) showing gap persistence near 13.32% even when freshness lead flips back to DeFiLlama. |
| Weekend benchmark timing and filing staleness were under-specified for live decision windows. | High | Added explicit weekend and filing boundaries: Treasury 3M latest row remains 2026-02-20 (Saturday has no new row) and SEC filing sequence remains two entries with latest acceptance on 2025-07-18. |
| RLUSD and VBILL citation durability regressed due stale source URLs. | High | Replaced stale URLs with active source routes for RLUSD user terms and VanEck VBILL launch documentation, then re-wired source notes to the active references. |
| RLUSD rail interpretation lacked reserve-level and supervisory-policy context. | High | Added Ripple reserve transparency metrics (as of 2026-02-12) plus NYDFS stablecoin guidance boundaries so 24/7 claims are interpreted as rail availability, not guaranteed fiat settlement. |
| No post-2026-02-21 refresh existed to confirm if gap persistence held into the next day. | High | Added deep-enhance recheck table for 2026-02-22 showing unchanged 13.32% source gap with reduced lag and refreshed RLUSD evidence rows. |
| Critical denominator map was missing (Form D sold amount vs TVL vs dashboard value). | High | Added metric-boundary table and filing reconciliation section so each number is tied to a denominator and use condition. |
| 2025 peak path was under-specified and over-anchored to one late-year milestone. | High | Added 2025-05-28 peak checkpoint, peak-to-year-end drawdown (-31.06%), and rebound tracking with base snapshot plus 2026-02-19 delta refresh checks. |
| Size interpretation lacked persistence metrics, so readers could still anchor to one extreme date. | High | Added threshold-persistence analytics: first >=$1B date (2025-03-15), first >=$2B date (2025-04-10), and days above thresholds in 2025. |
| Execution constraints omitted route-level operations windows and redemption minimum. | High | Added execution-window section with 5,000,000 subscription minimum, 250,000 redemption minimum, and 2:30 PM ET / 3:00 PM ET cutoffs plus tool boundary updates. |
| One regulatory source URL returned 404 and weakened evidence traceability. | High | Replaced stale source with active SEC Rule 506(c), accredited-investor assessment, and SEC submissions API references. |
| Peer comparison lacked normalized turnover and yield dimensions. | Medium | Added 30-day turnover ratio, 7-day APY, and redemption-floor columns to the peer comparison table. |
| Regulatory interpretation lacked SEC no-action conditional boundaries for high minimum investment logic. | High | Added 2025-03-12 SEC staff no-action interpretation with explicit conditions (written representations, no contrary facts, and no third-party financing for the minimum investment) and legal-force disclaimer. |
| Momentum view mixed long-window level growth with short-window activity shifts. | High | Added 7d/30d/90d momentum matrix for BUIDL value, transfer volume/count, and holder activity so readers can distinguish trend strength from near-term cooling. |
| Launch-stage legal and risk disclosures were not mapped to current execution decisions. | High | Added official-disclosures section with launch composition, Rule 506(c)/3(c)(7) structure, stable-value caveat, and placement-agent conflict language tied to decision use. |
| Token spoofing risk was missing from risk controls despite multi-chain distribution. | High | Added official token-address checklist sourced from BlackRock anti-fraud resources and mapped it to executable verification steps. |
| Cross-source chain expansion chronology had implicit assumptions for BNB/Solana timing. | High | Added dated Solana evidence (Securitize release, 2025-03-25) plus dated BNB evidence (2025-11-14), then kept explicit limits for items that still lack full chain-by-chain chronology. |
| Chain-level liquidity interpretation was too aggregate and hid value-flow divergence. | High | Added chain-utilization table from token-level payload to show counterexamples (BNB 23.21% value with 0% 30d flow, Avalanche 3.79% value with 75.33% flow). |
| Form D cadence interpretation did not test Rule 503 timing obligations against observed filing dates. | High | Added Rule 503 cadence checks with first-sale-to-filing lag (14 days) and public filing-gap context (487 days) to prevent near-real-time misuse of filing metrics. |
| Fee comparison layer missed denominator conflict between release-level and dashboard-level fields. | High | Added fee-boundary table for 20 bps (Solana release line) vs 50 bps (RWA field) and marked unresolved scope reconciliation as pending confirmation. |
| Delta refresh layer was missing, so users could not see if confidence boundaries changed day-over-day. | High | Added a 2026-02-19 delta-refresh table with source-gap widening, timestamp lag expansion, and momentum recalibration. |
| Qualified-purchaser discussion lacked a numeric, regulator-published shorthand reference. | High | Added SEC glossary evidence (last reviewed Feb. 6, 2026) with 5M individual and 25M entity examples and tied them to non-automatic eligibility guidance. |
| BNB chain operational mention did not reconcile issuer anti-fraud address coverage. | High | Added pending-confirmation boundary where dashboard/API list BNB support but BlackRock anti-fraud page still lacks a BNB address listing as of 2026-02-21. |
| Yield narrative had no high-trust baseline, so readers could not evaluate opportunity cost versus short-duration Treasury rates. | High | Added U.S. Treasury 3-month yield benchmark table against RWA 7-day APY references, including spread calculations for 2025-11-21, 2026-01-20, and stage1b latest 2026-02-20 print. |
| Cross-source total gap lacked chain-level decomposition and could hide where disagreement is concentrated. | High | Added chain-attribution matrix showing Aptos explains 101.62% of total gap and non-Aptos chains net to a slight negative difference. |
| Ethereum 2024/2025 alias wording could still be misread as total-fund-only AUM. | High | Added Ethereum-specific checkpoint table plus Ethereum vs non-Ethereum growth attribution matrix in the alias section. |
| Timestamp-lag explanation lacked a low-lag falsification check. | High | Added stage1b refresh row set where lag lead flips from DeFiLlama to RWA and absolute lag drops from 13h 09m 08s to 1h 02m 01s while the gap stays near 13.31%. |
| Latest concentration proxy was stale after holder-count compression on 2026-02-20. | High | Added stage1b intraday holder-variance update (88 intermediate -> 109 late print) and average value-per-address shift (~24.69M -> ~19.94M) in freshness and key-signal sections. |
| Five-chain expansion chronology in late 2024 was still inferred rather than directly dated in issuer evidence. | High | Added the 2024-11-13 PRNewswire issuer release with dated Aptos/Arbitrum/Avalanche/Optimism/Polygon expansion and >520M AUM milestone context. |
| Ethereum composition shift lacked a date-specific majority crossover test. | High | Added 2025-10-24 crossover checkpoint plus 69/365 non-Ethereum-majority persistence and Q2 vs Q4 Ethereum-share averages. |
| Eligibility boundaries did not include explicit Rule 501 and Rule 2a51-1 numeric/valuation constraints. | High | Added accredited-investor threshold references (>1M net worth excluding primary residence or >200k/>300k income) plus qualified-purchaser valuation/debt-deduction math from eCFR. |
| Chain launch chronology risked using API first-nonzero dates as launch proof. | High | Added issuer-date vs API-first-nonzero lag matrix (Aptos +189d, Solana +157d, Binance +22d) and explicit interpretation guardrail. |
This section adds issuer-level disclosures that materially change how users should interpret size, stability, and transfer safety.
| Signal | Disclosed value | Decision use | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Launch portfolio composition | 100% in cash, U.S. Treasury bills, and repurchase agreements (2024-03-20 release). | Defines baseline risk budget for interpreting size growth and yield expectations. | Composition does not remove blockchain, onboarding, or transfer-route risks. |
| Initial minimum investment | $5,000,000 initial investment minimum (launch release). | Hard gate for who can pursue direct primary subscription paths. | Channel terms can change; confirm latest investor documents before execution. |
| Fund structure and transfer scope | Rule 506(c) + Section 3(c)(7), daily accrued dividends, and 24/7 transfers among pre-approved investors. | Clarifies that BUIDL is a private-placement structure, not a retail cash-equivalent product. | Transfer availability does not guarantee unrestricted secondary liquidity. |
| Stable-value caveat | Launch disclosures state BUIDL seeks $1 per token but may not maintain stable value at all times. | Prevents treating BUIDL as a guaranteed $1 settlement instrument. | No public source provides a universal guarantee across all market states. |
| Placement-agent conflict disclosure | Launch disclosures describe upfront + quarterly placement compensation tied to investor NAV. | Adds diligence on incentive alignment before relying on distribution narratives. | Disclosure flags conflict mechanics but does not quantify net execution impact per investor. |
| Network | Official address | Execution note |
|---|---|---|
| Ethereum | 0x7712c34205737192402172409a8f7ccef8aa2aec | Primary address listed in BlackRock anti-fraud resources. |
| Ethereum (additional) | 0x6a9DA2D710BB9B700acde7Cb81F10F1fF8C89041 | Second Ethereum address listed by BlackRock. |
| Solana | GyWgeqpy5GueU2YbkE8xqUeVEokCMMCEeUrfbtMw6phr | Listed as official token address for BUIDL. |
| Polygon | 0x2893Ef551B6dD69F661Ac00F11D93E5Dc5Dc0e99 | Listed as official token address for BUIDL. |
| Avalanche | 0x53FC82f14F009009b440a706e31c9021E1196A2F | Listed as official token address for BUIDL. |
| Optimism | 0xa1CDAb15bBA75a80dF4089CaFbA013e376957cF5 | Listed as official token address for BUIDL. |
| Arbitrum | 0xA6525Ae43eDCd03dC08E775774dCAbd3bb925872 | Listed as official token address for BUIDL. |
| Aptos | 0x50038be55be5b964cfa32cf128b5cf05f123959f286b4cc02b86cafd48945f89 | Listed as official token address for BUIDL. |
| Gate | Primary source | Evidence | Decision use | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 506(c) purchaser verification | SEC exempt offerings page (Rule 506(c)) | General solicitation is allowed only when all purchasers are accredited investors and the issuer takes reasonable verification steps. | Separates broad marketing visibility from actual subscription readiness. | Rule 506(c) verification does not by itself satisfy Section 3(c)(7) qualified-purchaser onboarding. |
| Accredited-investor numeric thresholds | 17 CFR 230.501(a)(5)-(6), eCFR snapshot 2026-02-18 | Natural-person examples include >$1,000,000 net worth (excluding primary residence) or >$200,000 individual / >$300,000 joint income in each of the prior two years with expected continuation in current year. | Adds explicit numeric checks before routing users into costly onboarding steps. | Rule 501 has multiple categories and exceptions, so legal review remains required for final eligibility. |
| Qualified-purchaser threshold shorthand | SEC glossary (last reviewed 2026-02-06) | SEC educational examples cite 5M in investments for individuals and 25M discretionary investments for entities. | Prevents reusing a 5M ticket headline as automatic legal proof for every investor profile. | Glossary examples are educational and do not replace offering-document determinations. |
| Qualified-purchaser investment calculation math | 17 CFR 270.2a51-1(d)-(f), eCFR snapshot 2026-02-18 | Investments are measured at fair market value or cost, and indebtedness incurred to acquire those investments must be deducted from the qualifying amount. | Clarifies why gross asset headlines can overstate practical eligibility when financed positions are involved. | Public rule text does not provide issuer-specific onboarding worksheets, so implementation still needs distributor confirmation. |
| Chain | Issuer-dated launch | DeFiLlama first nonzero | Observed lag | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aptos | 2024-11-13 | 2025-05-21 | +189 days | Large lag window: API first appearance cannot be treated as legal or operational launch date. |
| Arbitrum | 2024-11-13 | 2024-11-19 | +6 days | Short lag still exists, so timestamp normalization should be explicit in chronology claims. |
| Avalanche | 2024-11-13 | 2024-11-19 | +6 days | Short lag supports using issuer releases as primary launch anchors and APIs as observability layers. |
| Optimism | 2024-11-13 | 2024-11-19 | +6 days | API chronology is close but still asynchronous versus issuer announcement timing. |
| Polygon | 2024-11-13 | 2024-11-19 | +6 days | Use issuer date for launch chronology and API date for first-observed-liquidity checks. |
| Solana | 2025-03-25 | 2025-08-29 | +157 days | Mid-length lag can materially distort quarter-by-quarter share attribution if unadjusted. |
| Binance / BNB | 2025-11-14 | 2025-12-06 | +22 days | Operational launch evidence predates API observability, so chain chronology needs dual timestamps. |
This section separates legal-filing numbers from market-data numbers so decisions are auditable instead of headline-driven.
| Filing | Filed on | First sale | Amount sold | Investors | Minimum accepted | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC Form D (new notice) | 2024-03-18 | First sale yet to occur | $0 | 0 | $100,000 | Initial exempt-offering notice selected Rule 506(c) and Investment Company Act Section 3(c)(7), with total offering amount marked as indefinite. |
| SEC Form D/A (amendment) | 2025-07-18 | 2024-03-04 | $3,251,152,228 | 42 | $100,000 | Filing-level fundraising moved materially by mid-2025. Sales commissions remain listed at 525,000 USD (estimate), but filing denominator is still not a direct substitute for TVL/asset-value snapshots. |
| Metric | Value | Denominator | Decision use | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC Form D total amount sold | $3,251,152,228 (Form D/A filed 2025-07-18) | Capital sold in exempt offering filings | Track fundraising progress and investor count. | Not a real-time market value feed; updates only when the filing is amended. |
| SEC Form D notice cadence under Rule 503 | Initial Form D due within 15 days after first sale; annual amendment expected for ongoing offerings | Regulatory timing requirement | Detect reporting lag between private-placement events and public filing visibility. | Compliance timing does not provide live NAV/TVL, liquidity depth, or order-book data. |
| DeFiLlama protocol TVL (2025-12-31 point) | $2,001,839,286 | Daily onchain liquidity series by provider method | Consistent YoY trend analysis for 2024-2025 checkpoints. | Provider methodology can differ from issuer NAV/accounting definitions. |
| DeFiLlama 2025 peak-to-close drawdown | -31.06% (from $2,903,604,587 on 2025-05-28 to $2,001,839,286 on 2025-12-31) | Within-year percentage change in one daily series | Stress-test whether trend conviction survives intra-year reversals. | Single-provider series should be paired with alternate datasets before execution decisions. |
| RWA.xyz total asset value (BUIDL page) | $2,172,960,457.85 (_updated_at 2026-02-21T06:21:11.908953+00:00) | Dashboard asset-level value model | Combine value signal with transfer, holder, and access metadata. | Dashboard field definitions and update times can differ from DeFiLlama and filings. |
| RWA fee fields (BUIDL) | total_management_fee_bps = 50; total_performance_fee_bps = 0 | Dashboard-reported fee metadata fields | Adds implementation-cost signal when comparing BUIDL against other tokenized treasury products. | Public dashboard fee fields should be validated against offering documents before legal/operational commitment. |
| Primary operations thresholds (RWA fields) | $5,000,000 subscription minimum + $250,000 redemption minimum with 2:30 PM ET / 3:00 PM ET cutoffs | Route-level operational fields in RWA asset payload | Convert size conviction into executable workflow checks, not just eligibility labels. | Operational descriptions are platform fields and can change; confirm latest terms at execution time. |
| RWA net_asset_value_dollar (per token) | $1 | Per-token NAV-style field in RWA payload | Useful for token-level price reference checks in stable-value discussions. | Not an aggregate fund-size metric and must not be compared directly with billion-dollar total asset values. |
| RWA total asset value delta refresh | $2,172,839,975.26 (_updated_at 2026-02-19T06:26:51.178869+00:00) | Same dashboard asset-value field, refreshed one day later | Checks whether source-gap conclusions remain stable after a newer payload pull. | Still a single-provider model; keep DeFiLlama and filing cross-check in the loop. |
| Average value per holding address (derived) | ~$20.69M (2,172,960,457.85 / 105 addresses) | Point-in-time arithmetic proxy from RWA total value + holding count | Quick concentration sanity check before assuming broad wallet distribution. | Average masks skew, and the public source set does not provide a full holder-distribution histogram. |
By this page method, Ethereum share drops from 76.56% (2024-12-31) to 27.98% (2026-02-21 current-round point). Trend quality depends on multi-chain aggregation, not one-chain snapshots.
| Checkpoint | Total size | Top chain | Second chain | Top-4 share | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-12-31 | $498,192,868 | Ethereum (76.56%) | Avalanche (11.47%) | 99.79% | Launch-year close was highly concentrated in one chain family. |
| 2025-12-31 | $2,001,839,286 | Aptos (27.86%) | Binance (25.12%) | 90.52% | Distribution diversified across Aptos/Binance/Ethereum/Solana during 2025 scale-up. |
| 2026-02-20 | $2,462,345,282 | Ethereum (27.98%) | Aptos (22.70%) | 93.64% | Latest point keeps a multi-chain profile and keeps Binance near one-fifth of tracked size. |
Beyond headline size, this section maps legal filing fields to route-level subscription/redemption constraints that directly affect execution feasibility.
| Route layer | Subscription minimum | Redemption minimum | Operations window | Investor gate signal | Decision use |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC filing layer (Form D / D-A) | $100,000 (minimum investment accepted) | Not disclosed | Rule 506(c) framework + Form D filing notice timeline (not intraday execution instructions) | Rule 506(c) and Section 3(c)(7) selected | Legal baseline for offering structure and fundraising denominator, not order routing. |
| RWA primary market (USD route) | $5,000,000 | $250,000 | Subscription wire before 2:30 PM ET; redemption tokens before 3:00 PM ET; both marked Daily | allowed_investor_types = U.S. Qualified Purchaser | Use when evaluating direct USD channel fit and cut-off feasibility. |
| RWA primary market (USDC route) | $5,000,000 | $250,000 | Same 2:30 PM ET / 3:00 PM ET windows; redemptions routed through service providers | allowed_investor_types = null while KYC description says accredited + qualified purchaser and "US individuals not allowed" | Treat as partially conflicting public metadata; requires distributor confirmation before committing capital. |
allowed_investor_types = U.S. Qualified Purchaserand another route withallowed_investor_types = null + US individuals not allowedin KYC text. This is treated as unresolved public metadata until distributor-level documentation clarifies route mapping.Data boundaries are explicit so readers can calibrate confidence before acting.
| Field | Status | Evidence note |
|---|---|---|
| 2024 vs 2025 size trend direction | Known | Both milestone news and API snapshots show strong growth from 2024 baseline to 2025 close. |
| Intra-year volatility (2025) | Known | Series peaks on 2025-05-28, then retraces 31.06% into year-end before 2026 rebound. |
| Official single standardized denominator across all dashboards | Unknown | Public pages do not provide one universal denominator across DeFiLlama and RWA.xyz methods. |
| Why SEC minimum accepted is 100,000 while dashboard primary field shows 5,000,000 | Unknown | Public sources expose both values but do not publish a full channel-by-channel reconciliation. Treat as pending confirmation (待确认/暂无可靠公开数据). |
| Why RWA USD route lists U.S. Qualified Purchaser while USDC route field says "US individuals not allowed" | Unknown | Both fields are visible in the same snapshot payload but public documentation does not reconcile the apparent route-level conflict. |
| Public real-time secondary depth by venue | Unknown | No single normalized public depth metric is shown across all execution venues in the source set. |
| Exact public launch date for BNB Chain support | Known | Securitize press release dated 2025-11-14 confirms BUIDL launch on BNB Chain and Binance collateral usage. |
| Exact public launch date for Solana support | Known | Securitize press release dated 2025-03-25 provides dated Solana expansion evidence for BUIDL. |
| Exact public launch date for Aptos/Arbitrum/Avalanche/Optimism/Polygon support | Known | PRNewswire issuer release dated 2024-11-13 provides a dated milestone for this five-chain expansion wave. |
| Issuer-published BNB contract address for BUIDL | Unknown | BNB/Binance support is visible in dashboard/API sources, but BlackRock anti-fraud resources snapshot on 2026-02-21 still has no BNB address entry. |
| Per-token NAV vs aggregate-size denominator boundary | Known | RWA payload exposes net_asset_value_dollar = 1 while total_asset_value_dollar is 2,172,960,457.85 in the 2026-02-21 refresh; these metrics are not interchangeable. |
| Public scale definition for top-holder concentration fields | Unknown | Public payload exposes concentration fields but this source set does not provide a normalized unit-definition note for those values. |
| Chain-level value share vs transfer-flow relationship | Known | RWA token payload provides enough chain-level data to show divergence (for example, BNB 23.21% value with 0% 30d transfer share, Avalanche 3.79% value with 75.33% transfer share). |
| Current source-gap concentration driver | Known | At the 2026-02-21 recheck, Aptos explains 101.62% of DeFiLlama-vs-RWA aggregate gap while non-Aptos chains combined net to -1.62%. |
| Does lower timestamp lag remove the total source gap? | Known | No. Stage1b (2026-02-20) has RWA newer by 1h 02m 01s, and current-round recheck (2026-02-21) has DeFiLlama newer by 13h 59m 11s; gap still stays near 13.3% in both checks. |
| Why Aptos chain values diverge so much across providers | Unknown | Public sources expose the chain-level difference but do not provide a shared methodology note that fully reconciles the Aptos denominator split. |
| Why API first-nonzero dates can lag issuer launch announcements by months on some chains | Unknown | The evidence set measures lags (Aptos +189d, Solana +157d, Binance +22d) but does not provide a full public attribution of ingestion or classification logic per chain. |
| APY carry vs U.S. 3M Treasury benchmark | Known | At sampled checkpoints (2025-11-21, 2026-01-20, 2026-02-18 print, and 2026-02-20 print), BUIDL 7-day APY remains 14.49-24.94 bps below official U.S. 3-month Treasury yields; 2026-02-21 has no new Treasury business-day row. |
| Public explanation for sustained APY spread versus Treasury benchmark | Unknown | This evidence set does not provide a single public document decomposing spread drivers (fees, operations costs, or route effects) for each checkpoint. |
| Fee denominator reconciliation (20 bps release line vs 50 bps dashboard field) | Unknown | Securitize Solana release and RWA payload publish different fee figures without a shared public denominator note in this evidence set. |
| RLUSD reserve coverage snapshot | Known | Ripple transparency page lists 1,521.9M circulating RLUSD and 1,592.6M reserve funds as of 2026-02-12, supporting reserve-coverage checks for settlement-rail analysis. |
| Fund-share to RLUSD conversion fee schedule by route | Unknown | Public press releases confirm rail availability but do not publish one complete channel-by-channel conversion fee schedule for BUIDL/VBILL to RLUSD. |
| Guaranteed fiat settlement timeline after RLUSD conversion | Unknown | Public sources provide policy baselines and route windows but no universal, investor-level SLA across all jurisdictions and onboarding states. |
| Secondary-liquidity fallback for BUIDL | Known | Uniswap Labs + Securitize announce whitelisted UniswapX RFQ trading on 2026-02-11, but availability/liquidity remains conditional on participating counterparties. |
| Primary-market operations constraints | Known | RWA fields expose daily subscription/redemption frequency, 5,000,000 subscription minimum, 250,000 redemption minimum, and 2:30 PM ET / 3:00 PM ET cutoffs. |
| Monthly active addresses continuity in RWA payload | Unknown | The 2026-02-21 payload does not expose the monthly_active_addresses field used in prior rounds; this page marks it as pending confirmation instead of inferring a replacement. |
| Metric | DeFiLlama | RWA.xyz | Gap | Decision use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BUIDL size snapshot on 2026-02-18 | $2,462,224,800 | $2,229,077,423 | $233,147,377 (10.46%) | Treat as methodology + timestamp boundary; avoid binary "one is wrong" framing without denominator and update-window audit. |
| BUIDL 30-day transfer volume (2026-02-21) | N/A (different activity model) | $203,341,061.97 | Scope mismatch | Use RWA.xyz for transfer behavior and DeFiLlama for protocol-level size trend continuity. |
| Latest same-day size check (2026-02-21) | $2,462,345,282 (20:20:23 UTC) | $2,172,960,457.85 (_updated_at 06:21:11 UTC) | $289,384,824.15 (13.32%) | Gap remains near 13.3% even with DeFiLlama now newer by about fourteen hours, reinforcing denominator-method boundary rather than one-way staleness. |
| Deep-enhance same-day check (2026-02-22) | $2,462,345,282 (16:10:11 UTC) | $2,172,960,457.85 (_updated_at 06:17:43 UTC) | $289,384,824.15 (13.32%) | One more day of unchanged levels and unchanged gap strengthens persistence evidence while lag compresses to about 9h 52m 28s. |
| Primary subscription floor | N/A | $5,000,000 | Attribute coverage difference | Execution fit must use source with onboarding fields, not TVL-only source. |
| Primary redemption floor | N/A | $250,000 | SEC Form D does not disclose redemption minimum | Liquidity planning should use route-level redemption constraints, not only subscription minimum. |
| Minimum investment accepted (SEC filing view) | N/A | $5,000,000 (dashboard field) | SEC Form D lists $100,000 minimum accepted | Below 100,000 USD is likely hard mismatch. Between 100,000 and 5,000,000 requires channel-level confirmation. |
| Snapshot timestamp lag (2026-02-19) | Last point 2026-02-19T19:35:59Z | _updated_at 2026-02-19T06:26:51.178869+00:00 | 13h 09m 08s | When timestamps are this far apart, treat same-day percentage comparisons as bounded estimates, not synchronized marks. |
| Chain-level gap attribution (2026-02-21) | Aptos = $558,878,635 | Aptos = $264,813,643 | +$294,064,992 (101.62% of total gap) | Most aggregate source gap remains concentrated in Aptos mapping. Non-Aptos chains combine to -$4.68M, so chain-level decomposition stays mandatory before high-confidence conclusions. |
| Chain coverage vs issuer address coverage (2026-02-21) | 8 chains, including Binance (20.53% share) | 8 networks, including BNB Chain (FAQ last-updated field: 2/20/2026) | BlackRock official address list has no BNB entry | Do not assume dashboard chain coverage equals issuer-published anti-fraud address coverage for transfer execution. |
New evidence is added only where it changes decisions, boundaries, or confidence scoring.
| Gap | Decision impact | Repair action | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Same-day gap interpretation relied too heavily on timestamp lag. | Could misclassify denominator divergence as a pure freshness problem and over-trust one provider. | Added late-session recheck (DeFiLlama 2026-02-20T21:04:35Z vs RWA 2026-02-20T22:06:36+00:00) where lag lead flips to RWA but gap stays 13.31%. | Fixed |
| Operational dependency chain was not explicit in one evidence block. | Users could underweight stack-level execution risk by treating this as a single-fund-only process. | Added service-provider matrix covering BlackRock FM, BNY Mellon, Securitize, Securitize Markets, and initial ecosystem providers with boundary notes. | Fixed |
| MMF regulatory assumptions were easy to transplant into private-placement workflow. | Could overstate liquidity-buffer protection if users assume Rule 2a-7 treatment applies automatically. | Added MMF boundary matrix: Rule 506(c)+3(c)(7) structure is shown separately from SEC MMF 25%/50% liquidity-buffer baseline. | Fixed + 部分待确认/暂无可靠公开数据 |
| Peer and momentum rows used mixed snapshots with stale values. | Can distort tradeoff ranking across turnover, holder concentration, and activity momentum. | Refreshed BUIDL/USYC/OUSG/BENJI values, turnover, APY, and 7d/30d/90d momentum to the 2026-02-21 current-round snapshot. | Fixed |
| Cross-source chain attribution and concentration notes were not synchronized with latest snapshot. | Could hide that mismatch is mostly concentrated in one chain bucket. | Updated chain attribution in current round: Aptos contributes 101.62% of total gap while non-Aptos chains net to -1.62%. | Fixed |
| No post-stage1b checkpoint tested whether the 13.3% gap persisted into the next day. | Without a next-day recheck, users could mistake stage1b values for a transient print. | Added current-round recheck table for 2026-02-21: DeFiLlama stays at 2,462,345,282, RWA updates to 2,172,960,457.85, and gap remains 289.38M (13.32%) despite lag-direction reversal. | Fixed |
| Filing freshness and benchmark timing boundaries were not explicit for weekend decision windows. | Could lead users to over-trust stale filing cadence or assume a same-day Treasury print exists on non-business days. | Added explicit boundaries: SEC submissions still show only D and D/A (latest acceptance 2025-07-18, 218-day staleness as of 2026-02-21) and Treasury 3M benchmark remains 3.69% on 2026-02-20 because 2026-02-21 is Saturday. | Fixed |
| RLUSD legal and VBILL launch citations contained stale URLs, weakening reproducibility for redemption-boundary claims. | Broken source links reduce confidence and make independent verification slower for compliance and investment committees. | Replaced stale links with active source URLs (`/legal/stablecoin` and `VanEck-Launches-First-Tokenized-Fund-VBILL-on-Securitize`) and added explicit source-date labels. | Fixed |
| RLUSD off-ramp section lacked reserve-coverage evidence and supervisory redemption baseline context. | Users could over-interpret "24/7" as guaranteed fiat redemption speed rather than a rail-level availability claim. | Added Ripple transparency balances (1,521.9M circulating vs 1,592.6M reserves as of 2026-02-12) plus NYDFS guidance boundary rows in the RLUSD decision matrix. | Fixed |
| Alias answer covered direct redemption but underweighted non-fund liquidity alternatives and their constraints. | Could miss practical route tradeoffs when users compare fund redemption, RLUSD conversion, and secondary-liquidity execution. | Added a liquidity-rail comparison table including UniswapX (2026-02-11) with whitelist, quote, and no-assurance caveats. | Fixed |
| BNB authenticity evidence remains incomplete in issuer anti-fraud source. | Transfer or collateral routing on BNB may carry contract-authenticity risk if treated as fully confirmed. | Kept explicit pending-confirmation labels because dashboards show BNB coverage but BlackRock anti-fraud list still has no BNB contract address. | Pending confirmation / 待确认 |
| Gap | Severity | Fix action |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory timeline had filing dates but not SEC acceptance timestamps or filing-count context. | High | Added SEC submissions API evidence: D accepted 2024-03-18T10:07:05Z and D/A accepted 2025-07-18T09:44:37Z with only two public filings in this sequence. |
| Rule 506(c) explanation underweighted fact-specific verification conditions. | High | Added SEC 2025 no-action interpretation boundary: high minimum investment is only one factor and depends on written representations plus no contrary knowledge. |
| No current-round refresh existed after stage1b to confirm conclusion stability. | High | Added 2026-02-21 recheck matrix showing DeFiLlama level unchanged, RWA nearly flat, and cross-source gap still ~13.32% under a reversed freshness lead. |
| Weekend benchmark and filing staleness boundaries were not explicit enough for live-decision users. | High | Added explicit timing notes: SEC filing sequence remains two entries only (latest acceptance 2025-07-18) and official Treasury 3M benchmark latest print is 2026-02-20 because 2026-02-21 is Saturday. |
| RLUSD redemption section lacked reserve-level evidence and could not distinguish solvency context from execution SLA. | High | Added Ripple transparency reserve snapshot (1,521.9M circulating vs 1,592.6M reserves, as-of 2026-02-12) and linked it to decision rules that keep route-level execution checks mandatory. |
| NYDFS supervision baseline was missing from RLUSD interpretation, leaving 24/7 wording easy to over-read. | High | Added NYDFS stablecoin guidance boundary (2022 guidance + 2025 amendment) to separate redemption-policy expectations from always-on token-conversion marketing text. |
| Evidence freshness stopped at 2026-02-21 and did not test persistence into the next day. | High | Added 2026-02-22 deep-enhance recheck showing unchanged DeFiLlama/RWA levels, unchanged 13.32% gap, and compressed lag (9h 52m 28s). |
| Liquidity alternatives were presented as narrative, not as structured tradeoff comparisons. | High | Added fund redemption vs RLUSD off-ramp vs UniswapX table with explicit improvements and limits (including whitelist/RFQ and no-liquidity-assurance caveats). |
| Growth narrative focused on level data, with limited visibility into momentum divergence. | High | Added 7d/30d/90d momentum table for total asset value, transfer volume, transfer count, and holder activity from RWA payload. |
| Peak-and-close framing lacked persistence statistics for threshold staying power. | High | Added threshold persistence table with first-cross dates and days-above-threshold counts for $1.0B/$2.0B/$2.5B in 2025. |
| Official launch disclosures on composition, stable-value caveat, and conflict wording were not surfaced in one place. | High | Added official disclosure matrix from the 2024-03-20 BlackRock launch release covering composition, minimum ticket, structure, stable-value caveat, and placement-conflict wording. |
| Token authenticity controls were missing from execution-risk guidance. | High | Added BlackRock-published official BUIDL token-address checklist (seven named networks plus an additional Ethereum entry) and explicit anti-fraud verification reminder. |
| Ethereum-specific alias intent lacked explicit 2024/2025 denominator decomposition. | High | Added Ethereum-vs-total AUM table and growth-attribution matrix showing Ethereum explains only 7.62% of 2024-12-31 to 2025-12-31 total growth in this method. |
| Cross-source gap interpretation over-weighted timestamp lag without a low-lag replication check. | High | Added stage1b refresh table (2026-02-20 late) where lag direction flips (RWA newer by 1h 02m 01s) while the gap remains 13.31%, isolating method/denominator effects. |
| Concentration proxy was stale and did not re-test holder-count compression after the 2026-02-19 refresh. | High | Added intraday holder-variance tracking (intermediate 88 then late-session 109) and average value-per-address reset (~24.69M -> ~19.94M) to keep concentration monitoring actionable. |
| Peer comparison lacked short-window directionality and counterexamples. | Medium | Added peer momentum matrix showing cases where transfer momentum diverges from asset-value momentum (USYC/OUSG/BENJI vs BUIDL). |
| Chain expansion narrative lacked source-to-source boundary and unresolved timestamp marker. | High | Added dated Solana evidence from Securitize release (2025-03-25) and kept explicit limit notes for coverage items that still lack per-chain activation timestamps. |
| Chain-level liquidity assumptions relied too much on aggregate size and missed transfer concentration divergence. | High | Added chain utilization table from token-level RWA payload: BNB now shows 23.21% value with 0% 30-day transfer flow, while Avalanche shows 3.79% value with 75.33% flow share. |
| Filing cadence guidance did not test Rule 503 timing requirements against observed filing dates. | High | Added Rule 503 cadence check table: first sale 2024-03-04 vs first Form D filed 2024-03-18 (14 days), plus public 487-day gap before D/A filing for staleness handling. |
| Fee disclosure scope mismatch (20 bps vs 50 bps) was not surfaced as a decision boundary. | High | Added fee-boundary table comparing Securitize Solana release management-fee line (20 bps) with RWA asset payload total_management_fee_bps = 50 and marked reconciliation as pending confirmation. |
| Freshness layer did not quantify how much the source gap changed after one more day of data. | High | Added 2026-02-19 delta-refresh table with absolute and percentage gap expansion, timestamp-lag jump, and direct decision implications. |
| Qualified-purchaser references lacked a numeric boundary from a high-trust regulatory explainer source. | High | Added SEC glossary evidence (last reviewed Feb. 6, 2026) with 5M individual and 25M entity examples, then tied it to eligibility caveats. |
| Cross-chain authenticity controls did not surface the BNB address-coverage mismatch. | High | Added explicit pending-confirmation marker: BNB appears in RWA/DeFiLlama coverage but is still absent from BlackRock anti-fraud address list snapshot. |
| Opportunity-cost benchmark was missing, so users could not compare BUIDL carry against a high-trust public baseline. | High | Added U.S. Treasury 3-month yield comparison checkpoints (2025-11-21, 2026-01-20, 2026-02-18 print, and 2026-02-20 print) against RWA 7-day APY references to quantify spread conditions. |
| Aggregate source-gap discussion lacked chain-level attribution and could overstate broad disagreement. | High | Added chain-gap attribution matrix showing Aptos contributes 101.62% of total DeFiLlama-vs-RWA gap while non-Aptos chains net to -1.62%. |
| Five-chain expansion chronology (Aptos/Arbitrum/Avalanche/Optimism/Polygon) lacked one dated issuer anchor in the evidence layer. | High | Added 2024-11-13 PRNewswire issuer release row with >520M AUM milestone and five-chain expansion scope, then wired it into chronology and source sections. |
| Ethereum-to-non-Ethereum regime shift date was not quantified, leaving late-2025 composition risk under-specified. | High | Added regime-shift table with first non-Ethereum majority day (2025-10-24), 69/365 non-Ethereum-majority persistence, and Q2-to-Q4 Ethereum-share compression. |
| Eligibility guidance lacked explicit Rule 501 numeric thresholds and Rule 2a51-1 valuation math. | High | Added eligibility-boundary matrix with Rule 501 net-worth/income thresholds and Rule 2a51-1 fair-value-plus-indebtedness deductions to prevent shortcut onboarding logic. |
| Chain launch timing could be misread from API first-nonzero dates alone. | High | Added issuer-date vs API-first-nonzero lag table (Aptos +189d, Solana +157d, Binance +22d) and explicit guardrail not to use API first appearance as launch proof. |
| Metric | 2026-02-18 baseline | 2026-02-19 refresh | Delta | Decision implication |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeFiLlama latest point | $2,462,224,800 (2026-02-18 round) | $2,462,411,535 (2026-02-19T19:35:59Z) | +$186,735 (+0.01%) | Size level is nearly flat in this source; gap widening is not driven by DeFiLlama level change. |
| DeFiLlama prior-day historical revision | $2,462,224,800 (2026-02-18 point captured on 2026-02-18) | $2,412,823,898 (same 2026-02-18 date point returned in 2026-02-19 pull) | -$49,400,902 (-2.01%) | Provider backfills can change prior-day checkpoints, so teams should save timestamped exports for audit trails. |
| RWA total asset value | $2,229,077,423 (_updated_at 2026-02-18T17:09:10+00:00) | $2,172,839,975.26 (_updated_at 2026-02-19T06:26:51+00:00) | -$56,237,447.74 (-2.52%) | Main contributor to wider cross-source gap in the delta-refresh round. |
| Cross-source absolute gap | $233,147,377 (10.46%) | $289,571,559.74 (13.33%) | +$56,424,182.74 (+2.87 percentage points) | Confidence boundary widened; single-source conclusions become less reliable. |
| Timestamp lag (DeFiLlama vs RWA) | 3h 12m 13s | 13h 09m 08s | +9h 56m 55s | Same-day comparisons should be treated as asynchronous snapshots rather than synchronized marks. |
| RWA transfer-volume momentum | +232.73% (30d) / -11.87% (7d) | +124.68% (30d) / -11.59% (7d) / -85.62% (90d) | 30d momentum cooled by -108.05 percentage points | Activity still elevated over 30 days, but growth pace has decelerated materially. |
| Qualified-purchaser boundary evidence | Mentioned conceptually | SEC glossary examples: 5M individual / 25M entity investments | Boundary is now numerically explicit | Ticket size cannot be reused as a legal shortcut for investor eligibility. |
| Chain support vs official address coverage | Address checklist covered Ethereum/Solana/Polygon/Avalanche/Optimism/Arbitrum/Aptos | RWA + DeFiLlama include BNB/Binance, but issuer address list still has no BNB entry | Mismatch remains unresolved | BNB transfer/collateral workflows should stay in pending-confirmation mode. |
| RWA denominator split | Total asset value emphasized | Payload also shows net_asset_value_dollar = 1 (per-token field) | Per-token vs aggregate denominator explicitly separated | Do not compare 1-dollar per-token NAV directly with billion-dollar aggregate size metrics. |
| Metric | 2026-02-19 refresh | 2026-02-20 refresh | Delta | Decision implication |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeFiLlama latest point | $2,462,411,535 (2026-02-19T19:35:59Z) | $2,462,345,282 (2026-02-20T21:04:35Z) | -$66,253 (-0.00%) | Topline size is effectively flat between consecutive refreshes. |
| RWA total asset value | $2,172,839,975.26 (_updated_at 2026-02-19T06:26:51+00:00) | $2,173,026,710.46 (_updated_at 2026-02-20T22:06:36+00:00) | +$186,735.20 (+0.01%) | RWA level is also flat day-over-day, so stage1b refresh isolates denominator behavior instead of trend shock. |
| Cross-source absolute gap | $289,571,559.74 (13.33%) | $289,318,571.54 (13.31%) | -$252,988.20 (-0.02 percentage points) | Gap persistence under low lag supports a method/denominator boundary interpretation. |
| Timestamp lag (DeFiLlama vs RWA) | 13h 09m 08s | RWA newer by 1h 02m 01s | -12h 07m 07s in absolute lag; freshness lead reverses | Lag compresses materially and lead flips, which rules out lag alone as the cause of the gap. |
| BUIDL APY vs U.S. 3M Treasury | 3.4676% vs 3.70% (Treasury print 2026-02-18) => -23.24 bps | 3.4776% vs 3.69% (Treasury print 2026-02-20) => -21.24 bps | +2.00 bps (still negative spread) | Carry remains below the official 3M Treasury benchmark in the newest checkpoint. |
| RWA holding addresses and average value | 109 addresses; ~$19.93M average value/address | 109 addresses; ~$19.94M average value/address | Net address count unchanged vs 2026-02-19; average value/address nearly flat | Daily close-level concentration proxy remains near prior-day level, but intraday swings still matter for governance checks. |
| Late-session same-day gap recheck | $289,571,559.74 (13.33%) at 13h 09m 08s lag | $289,318,571.54 (13.31%) at 1h 02m 01s lag (RWA newer) | -$252,988.20; freshness lead flips from DeFiLlama to RWA | Gap remains near 13.3% despite lag-direction reversal, reinforcing denominator-method boundary. |
| Intraday holder concentration variance (2026-02-20) | Intermediate print: 88 addresses; ~$24.69M average value/address (_updated_at 2026-02-20T15:48:49+00:00) | 109 addresses; ~$19.94M average value/address (_updated_at 2026-02-20T22:06:36+00:00) | +21 addresses; average -$4.75M (-19.23%) | Concentration proxy can swing intraday, so governance checks should track timestamped sequences, not one print. |
| Metric | 2026-02-20 late refresh | 2026-02-21 recheck | Delta | Decision implication |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeFiLlama latest point | $2,462,345,282 (2026-02-20T21:04:35Z) | $2,462,345,282 (2026-02-21T20:20:23Z) | $0 (0.00%) | Top-line DeFiLlama size is unchanged in the current-round recheck window. |
| RWA total asset value | $2,173,026,710.46 (_updated_at 2026-02-20T22:06:36+00:00) | $2,172,960,457.85 (_updated_at 2026-02-21T06:21:11+00:00) | -$66,252.61 (-0.00%) | Aggregate value is effectively flat, so headline drift is not a strong explanation for the persistent source gap. |
| Cross-source absolute gap | $289,318,571.54 (13.31%) | $289,384,824.15 (13.32%) | +$66,252.61 (+0.01 percentage points) | A one-day recheck keeps the gap near 13.3%, confirming persistence rather than a one-off spike. |
| Timestamp lag direction (DeFiLlama vs RWA) | RWA newer by 1h 02m 01s | DeFiLlama newer by 13h 59m 11s | Freshness lead flips back to DeFiLlama | Lag direction reverses while gap stays stable, reinforcing denominator/method boundary interpretation. |
| Holding addresses + average value per address (RWA) | 109 addresses; ~$19.94M average/address | 105 addresses; ~$20.69M average/address | -4 addresses; +$0.76M average (+3.81%) | Concentration proxy edges higher even though total value is flat. |
| 30-day activity turnover (BUIDL) | $235,881,535.93 volume; 10.85% turnover | $203,341,061.97 volume; 9.36% turnover | -$32,540,473.96 volume (-13.80%); -1.49 percentage points | Near-term activity signal softens, so execution assumptions should not rely on stage1b momentum alone. |
| Metric | 2026-02-21 recheck | 2026-02-22 deep-enhance recheck | Delta | Decision implication |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeFiLlama latest point | $2,462,345,282 (2026-02-21T20:20:23Z) | $2,462,345,282 (2026-02-22T16:10:11Z) | $0 (0.00%) | No top-line drift into the next-day refresh window; denominator interpretation remains the core uncertainty. |
| RWA total asset value | $2,172,960,457.85 (_updated_at 2026-02-21T06:21:11+00:00) | $2,172,960,457.85 (_updated_at 2026-02-22T06:17:43+00:00) | $0 (0.00%) | Aggregate RWA value is unchanged, so late-weekend recheck strengthens stability of the size-level baseline. |
| Cross-source absolute gap | $289,384,824.15 (13.32%) | $289,384,824.15 (13.32%) | $0 (0.00 percentage points) | Gap persistence survives one more day without magnitude drift, reinforcing method-boundary interpretation. |
| Timestamp lag direction (DeFiLlama vs RWA) | DeFiLlama newer by 13h 59m 11s | DeFiLlama newer by 9h 52m 28s | -4h 06m 43s absolute lag | Lag narrows while gap is unchanged, which further weakens stale-timestamp-only explanations. |
| RWA transfer momentum checkpoint | $203,341,061.97 (7d: -25.68%, 30d: +95.23%) | $203,340,813.11 (7d: -15.49%, 30d: +117.12%) | -$248.86 level; short-window momentum less negative | Flow level is flat but momentum mix shifts, so activity interpretation should be refreshed alongside size checks. |
| RLUSD reserve transparency checkpoint | Not quantified in current-round table | 1,521.9M circulating vs 1,592.6M reserve funds (as of 2026-02-12) | Added +70.7M reserve surplus context | Adds reserve-coverage evidence for RLUSD rail evaluation without replacing route-level redemption constraints. |
| Signal | Date | Evidence | Decision use | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC submissions API filing cadence | Snapshot 2026-02-21 | CIK 0002013810 still shows two filings in sequence: D (2024-03-18 acceptance 10:07:05Z) and D/A (2025-07-18 acceptance 09:44:37Z). | Use acceptance timestamps to estimate reporting lag and to avoid assuming filing fields are intraday operational data. | Submission timestamps do not provide NAV, TVL, transfer depth, or redemption capacity. |
| SEC filing staleness checkpoint | As of 2026-02-21 | Latest acceptance timestamp in the filing sequence remains 2025-07-18T09:44:37Z, which is 218 days before this refresh date. | Treat filing-layer numbers as periodic compliance disclosures, not near-real-time execution indicators. | Staleness interval alone does not indicate filing quality or legal sufficiency; counsel review is still required. |
| Treasury 3M benchmark weekend boundary | Current-round pull 2026-02-21 | Official U.S. Treasury daily yield curve CSV latest 3-month row is 2026-02-20 at 3.69%; 2026-02-21 is Saturday and has no new business-day print. | Avoids false precision when comparing 2026-02-21 RWA APY fields against a non-existent same-day Treasury row. | Daily Treasury CSV does not provide intraday timestamps, so spread checks remain business-day close references. |
| Latest deep-enhance persistence check | Refresh 2026-02-22 | DeFiLlama remains 2,462,345,282 at 2026-02-22T16:10:11Z and RWA remains 2,172,960,457.85 at 2026-02-22T06:17:43+00:00. Gap is unchanged at 289.38M (13.32%), with lag reduced to 9h 52m 28s. | Confirms one more day of persistence and narrows timestamp-lag explanations without resetting prior denominator boundaries. | Persistence alone does not identify exact provider-method causes for Aptos-weighted divergence. |
| RLUSD reserve coverage checkpoint | Transparency as-of 2026-02-12 | Ripple transparency page lists 1,521.9M circulating RLUSD and 1,592.6M reserve funds, with monthly independent attestation references and segregated-reserve language. | Adds solvency-context evidence when evaluating RLUSD as a settlement rail in BUIDL/VBILL workflows. | Reserve coverage does not disclose investor-specific conversion fees, queue priority, or guaranteed fiat settlement timing per channel. |
| NYDFS redemption-policy baseline (stablecoin guidance) | Guidance 2022-06-08; amended 2025-06-26 | NYDFS guidance requires clear redemption policies and generally expects redemptions in a timely manner no later than the end of the second business day after a request, with monthly reserve attestations and reserve-segregation standards. | Prevents interpreting 24/7 off-ramp marketing as a blanket guarantee of same-cycle fiat settlement under every route. | Guidance is supervisory baseline language and allows lawful exceptions; it is not a per-fund execution SLA. |
| BUIDL secondary-liquidity path expansion | Press release 2026-02-11 | Uniswap Labs + Securitize integration enables BUIDL trading via UniswapX RFQ with whitelisted participants and atomic settlement, while disclosures state no BlackRock assurance on liquidity, pricing, or platform availability. | Adds a concrete alternative rail for users who fail direct redemption fit checks, with explicit limitations. | Secondary-liquidity route still depends on whitelisted counterparty participation and quote depth at execution time. |
| Rule 503 notice + annual amendment timing | Current eCFR text + filing sequence through 2025-07-18 | Rule 503 requires initial Form D within 15 calendar days after first sale and annual amendments for ongoing offerings. BUIDL sequence shows first sale 2024-03-04 and first Form D filed 2024-03-18 (14 days), then next public D/A filing on 2025-07-18. | Supports a filing-staleness control: filing amounts are compliance snapshots and should not be treated as live AUM feeds. | This page does not make legal-compliance determinations; users should confirm filing obligations with counsel. |
| Rule 506(c) verification carry-forward window | Current eCFR text for Rule 506(c)(2)(ii) | Rule 506(c) allows a written representation method for persons previously verified as accredited investors, and the representation can satisfy verification for five years from prior verification date. | Prevents unnecessary re-verification loops while keeping accredited-investor checks separate from Section 3(c)(7) qualified-purchaser gating. | Five-year carry-forward applies to a specific verification method and does not remove issuer/distributor onboarding requirements. |
| Form D/A structural fields | Filed 2025-07-18 | Duration marked >1 year; securities type marked as pooled investment fund interests; sales commissions listed at 525,000 USD (estimate); finders fees listed at 0. | Supports legal-structure interpretation and cost disclosure checks before treating filed "amount sold" as execution-ready capital. | Form D fields still do not reconcile route-level subscription/redemption instructions. |
| Rule 506(c) no-action boundary (Latham & Watkins) | March 12, 2025 | SEC staff states high minimum investment can be relevant only with written representations and no contrary facts, including no third-party financing of the minimum ticket. | Prevents over-generalizing ticket size as a standalone compliance shortcut. | Letter states it has no legal force/effect and is tied to represented facts and conditions. |
| Accredited-investor assessment guidance | Last reviewed Aug. 8, 2025 | SEC guidance says self-certification (checkbox-only) is not sufficient; minimum investment is one factor under principles-based verification. | Supports boundary handling for the 100,000-5,000,000 USD ticket zone. | Guidance does not replace issuer/distributor-specific onboarding requirements. |
| Rule 501 accredited-investor numeric thresholds | eCFR snapshot 2026-02-18 | 17 CFR 230.501(a)(5)-(6) includes >$1,000,000 net worth test (excluding primary residence) and >$200,000 individual / >$300,000 joint income test with expected continuation. | Adds explicit threshold references so ticket-size triage is not confused with accreditation proof. | Rule 501 includes multiple categories and carve-outs; final determinations still require issuer/distributor review. |
| Rule 2a51-1 valuation and indebtedness deductions | eCFR snapshot 2026-02-18 | 17 CFR 270.2a51-1 states investments are valued at fair value or cost and requires deducting indebtedness incurred to acquire those investments when testing qualified-purchaser status. | Prevents gross-asset headlines from being reused as net eligibility proof without debt adjustments. | Public rule text does not provide issuer-specific evidence templates for each investor profile. |
| BlackRock launch disclosure boundary set | 2024-03-20 | Launch release states 5,000,000 USD initial minimum, 100% cash/T-bills/repo composition, and that BUIDL may not maintain stable $1 value at all times. | Anchors concept boundaries between private-placement cash-management exposure and guaranteed cash-equivalent assumptions. | Launch disclosures do not provide live AUM, route-level chronology, or venue-specific execution depth. |
| BlackRock official token-address anti-fraud notice | Snapshots 2026-02-18, 2026-02-19, 2026-02-20, 2026-02-21, and 2026-02-22 | Issuer resource lists official BUIDL addresses across Ethereum/Solana/Polygon/Avalanche/Optimism/Arbitrum/Aptos and warns users to verify every character because fake look-alike tokens exist. | Turns token-verification into an execution prerequisite for transfers, collateral setup, and custody routing. | Address verification mitigates spoofing risk but does not validate onboarding eligibility or settlement windows. |
| SEC glossary qualified-purchaser examples | Last reviewed Feb. 6, 2026 | SEC glossary describes qualified-purchaser examples as 5M in investments for individuals and 25M discretionary investments for entities. | Adds numeric context to Section 3(c)(7)-style gate discussions so ticket size is not misused as an eligibility proxy. | Glossary examples are educational guidance and do not replace issuer legal determinations or subscription documentation. |
| Five-chain expansion issuer milestone | 2024-11-13 | PRNewswire issuer release states BUIDL surpassed 520M USD in AUM and expanded to Aptos, Arbitrum, Avalanche, Optimism, and Polygon. | Adds dated launch anchors for five non-Ethereum chains and reduces chronology ambiguity in 2024-2025 analysis. | Milestone release does not disclose per-chain activation block times or full denominator reconciliation versus API snapshots. |
| Issuer-date vs API-first-nonzero chronology lag | Computed from issuer releases + DeFiLlama as of 2026-02-21 | Observed lags include Aptos +189 days, Solana +157 days, and Binance +22 days between issuer launch announcements and first nonzero DeFiLlama chain values. | Forces a dual-timestamp method: issuer date for launch chronology and API date for first-observed-liquidity checks. | Public methodology notes in this evidence set do not fully explain per-chain ingestion lag drivers. |
| Delta refresh: source lag and gap widening | Delta refresh 2026-02-19 | DeFiLlama last point (2026-02-19T19:35:59Z) vs RWA _updated_at (2026-02-19T06:26:51+00:00) shows 13h 09m 08s lag and 13.33% same-day size gap. | Prevents stale-confidence decisions by forcing users to include update-window mismatch in interpretation. | Single-day lag checks do not reveal intraday venue-level liquidity or full methodology internals. |
| BNB chain authenticity coverage mismatch | Snapshot 2026-02-22 | RWA FAQ and DeFiLlama chain data include BNB/Binance support, while BlackRock anti-fraud address list still omits a BNB contract for BUIDL. | Flags transfer/collateral workflows that need distributor or custodian confirmation before funds move on BNB routes. | Public sources in this evidence set still do not provide a dated issuer BNB contract-address publication. |
| Solana launch chronology and fee-scope boundary | Securitize release dated 2025-03-25 + RWA snapshot 2026-02-22 | 2024-11-13 issuer release already lists both 20 bps and 50 bps management-fee lines across chains, 2025-03-25 Solana release repeats 20 bps, and RWA asset payload reports total_management_fee_bps = 50. | Treats fee numbers as route/scope dependent instead of forcing one universal bps value for every execution path. | Public sources in this round still do not provide one current-date document that maps a complete fee schedule to every route and chain. |
| Stage1b low-lag replication check | Refresh 2026-02-20 | DeFiLlama latest point (2026-02-20T21:04:35Z) and RWA _updated_at (2026-02-20T22:06:36+00:00) show RWA as the newer source by 1h 02m 01s, yet the absolute gap remains 289.32M (13.31%). | Improves confidence that the observed gap is not driven only by stale timestamps or one-way source lag. | This check still cannot reveal full provider methodology internals for each chain denominator. |
| Current-round persistence check after stage1b | Refresh 2026-02-21 | DeFiLlama remains 2,462,345,282 at 2026-02-21T20:20:23Z while RWA shows 2,172,960,457.85 at 2026-02-21T06:21:11+00:00; same-day gap remains 289.38M (13.32%) with DeFiLlama now newer by 13h 59m 11s. | Confirms that gap persistence survives another-day refresh and lag-direction reversal, reducing false confidence in one-time alignment effects. | Provider methodology internals remain partially opaque; chain-level reconciliation still needs conservative interpretation. |
| Ethereum alias denominator split | DeFiLlama checkpoints through 2026-02-21 | Ethereum chain value rises from 381.40M (2024-12-31) to 496.05M (2025-12-31), while total fund size rises from 498.19M to 2.00B over the same window. | Prevents answering Ethereum-specific queries with aggregate AUM numbers only. | Provider chain series supports directional analysis but is not a legal share-class NAV statement. |
| Metric | Latest | 7d | 30d | 90d | Decision use |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total asset value (RWA payload) | $2,172,960,457.85 | +4.81% | +29.01% | -6.63% | Shows positive 30-day recovery but weaker 90-day anchor and lower level than the prior page snapshot. |
| Trailing 30-day transfer volume | $203,341,061.97 | -25.68% | +95.23% | -70.16% | Short-window cooling accelerates in the current round, and 30-day acceleration remains positive but lower than stage1b. |
| Trailing 30-day transfer count | 79 transfers | +3.95% | +64.58% | +16.18% | Count growth is positive, but it still trails value growth enough to keep concentration risk on the table. |
| Holding addresses count | 105 wallets | -1.87% | +0.96% | +7.14% | Holder growth remains positive on longer windows but is not monotonic in short windows. |
| Monthly active addresses (RWA field) | Unavailable in 2026-02-21 payload | N/A | N/A | N/A | Mark as pending confirmation / 暂无可靠公开数据 in this round instead of forcing a derived estimate. |
| Asset | Value 30d | Value 90d | Transfer 30d | Transfer 7d | Transfer 90d | Counterexample signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BUIDL | +29.01% | -6.63% | +95.23% | -25.68% | -70.16% | Size growth is strong over 30 days, yet short-window transfer momentum is negative. |
| USYC | +1.61% | +46.21% | +53.91% | -11.08% | +37.36% | Lower value than BUIDL with strong 30d transfer growth, but 7d transfer momentum is negative in the current snapshot. |
| OUSG | -3.17% | -8.76% | +233.11% | +3.30% | +1864.28% | Asset value remains down while transfer activity is structurally higher, showing persistent direction decoupling. |
| BENJI | +0.20% | +5.23% | +2.23% | +3.18% | -30.57% | Asset value is stable and transfer volume rises over 7d/30d but remains below the 90-day baseline, showing mixed momentum direction. |
| Source | Date | Observed scope | Decision use | Limit | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PRNewswire release: BlackRock launches new BUIDL share classes across multiple blockchains | 2024-11-13 | Announces BUIDL expansion to Aptos, Arbitrum, Avalanche, Optimism, and Polygon; release says BUIDL had surpassed 520M USD in AUM and was then available across seven chains. | Adds a dated issuer-level anchor for five-chain expansion and avoids using API first-nonzero dates as launch surrogates. | Press release is milestone-level and does not provide per-chain intraday activation timestamps. | Known |
| PRNewswire milestone release (Securitize) | 2025-03-13 | Launch path described as Ethereum first, then Aptos, Arbitrum, Avalanche, Optimism, and Polygon. | Gives an issuer-disclosed chain expansion baseline for 2025 milestone interpretation. | Release does not include a chain-by-chain timestamp table for subsequent additions. | Known |
| DeFiLlama protocol API (blackrock-buidl) | Last point 2026-02-21T20:20:23Z | Current chains list includes Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Aptos, Optimism, Binance, Avalanche, and Solana (8 chains). | Adds current multi-chain coverage for trend continuity and chain-mix checks. | API response shows current coverage but does not disclose the exact date each chain was added. | Known |
| RWA.xyz BUIDL FAQ JSON-LD | Captured 2026-02-21 (FAQ text last-updated field: 2026-02-20) | FAQ text lists Solana, BNB Chain, Ethereum, Aptos, Avalanche C-Chain, Arbitrum, Optimism, and Polygon. | Cross-validates chain coverage against an independent market dashboard view. | FAQ list confirms presence, not launch chronology. | Known |
| Securitize press release: Solana share-class expansion for BUIDL | 2025-03-25 | States BUIDL expansion to Solana, says BUIDL recently surpassed $1B in AUM, and lists seven supported chains at that date. | Provides dated issuer-level anchor for Solana launch timing and removes prior chronology ambiguity. | Release uses milestone language ("surpassed $1B") rather than a precise point-in-time AUM figure. | Known |
| Securitize press release: BNB Chain launch + Binance collateral usage | 2025-11-14 | Explicitly states BUIDL launches on BNB Chain and is accepted as off-exchange collateral for Binance institutional/advanced traders. | Converts BNB support from inferred API state to dated issuer-platform evidence. | Release body is operational and does not provide a precise BUIDL point-in-time AUM print; profile text mentions Securitize-wide 4B+ AUM (as of May 2025), which is a different denominator. | Known |
| Cross-source chronology reconciliation | As of 2026-02-21 | Issuer disclosures now provide dated anchors for Ethereum (2024-03-20), Aptos/Arbitrum/Avalanche/Optimism/Polygon (2024-11-13), Solana (2025-03-25), and BNB Chain (2025-11-14). | Reduces chronology ambiguity for all currently tracked live chains and separates launch timing from denominator and authenticity questions. | Issuer releases provide dated milestones, but not chain-by-chain activation block heights or venue-specific go-live times. | Known |
| Address-coverage reconciliation (issuer vs dashboards) | As of 2026-02-21 | RWA and DeFiLlama both include BNB/Binance chain support, while BlackRock anti-fraud resources list Ethereum, Solana, Polygon, Avalanche, Optimism, Arbitrum, and Aptos only. | Stops users from assuming every supported chain has issuer-published anti-fraud address coverage. | No dated issuer source in this evidence set publishes a BNB contract address for BUIDL. | Pending confirmation |
This section adds carry benchmark context plus filing-to-market bridge math so users can compare size conviction against opportunity cost and denominator drift.
| Checkpoint | BUIDL APY (7d) | U.S. Treasury 3M | Spread | Decision use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-11-21 (RWA 90d reference) | 3.7551% | 3.90% | -14.49 bps | Carry screen was negative at this checkpoint, so AUM growth should not be interpreted as automatic yield edge. |
| 2026-01-20 (RWA 30d reference) | 3.4506% | 3.70% | -24.94 bps | Spread compression widened in this window; users should compare route costs before using BUIDL as yield proxy. |
| 2026-02-19 snapshot (Treasury print 2026-02-18) | 3.4676% | 3.70% | -23.24 bps | Latest check remains negative, so execution rationale should rely on access/liquidity fit, not carry premium assumptions. |
| 2026-02-20 stage1b snapshot (Treasury print 2026-02-20) | 3.4776% | 3.69% | -21.24 bps | Low-lag refresh still shows negative spread, so carry remains a secondary factor versus execution fit and control requirements. |
| 2026-02-21 current-round recheck (weekend carry-forward) | 3.4776% | 3.69% (latest business-day print 2026-02-20) | -21.24 bps | Weekend refresh confirms no same-day Treasury print change; carry conclusion remains unchanged and should not be over-interpreted. |
| Bridge check | Filing-side metric | Market-side metric | Observed gap | Decision use | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Filing-date bridge (2025-07-18) | Form D/A total amount sold = $3,251,152,228 | DeFiLlama same-date size = $2,792,382,656 | -$458,769,572 (-14.11%) | Shows filing and market datasets were already apart on filing date, so they are not interchangeable denominators. | Public sources in this set do not provide a full reconciliation waterfall for the difference. |
| Latest bridge vs DeFiLlama snapshot | Form D/A total amount sold = $3,251,152,228 | DeFiLlama latest = $2,462,345,282 (2026-02-21T20:20:23Z) | -$788,806,946 (-24.26%) | Quantifies denominator drift after filing date and avoids treating filed sold amount as live market size. | Form D cadence is periodic, not intraday; the filing amount is not designed as a real-time NAV feed. |
| Latest bridge vs RWA snapshot | Form D/A total amount sold = $3,251,152,228 | RWA total asset value = $2,172,960,457.85 (_updated_at 2026-02-21T06:21:11+00:00) | -$1,078,191,770.15 (-33.16%) | Adds a second live-data denominator check and keeps confidence bounds explicit for allocation committees. | Timestamp lag and provider methodology still require cross-source interpretation controls. |
| Investor-count bridge | Form D/A investors already invested = 42 | RWA holding addresses = 105 | 2.50 addresses per filing investor (avg sold/investor = $77.41M; avg value/address = $20.69M) | Prevents using wallet count as a direct proxy for legal investor count or capital concentration. | Filing investor count and wallet addresses are different layers and reference dates. |
| Chain bucket | DeFiLlama | RWA.xyz | Diff (DeFi-RWA) | Contribution | Decision use |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aptos | $558,878,635 | $264,813,643 | +$294,064,992.24 | 101.62% of total gap | Most aggregate DeFiLlama-vs-RWA gap is concentrated in Aptos mapping in this snapshot. |
| Ethereum (RWA two addresses aggregated) | $688,887,585 | $694,134,071 | -$5,246,485.20 | -1.81% of total gap | After aggregation, Ethereum is near parity across sources and helps isolate where mismatch is not concentrated. |
| BNB/Binance | $505,401,693 | $504,385,067 | +$1,016,626.62 | 0.35% of total gap | Coverage is directionally aligned in market data, while issuer anti-fraud BNB address publication remains pending. |
| All non-Aptos chains combined | $1,903,466,647 | $1,908,146,815 | -$4,680,167.42 | -1.62% of total gap | Without Aptos, the net gap slightly reverses, so broad cross-source mismatch claims are over-generalized. |
Chain-level size, chain-level flow, and regulatory filing cadence are evaluated together so one AUM headline does not drive execution decisions by itself.
| Chain | Value share | 30d transfer share | 30d turnover | Counterexample signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ethereum (two addresses combined) | 31.94% | 7.97% | 2.33% | Largest value share does not imply dominant transfer flow in the same 30-day window. |
| Solana | 25.43% | 2.23% | 0.82% | Second-largest value share still carries much less flow than Avalanche in this snapshot. |
| BNB Chain | 23.21% | 0.00% | 0.00% | High value share can coexist with zero measured 30-day transfer flow. |
| Aptos | 12.19% | 13.28% | 10.20% | Value and flow shares are closer here, showing not all chains have the same divergence pattern. |
| Avalanche C-Chain | 3.79% | 75.33% | 186.17% | Small value base can still dominate measured transfer activity. |
| Arbitrum + Optimism + Polygon | 3.44% | 1.19% | 3.24% | Tail-chain aggregate confirms that low value and low flow can coexist, with some zero-flow entries. |
| Checkpoint | Concentration | Top chain share | Top-4 share | Implication |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-12-31 | HHI = 0.606 | Ethereum 76.56% | 99.78% | Launch-year chain concentration was very high and mostly one-chain dominated. |
| 2025-12-31 | HHI = 0.222 | Aptos 27.86% | 90.52% | Concentration dropped materially as BUIDL expanded into multiple chains. |
| 2026-02-20 | HHI = 0.224 | Ethereum 27.98% | 93.64% | Post-expansion profile stays diversified relative to 2024 but remains top-four-chain concentrated. |
| Check | Requirement | Observed evidence | Decision use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 503 initial notice timing | Form D must be filed within 15 calendar days after first sale of securities. | First sale date in D/A = 2024-03-04; first Form D filed = 2024-03-18 (14 days). | Useful for compliance-timeline context, but still not a real-time size feed. |
| Rule 503 annual amendment timing for ongoing offerings | For ongoing offerings, amendment is due on or before the first anniversary of prior filing/amendment. | Public SEC sequence shows D filed 2024-03-18 and next D/A filed 2025-07-18 (487-day gap). | Treat filing-based amount sold as periodic disclosure, not as an intraday benchmark for execution. |
| Rule 506(c) carry-forward verification scope | Written-representation method for previously verified accredited investors can satisfy verification for five years from prior verification date. | eCFR text defines this method-specific lookback and does not merge it with Section 3(c)(7) qualified-purchaser checks. | Prevents compliance shortcuts that mix accredited-investor and qualified-purchaser gates. |
| Source | Disclosed value | Scope | Boundary |
|---|---|---|---|
| PRNewswire multi-chain expansion release (2024-11-13) | Management-fee lines split by chain (20 bps and 50 bps across listed networks) | Issuer milestone release covering Aptos/Arbitrum/Avalanche/Optimism/Polygon expansion context. | Milestone text provides chain-level fee references but not a complete current-date fee schedule for every operational route. |
| Securitize Solana expansion release (2025-03-25) | Management Fee: 20 bps | Appears in Solana share-class announcement context with release-level notes. | Does not explicitly declare itself as a universal fee schedule across every BUIDL route. |
| RWA BUIDL payload (2026-02-21) | total_management_fee_bps = 50; total_performance_fee_bps = 0 | Asset-level dashboard field set used in this page calculations. | Public payload does not provide full legal-document mapping for each fee field scope. |
| Cross-source reconciliation status | 20 bps vs 50 bps remains unresolved | Current public evidence in this update round | Mark as pending confirmation before applying either number to channel-level cost forecasting. |
Size alone is insufficient. Compare transfer behavior, normalized turnover, yield proxy, and ticket/access constraints across adjacent tokenized treasury assets.
In this four-asset set, BUIDL accounts for about 39.55% of total asset value at the snapshot date.
| Asset | Total asset value | 30-day transfer volume | 30-day turnover | Holder count | 7-day APY | Primary minimum ticket | Primary redemption floor | Investor gate | Fit signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BUIDL (BlackRock) | $2,172,960,458 | $203,341,062 | 9.36% | 105 | 3.48% | $5,000,000 | $250,000 | U.S. Qualified Purchaser (USD route) | Largest by asset value, but turnover is much lower than USYC/OUSG and execution thresholds are the strictest. |
| USYC (Circle) | $1,717,579,501 | $609,717,157 | 35.50% | 53 | 3.05% | $100,000 | $0 | Non-U.S. Investor | Lower value than BUIDL but much higher turnover and significantly lower primary thresholds. |
| BENJI (Franklin) | $894,154,464 | $5,053,686 | 0.57% | 1,042 | 3.52% | $20 | Not publicly disclosed | U.S. Retail + Institutional | Smallest subscription floor and broadest holder count profile, but transfer turnover is materially lower. |
| OUSG (Ondo) | $708,561,657 | $347,595,688 | 49.06% | 76 | 3.37% | $100,000 (USD) / $5,000 (USDC) | $100,000 (USD) / $5,000 (USDC) | U.S. Qualified Purchaser | Lower value than BUIDL but strongest turnover in this set and lower route-level thresholds. |
Risk section is action-oriented: every risk includes a direct mitigation path.
| Risk | Impact | Probability | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source-method mismatch risk | High | High | Always compare at least two data providers before drawing trend conclusions from one date point. |
| Denominator confusion risk (filing sold amount vs TVL vs dashboard value) | High | High | Bind every headline number to its denominator and decision use before drawing allocation conclusions. |
| Ethereum-alias denominator swap risk (Ethereum-only AUM vs total-fund AUM) | High | High | Use the Ethereum-specific checkpoint table before answering "ethereum 2024 2025 aum" queries; do not substitute aggregate total-fund values for chain-specific values. |
| Ticket-floor interpretation risk (100,000 vs 5,000,000) | High | Medium | Treat <100,000 as hard mismatch and 100,000-5,000,000 as channel-check zone until distributor confirms route-specific constraints. |
| Operational cutoff miss risk (2:30 PM ET subscription / 3:00 PM ET redemption) | High | Medium | Model order operations against intraday windows and queue backup settlement paths before execution. |
| Regulatory gate confusion risk (accredited investor vs qualified purchaser) | High | Medium | Separate Rule 506(c) verification duties from Section 3(c)(7) eligibility checks and document both in pre-trade workflow. |
| No-action letter overgeneralization risk | High | Medium | Treat 2025 SEC no-action interpretation as fact-specific staff guidance: confirm written representations, no contrary knowledge, and no third-party financing assumptions before reuse. |
| Access/eligibility mismatch risk | High | Medium | Validate investor type, KYC path, and minimum subscription thresholds before planning execution. |
| Stable-value over-assumption risk | High | Medium | Treat the "$1 per token" statement as a target, not a guarantee; include stress scenarios where token value can deviate. |
| 24/7 rail substitution risk (token conversion vs fiat redemption) | High | Medium | Separate token-conversion availability from fiat-redemption settlement policy. Validate customer eligibility, jurisdiction, and route-level cutoff/SLA terms before assuming instant cash exit. |
| Secondary-liquidity dependency risk (whitelisted RFQ depth) | High | Medium | Treat UniswapX and third-party liquidity as conditional execution paths. Pre-check active counterparties, quote depth, and fallback redemption route before committing position size. |
| Token impersonation / wrong-contract risk | High | Medium | Verify contract addresses against BlackRock official token-address list before any transfer, collateral setup, or custody routing. |
| Peak anchoring risk (2025) | Medium | High | Use year-end and multi-date checkpoints instead of one headline peak value. |
| Liquidity over-assumption risk | Medium | Medium | Treat transfer volume as a signal only; confirm real execution venue depth before trading decisions. |
| Chain value-flow divergence risk | High | Medium | Track chain-level value share and transfer share together; do not infer executable liquidity from one chain metric alone. |
| API first-nonzero launch-date inference risk | High | Medium | Use issuer-dated launch announcements for chronology and treat API first-nonzero timestamps as observability checkpoints only. |
| Momentum-window mismatch risk | Medium | High | Read 7d/30d/90d metrics together. Do not extrapolate a single 30-day surge into stable execution conditions. |
| Timestamp-lag blind spot risk | High | Medium | Track source update timestamps in parallel with values; when lag exceeds several hours, downgrade confidence and avoid synchronous assumptions. |
| False lag-causality risk (assuming all gap comes from stale timestamps) | High | Medium | Use multi-round replication checks. 2026-02-20 stage1b shows RWA newer by 1h 02m 01s with a 13.31% gap, 2026-02-21 flips lead back to DeFiLlama by 13h 59m 11s with a 13.32% gap, and 2026-02-22 still shows 13.32% with lag compressed to 9h 52m 28s. |
| Qualified-purchaser shorthand risk (ticket size reused as legal proof) | High | Medium | Use ticket size only as an initial screen; document accredited-investor verification and qualified-purchaser evidence separately before trade approval. |
| BNB address-coverage mismatch risk | High | Medium | If BNB is shown in dashboard/API coverage but absent from issuer anti-fraud addresses, require distributor/custodian confirmation before any BNB transfer or collateral workflow. |
| Per-token vs aggregate denominator mix-up risk | High | Medium | Label metrics as per-token (for example NAV = 1) or aggregate (billions of total asset value) before running comparisons or alerts. |
| Fee-scope mismatch risk (20 bps vs 50 bps) | Medium | Medium | Treat release-level fee lines and dashboard fee fields as separate scopes until issuer/distributor documentation reconciles denominator and route coverage. |
| Carry benchmark blind-spot risk | Medium | Medium | Benchmark BUIDL APY against official U.S. 3-month Treasury yields before assuming carry advantage from AUM growth headlines. |
| Weekend benchmark-staleness risk | Medium | Medium | When current date is a non-business day, pin benchmark comparisons to the latest published Treasury row and label it explicitly as carry-forward (for example, 2026-02-20 print used on 2026-02-21). |
| Wallet-count proxy risk | High | Medium | Do not use onchain holding addresses as a legal investor-count proxy; keep Form D investor counts and wallet metrics in separate controls. |
Decision-oriented answers grouped by intent and execution stage.
Every key number above maps to at least one dated source. Evidence refreshed at 2026-02-20 21:04 UTC (DeFiLlama) / 2026-02-20 22:06 UTC (RWA) | 2026-02-20 22:20 UTC (cross-source + peer + MMF-boundary refresh) | 2026-02-21 20:20 UTC (DeFiLlama) / 2026-02-21 06:21 UTC (RWA) / 2026-02-21 22:34 UTC (SEC + Treasury + BlackRock resources) | 2026-02-22 16:10 UTC (DeFiLlama) / 2026-02-22 06:17 UTC (RWA) / 2026-02-22 18:32 UTC (Ripple + Securitize + NYDFS boundary refresh).
| Source | Date | Type | Decision note |
|---|---|---|---|
| BlackRock launch release (Business Wire): BUIDL issued on Ethereum | 2024-03-20 | Issuer press release | Launch disclosure source for initial 5,000,000 USD minimum investment, 100% cash/T-bills/repo composition, Rule 506(c)/Section 3(c)(7) structure, stable-value caveat, and placement compensation/conflict wording. |
| PRNewswire: BlackRock launches new BUIDL share classes across Aptos/Arbitrum/Avalanche/Optimism/Polygon | 2024-11-13 | Issuer/platform press release | Adds dated evidence for five-chain expansion wave, states BUIDL surpassed 520M USD AUM at that milestone, and provides chain-level management-fee lines (20 bps and 50 bps across listed networks). |
| SEC Form D (initial filing) - BlackRock USD Institutional Digital Liquidity Fund Ltd. | Filed 2024-03-18 | Regulatory filing | Shows Rule 506(c), Section 3(c)(7), first sale yet to occur, minimum investment accepted = 100,000 USD, and amount sold = 0. |
| SEC Form D/A (amendment) - BlackRock USD Institutional Digital Liquidity Fund Ltd. | Filed 2025-07-18 | Regulatory filing | Shows first sale date 2024-03-04, total amount sold = 3,251,152,228 USD, investors = 42, and minimum investment accepted = 100,000 USD. |
| SEC submissions API (CIK 0002013810) | Snapshot 2026-02-21 | Regulatory data API | Confirms filing sequence and acceptance timestamps for forms D and D/A under file number 021-507840; current-round snapshot still shows only two filings in this sequence. |
| SEC exempt offerings page: General solicitation - Rule 506(c) | Published 2024-06-21, reviewed 2024-06-28 | Regulatory guidance | States that Rule 506(c) allows general solicitation only when all purchasers are accredited investors and issuers take reasonable verification steps. |
| SEC capital-raising building block: Assessing Accredited Investors under Regulation D | Published 2025-03-21, reviewed 2025-08-08 | Regulatory guidance | Explains Rule 506(c) verification factors, non-exclusive verification methods, and limits of investor self-certification. |
| eCFR Rule 503: Filing of notice of sales | Current text snapshot 2026-02-19 | Regulatory rule text | Defines 15-day initial Form D filing window after first sale and annual amendment timing for ongoing offerings. |
| eCFR Rule 506: Verification methods under 506(c) | Current text snapshot 2026-02-19 | Regulatory rule text | Provides method-specific accredited-investor verification language, including the five-year written-representation carry-forward condition. |
| eCFR Rule 501: Accredited investor definitions and thresholds | Current text snapshot 2026-02-18 | Regulatory rule text | Provides numeric accredited-investor examples used in this page (for example >1,000,000 USD net worth excluding primary residence, or >200,000 / >300,000 income tests). |
| eCFR Rule 2a51-1: Definition of investments for qualified-purchaser calculations | Current text snapshot 2026-02-18 | Regulatory rule text | Defines valuation math and indebtedness deductions used when interpreting qualified-purchaser investment thresholds. |
| SEC glossary: Qualified Purchaser | Last reviewed Feb. 6, 2026 | Regulatory glossary | Educational SEC glossary entry gives qualified-purchaser examples: 5M in investments for individuals and 25M discretionary investments for entities. |
| SEC Division of Corporation Finance no-action response (Latham & Watkins, Rule 506(c)) | Last reviewed 2025-03-12 | Regulatory staff guidance | States high minimum investment can be a relevant verification factor only with written representations and no contrary facts; letter explicitly notes no legal force/effect. |
| SEC press release: Money market fund reforms | Adopted 2023-07-12 | Regulatory announcement | Primary SEC release for registered MMF reform package referenced in this page, including tighter daily/weekly liquidity baseline discussion. |
| SEC fact sheet: Money market fund reforms (Rule 2a-7 package) | Published 2023-07-12 | Regulatory fact sheet | Fact sheet used for the 25% daily and 50% weekly liquidity-minimum reference in MMF boundary checks. |
| DeFiLlama API: protocol detail for blackrock-buidl | Snapshots 2026-02-18, 2026-02-19, 2026-02-20, 2026-02-21, and 2026-02-22 | Market data API | Primary series used for checkpoints, Ethereum-vs-total denominator splits, and source-gap calculations. Latest deep-enhance pull captures 2026-02-22T16:10:11Z with totalLiquidityUSD still 2,462,345,282. |
| RWA.xyz asset page: BUIDL | Snapshots 2026-02-18, 2026-02-19, 2026-02-20, 2026-02-21, and 2026-02-22 | Market data dashboard | Provides total asset value, transfer metrics, holder/activity counts, per-token NAV field, and primary-market operations windows. Latest deep-enhance pull captures _updated_at 2026-02-22T06:17:43.399645+00:00. |
| RWA.xyz peer asset pages (USYC/OUSG/BENJI) | Snapshots 2026-02-21 and 2026-02-22 | Market data dashboard | Peer comparison set also references /assets/OUSG and /assets/BENJI for transfer, turnover, APY, and threshold contrasts. |
| U.S. Treasury daily yield curve rates (2026 CSV) | Pulled 2026-02-22 | Official rate data | Official benchmark used for 3-month Treasury prints in APY spread checks. Latest pull still shows the most recent 3M row at 3.69% on 2026-02-20 (no newer business-day row during weekend checks). |
| U.S. Treasury daily yield curve rates (2025 CSV) | Pulled 2026-02-21 | Official rate data | Used with RWA APY historical reference fields to benchmark spread checkpoints on 2025-11-21 and 2026-01-20. |
| Securitize press release: BUIDL accepted as Binance collateral and launched on BNB Chain | 2025-11-14 | Issuer/platform press release | Dated evidence for BNB chain expansion and Binance collateral functionality; release body is operational (not a precise BUIDL point-in-time AUM print) and includes platform-level Securitize AUM context in company profile text. |
| Securitize press release: BUIDL debuts Solana share class | 2025-03-25 | Issuer/platform press release | Provides dated Solana expansion evidence, states BUIDL recently surpassed 1B USD in AUM, and includes a 20 bps management-fee line in the release context. |
| PR Newswire: BUIDL surpasses $1B in AUM | 2025-03-13 | Press release | Milestone communication used for launch/chain-expansion chronology before Solana and BNB additions; decision numbers stay anchored to filings and APIs. |
| Securitize press release: VanEck launches VBILL fund | 2025-05-13 | Issuer/platform press release | Provides chain-tier minimum subscriptions (100,000 on Avalanche/BNB/Solana and 1,000,000 on Ethereum), 20 bps annual management fee, and daily redemption rights with no lockup period. |
| Securitize primary-market page: VanEck Treasury Fund (VBILL) | Captured 2026-02-22 | Issuer/platform product page | Adds route-level operations detail (instant issuance/liquidity language, cutoff windows, hold-period notes, and third-party-liquidity caveats) used in RLUSD-rail boundary checks. |
| Securitize press release: Ripple and Securitize enable RLUSD off-ramp for BUIDL and VBILL | 2025-09-23 | Issuer/platform press release | Confirms BUIDL holders can exchange shares for RLUSD around the clock, with VBILL support rolling out in coming days; rollout starts on Ethereum and expands to XRPL. |
| Securitize + Uniswap Labs press release: BUIDL liquidity option via UniswapX | 2026-02-11 | Issuer/platform press release | Documents whitelisted RFQ counterparties, atomic settlement path, and explicit no-assurance language on liquidity/pricing/availability. |
| Ripple RLUSD transparency reports and reserve dashboard | Snapshot 2026-02-22 (as-of balance date 2026-02-12) | Issuer transparency page | Provides circulating RLUSD and reserve-fund balances (1,521.9M vs 1,592.6M in this snapshot), monthly attestation links, and reserve-segregation framing. |
| Ripple legal terms: Ripple USD (RLUSD) terms | Last updated 2024-10-03 | Issuer legal terms | Defines customer-gated 1:1 redemption rights, reserve composition rules, suspension events, and no-deposit-insurance / not-legal-tender disclosures used in settlement-rail boundary analysis. |
| NYDFS guidance on issuance of U.S. dollar-backed stablecoins | Issued 2022-06-08 | Regulatory guidance | Baseline supervisory guidance referenced for reserve, redemption-policy, and disclosure expectations on NYDFS-regulated stablecoin issuers. |
| NYDFS amended guidance on U.S. dollar-backed stablecoins | Amended 2025-06-26 | Regulatory guidance | Adds updated supervisory language on timely redemption policy expectations and attestation/disclosure cadence, used as boundary context for 24/7 off-ramp claims. |
| BlackRock scams and fraud resources: official BUIDL token addresses | Snapshots 2026-02-18, 2026-02-19, 2026-02-20, 2026-02-21, and 2026-02-22 | Issuer risk-control resource | Provides official addresses for Ethereum/Solana/Polygon/Avalanche/Optimism/Arbitrum/Aptos and anti-fraud warning; as of 2026-02-22 snapshot, no BNB address is listed. |
Disclosure
Informational only. Not financial advice. Data points are source- bounded snapshots and can change.