Community Research: On-Chain Analysis of JTRSY Holder Distribution, ALMProxy Fund Flows, and deRWA Adoption Metrics

Community
1

Hi Centrifuge community,

I’m Shreyans, a university student and EVM developer focused on RWA tokenization. Over the past few weeks I did an independent on-chain analysis of how capital flows through Centrifuge’s tokenized Treasury products. I’m sharing the findings here because I think they’re relevant to the protocol’s growth strategy and worth discussing openly.

The full analysis (with every contract address linked and source code references) is published here:

X thread with key findings:
https://x.com/ShreyansTatiya/status/2041298436646227984

Summary of Key Findings

All data verified on-chain as of April 6, 2026.

1. JTRSY Holder Concentration

JTRSY (0x8c213ee79581Ff4984583C6a801e5263418C4b86) has 7 holders on Ethereum with a total value of ~$1.24B. The top holder - Spark’s ALMProxy (0x491EDFB0B8b608044e227225C715981a30F3A44E) - holds 99.46% of the supply.

The ALMProxy is a verified contract administered by MakerDAO/Sky’s SubProxy governance contract. It holds a $3B+ portfolio across multiple RWA protocols:

  • ~$1.23B in JTRSY (Centrifuge)
  • ~$756M in BUIDL-I (BlackRock/Securitize)
  • ~$128M in JAAA (Centrifuge)
  • ~$101M in STAC (Securitize)
  • ~$999M in AUSD (Aave)

This single wallet funds both Centrifuge and its direct competitors from the same balance sheet.

2. Sector-Wide Concentration

This pattern extends beyond Centrifuge. Spark/MakerDAO controls over two-thirds of the $3.5B tokenized US Treasuries market. For comparison:

Token Holders MakerDAO Share
JTRSY (Centrifuge) 7 99.4%
BUIDL-I (BlackRock) 3 84.7%
JAAA (Centrifuge) 9 ~32%
USDY (Ondo) 742 0%
OUSG (Ondo) 56 0%

3. deRWA Adoption - The Infrastructure Paradox

This is the finding I think matters most for Centrifuge’s roadmap.

Centrifuge has built real DeFi integrations for deRWA tokens - Morpho lending, Aerodrome DEX, Coinbase, OKX, and Bitget wallet support reaching 200M+ users. The infrastructure exists.

But the on-chain holder data tells a different story:

Token Chain Holders TVL Age
deJTRSY Ethereum 12 $2.6M 8 months
deJAAA Ethereum 15 $5.2M 8 months
deCRDX Optimism 7 ~$100K 6 weeks
deSPXA Base 61 $2.86M 3 weeks

Combined deRWA TVL (~$10.7M) represents 0.5% of the institutional counterparts (~$1.7B).

The interesting signal: deSPXA gained 61 holders in 3 weeks on Base while deJTRSY has 12 holders after 8 months on Ethereum, despite the same infrastructure stack. This suggests the bottleneck isn’t infrastructure - it’s product-market fit. S&P 500 exposure on-chain is a differentiated product. 3.65% Treasury yield on-chain competes with too many existing DeFi options.

4. Technical Architecture Notes

I also traced the Hook compliance system - the FullRestrictions pattern on JTRSY vs the FreelyTransferable pattern on deJTRSY, verified the ERC-7540 epoch flow from requestDeposit through PoolEscrow to token distribution, and read on-chain prices via convertToAssets(1e18) on the vault contracts.

The V3.1 architecture is genuinely well-designed. The Hub-spoke model with Wormhole/LayerZero messaging, the Hook-based compliance layer, and the ERC-7540 async vault standard solve real problems for institutional RWA issuance.

Why I’m Posting This Here

I’m not posting this as criticism. Centrifuge has the strongest RWA infrastructure in the space - 19 security audits, 9-chain deployment, partnerships with Janus Henderson and S&P Dow Jones Indices.

I’m posting because the Tokenization Outlook 2026 report (which surveyed 150 industry operators) found that 86% believe distribution matters more than new products. The on-chain data supports that finding - and I think the community should be discussing the deRWA adoption curve openly.

The deSPXA traction on Base is a genuinely encouraging signal. Understanding why it’s outperforming deJTRSY despite identical infrastructure could inform the next phase of deRWA distribution.

Happy to discuss any of the findings or methodology. All contract addresses and data sources are linked in the full analysis.

1 Like
2

This is very solid research and technically clarifies many important issues. Let me share my personal view.

Centrifuge’s products can be divided into RWA and deRWA. RWA, by nature, is institution-facing and carries legal rights, investor restrictions, redemption constraints, and other compliance requirements. Because of that, it is naturally difficult for RWA products to be freely combined and experimented with in the DeFi market, and their holders are bound to be concentrated.

deRWA, by contrast, only restricts entry and exit, while leaving secondary circulation in the middle largely unconstrained. So when a product becomes deRWA, that is only its beginning, not its end. As long as on-chain vaults, composable strategies, and different use cases around deRWA continue to develop — and market education improves alongside them — that will be the beginning of the flywheel.

DeFi yields can indeed have a clear advantage, but at the end of the day, the real competition comes down to the quality of the underlying assets. Only when the underlying assets are solid and real can yield strategies scale bigger and go higher.

My impression from the Vault Summit was very positive. I believe Centrifuge is playing an important role there, and that everything is only just beginning.

As for product differentiation, I believe that will be the main battleground of RWA competition in the future.

1 Like