Chronicle Research / 2026
TheTransparency Gap
A $12.3B Blind Spot in Tokenized Asset Infrastructure
The tokenized asset market has inherited a patchwork of disclosure practices established at the discretion of individual issuers. The result is a market growing faster than the infrastructure required to underwrite it. This report defines, explores, and measures that gap by evaluating 20 of the largest tokenized assets against five measurable dimensions of transparency.
01 / The problem
Tokenized assets are outpacing infrastructure adoption
The tokenized asset market is growing faster than the infrastructure required to underwrite it. Disclosure remains fragmented, with frequency, quality, and depth largely at the discretion of individual issuers.
Anyone can see token supply, ownership by address, and transfer activity in real time. But true onchain financial utility requires sufficient risk evaluation. Precise, accurate, and readily available data about the underlying real-world holdings of tokenized assets is paramount.
02 / The framework
Five dimensions of tokenized asset transparency
The spectrum spans from limited information self-reported by an asset issuer to independently reported and verified data published onchain, with third-party attestations, audits, and reserve reports in between. The report evaluates assets across five dimensions: independence, granularity, frequency, verifiability, and onchain availability.
- 01
Independence
Whether an independent third party is responsible for reporting the data, or whether the asset issuer or tokenization platform reports it directly.
- 02
Granularity
Whether the method surfaces high-level, aggregate reserve value(s) or a single net asset value (NAV) versus individual, asset-level holdings.
- 03
Frequency
The reporting cadence of a given method, from daily to annual.
- 04
Verifiability
Whether data can be independently verified to be valid and tamper-free, or if an external party must be trusted.
- 05
Onchain availability
Whether data exists onchain for DeFi protocols and smart contracts to reference.
03 / The finding
Only 29.2% of sampled tokenized asset value currently meets a sufficient transparency standard.
100% of sampled assets feature some form of transparency, but that share decreases substantially with each additional dimension layered on.
of sampled value clears all five dimensions.
$12.3B in value relies on trust in its holdings rather than proof of them.
04 / Perspectives
Perspectives on the transparency gap
Institutional partners do not accept transparency as a claim, they verify it at the asset level. Grove's ability to allocate capital and act quickly under each partner mandate depends on knowing the status of the full portfolio at all times, including assets that originate offchain. Proof of Asset closes that gap, sourcing holdings, valuation, and custody data directly from custodians and administrators and delivering it onchain consistently. Partners deepen their mandates where they can verify, and that is how onchain credit scales.
Moving a fund onchain shouldn’t mean leaving the underlying information behind. The data describing the composition of JTRSY and JAAA’s portfolios originates offchain, and making that data independently verifiable onchain is a fundamental part of representing those assets properly.
The future of onchain finance is one where checking is cheaper than trusting. Making critical asset data continuously verifiable gives onchain platforms a stronger foundation for managing risk as they scale.
Download the full report
The gap is measurable. So is the fix. Download the report to see all 20 assets scored across five dimensions, plus the full methodology.
05 / FAQ
FAQ
About the sample, methodology, and five dimensions of transparency.