Everyone is trying to make tokenized stocks yield-bearing assets now. But stocks don't magically generate extra cash flow just because they're onchain. So who's actually paying for all this yield? Apparently, 42% of tokenized stock supply was classified as DeFi-eligible collateral, but: – $81M, or 2.6% of total issuance, was sitting in lending markets. – $188.9M, or ~6% of issuance, was deployed across broader DeFi (AMMs, Pendle, and vaults). I'm also seeing that deposited capital doesn't necessarily mean productive capital. Just look at the lending numbers: – @kamino Opening Bell: ~$38M deposited, only $7.5M borrowed – Kamino xStocks: ~$29M deposited, $5.2M borrowed – @SentoraHQ xStocks: $7.8M deposited, just $600K in debt – @lista_dao bStocks: ~$7.64M collateral, ~$3.67M borrowed Lots of collateral sitting there. Not nearly as much borrowing happening against it. Makes me think debt growth relative to deposits is gonna matter way more than headline TVL. @krakenfx's xStocks vaults were offering estimated net yields of ~1.8–2%, with a 25% performance fee. Underneath, the vault takes your stock token, posts it as collateral, borrows stables, puts those in DeFi, then compounds whatever spread is left back into the stock position. So users get whatever is left after downstream strategy returns, stablecoin borrowing costs, fees, and other frictions are accounted for. Compare that with STRCx on @pendle_fi, which gives us a glimpse of what tokenized equity yield markets could eventually become. STRCx had a 12% annualized variable dividend rate. Unlike a typical growth stock, there's an actual external distribution stream to work with. – $33.5M of STRCx exposure was on Pendle – ~97% of DeFi-deployed STRCx was sitting in one yield-splitting venue – Nov 25 maturity showed ~24.4% implied APY vs ~12.22% underlying APY Pendle is pricing and redistributing claims on that future cash flow between PT and YT buyers. We're starting to see an actual market for the time value of tokenized security income. Because for something like NVDAx or TSLAx to generate extra yield, someone somewhere has to pay. You can wrap the same asset five times, but you can't wrap your way into five independent sources of cash flow. Which is why I suspect preferred shares, dividend-paying ETFs, and other cash-flow-heavy securities could develop deeper yield markets before the most speculative single-name stocks do. Another thing to watch is which stocks people actually want to borrow against. ~21% of SPYx supply was in lending markets versus only ~5–6% for NVDAx and TSLAx. Makes me wonder maybe the sexiest stock to trade isn't necessarily the best collateral? Also worth remembering that equity perps had ~$3.3B OI vs ~$81M in lending collateral, ~40x. Demand for leveraged stock exposure is overwhelmingly choosing perps over borrowing against spot tokens. And tbh that makes sense when a perp is one click, while spot-backed leverage has to deal with collateral haircuts, oracle updates, issuer redemption, and U.S. market closures. A token trading 24/7 doesn't automatically mean the underlying stock can be liquidated safely over the weekend. That might be the biggest bottleneck in this entire stack. So yeah, I think we're still insanely early in the tokenized stock game. The TVL is starting to show up, but the actual yield economy behind all of this still very much a work in progress.