Tokenized-stock analytics · Solana
Start with the stock.
Then inspect the wrapper.
The same ticker can give you a different legal claim, different issuer powers and different ways out. Start simple, then open the evidence only when you need it.
Showing the bundled sample fixture
(stocks/fixtures/stocks-issuers.sample.json and stocks-tokens.sample.json), not live data. Three issuers and twelve mints, for layout
work only — do not cite any number on this page while this banner is visible.
Choose a starting point
What do you want to understand?
Find any stock, token or issuer
Search by company, ticker, token symbol, issuer programme or exact Solana token address.
New on Solana
Token addresses this pipeline first saw in the last 14 days. “First seen” is when Jupiter first returned the address to us, not necessarily when the token was created.
Show every recent addition
Funnel chart: mints → issuers → control recipesOpen the complete catalogue map
Every mint we can find on Solana, read left to right: what it tracks, which issuer programme minted it, which control recipe that programme runs on it — the token program plus the extensions that are switched on — and which token program holds it. A circle's area is its number of mints (with a floor, so a one-mint programme is still a dot); a line's thickness is how many mints take that step. A hollow circle is a programme with no live mints. Click an issuer circle for its dossier.
Many mints, few issuers, one token program, a handful of recipes: the variety on the shelf is not variety in the plumbing. And a recipe is what the issuer can technically do to a mint — pause it, claw it back, gate it to an allowlist, tax the transfer — not what the holder owns. What the holder owns is the next section's horizontal axis.
Two axes, not one ladder
Vertical, ledger maturity (Level 4 top → Level 0 bottom): how far the token behaves as a bearer digital asset whose blockchain is the authoritative ledger — main ledger, then unconditional transfers, then bearer redemption, then a forced-transfer mechanism.
Horizontal, claim depth (rung 0 left → rung 4 right): what the holder legally owns — a synthetic exposure, an unsecured claim on the issuer, a claim secured over collateral, a beneficial interest in the security, or the registered share itself.
Each dot is one issuer programme, sized by the log of its total Solana DEX liquidity (floored, so an illiquid programme is still visible). Click a dot for the dossier. The bottom-right corner is a real registered share that barely trades on chain; the middle is a freely transferable wrapper that is not the share. Neither corner is "better" — that is the point of using two axes.
Trading diagnostics, last 24 hoursOpen volume quality, traders, venues and spread
One row per live programme, aggregated over its mints. This is the counterpart to the liquidity numbers above: liquidity is how much depth sits in the pools, and these columns are how much actually traded against it. Defunct programmes are not listed. Click a programme to open its dossier, or a column header to sort.
| Programme | Traded 24h / mints | Trades 24h | Traders 24h | Trades / trader | Organic | Venues | Venue spread | Last trade | Flags |
|---|
What this is: trades, traders and organic share are Jupiter's 24-hour aggregates per mint; venues, the last-trade time and the cross-venue price spread come from DexScreener pairs and CoinGecko tickers. Not collected: per-trade on-chain history, counterparty or wallet-level analysis, CEX order-book depth, and exact trade timestamps on DEXs — so a DEX-only mint has trades but no last-trade time, and trader counts are per-mint sums in which one wallet can appear twice.
No activity aggregate in this build yet, so most cells
read —. Re-run npm run stocks:venues && npm run stocks:build to fill them.
Issuer programmes (0)
One card per programme — the unit of analysis is the programme, not the mint: one wrapper, one document set, one control surface, instantiated as up to 212 mints. Live programmes first, ordered by on-chain liquidity; defunct ones are greyed and excluded from every headline total. Control surface is a set of facts, never summed into a score.
Compare ways to own the same stock
The ticker is the only thing these products necessarily share. Compare the legal claim, cash redemption, smart-contract custody, default enforcement, issuer intervention, current exact-token protocol support and market exit side by side.
What can you actually do with these tokens today?
This is the observed-use layer, separate from theoretical composability. An asset is counted only when its exact mint appears in a live protocol registry or pool, or an asset-specific live product names it. Generic Token-2022 support and issuer ecosystem logos do not count.
The Confirmed DeFi column in the every-mint table lists the protocols and actions for each asset. Open Details for market size, LTV, access restrictions and links to the product and evidence. “None confirmed” is an evidence result, not proof of non-use.
What could work in theory?Open the technical and legal composability analysis
A token being transferable does not mean a smart-contract lender can safely use it. Each row combines one issuer's legal structure with one on-chain control recipe and asks four different questions: can a protocol hold it, can the lender enforce a borrower default, what can happen after a hack, and what happens when a contract or key becomes inaccessible? Recovery powers are not treated as simply good or bad: they may rescue a victim, but they also make protocol custody non-final.
This measures structural capability, not evidence that a lending protocol currently lists or accepts the token.
| Tech + legal template | Mints | Verdict | Smart-contract escrow | Borrower default | Protocol hacked | Access / key loss |
|---|
Raw token catalogueOpen the paginated table of every exact Solana token address
Every token address
All exact token addresses found in the universe fetch, loaded from the API 50 at a time, including paused tokens and tokens with no pool. A premium on an illiquid token is noise, not a finding: below roughly $50k of liquidity the on-chain price is a stale AMM print. Reference prices come from three unrelated places and the column names which one — an issuer mark is the sponsor's own number, not an independent price. Click a row — or its Details button — for the token's full panel: identity and on-chain control, market, trading activity, every venue it trades on, and the reference price.
0 tokens
| Token | Issuer | Underlying | Instrument | Price | Reference | Premium | Liquidity | Vol 24h | Organic | Trades 24h | Traders 24h | Venue spread | Holders | Top-10 | Last trade | Confirmed DeFi | Flags | Detail |
|---|
How to read RWA SonarMethodology, definitions and known gaps
Where the data comes from
- Legal facts — hand-researched per issuer from primary documents only (prospectuses, issuer terms and conditions, transfer-agent and regulator records), each with its source URL in the issuer's detail panel. A dossier carries its own confidence rating.
- The mint universe — Jupiter token search, read in full on the date shown at the top of this page.
- On-chain control — the Solana RPC, read directly off each mint's Token-2022 extensions.
- Reference prices — Pyth where the feed is entitled, an implied price derived from the Ondo registry, or the sponsor's own published mark. The table always names which.
What a grade means
Ledger maturity is the site-wide ladder, computed identically to the main assets table: Level 0 unless the chain is the main ledger, then Level 1 unless transfers are unconditional, Level 2 unless redemption is bearer, Level 3 unless a forced-transfer mechanism exists, else Level 4. The score beside it sums ten booleans, +1 for yes and −1 for no.
Claim depth is a 0–4 rung read off the legal form: synthetic exposure, unsecured claim, claim secured over collateral, beneficial interest, registered share.
Verification strength replaces a yes/no on third-party attestations with a 0–5 scale: none, issuer statement, periodic auditor attestation, daily verification agent, on-chain proof of reserve, transfer-agent register.
Attestations are positive statements by a named attestor. Findings are negative or neutral facts we observed ourselves, with the evidence attached — nobody attests to those.
Known gaps
- The universe is a union of searches, not an authoritative listing. There is no working "all tokenized stocks" call, so the fetch fires many queries by issuer and ticker name. An issuer absent from that query list is invisible here.
- The forced-transfer pillar grades a capability, not a process. A permanent delegate exists on roughly half the mints, mostly held by single keys with no published procedure; whether it is bound to a legal process is tracked separately and does not yet move the level.
- Reference prices are thin. Most tickers have no entitled Pyth feed, so the premium often rests on a quotient derived from an issuer's own registry — good enough to spot a 20% gap, not a quote.
- Transfer hooks are reserved but empty. Almost every mint reserves the hook slot and none has a hook program installed, so nothing is enforced on chain today — but the authority to install one later is retained.
- Symbols are not tickers. Some issuers truncate their symbols, so joining a mint to a real listed ticker needs a lookup table this pipeline does not have. Private companies have no ticker at all.
- Every field can be absent. A dash means the source does not say, and is never rendered as zero. Missing values are skipped in aggregates, not counted as nothing.
Glossary — what the market words mean here
- Liquidity
- The USD value of the reserves sitting in the token's DEX pools — Jupiter's aggregate over Raydium, Orca and Meteora. It is depth that can absorb a trade, not a count of trades. A centralised exchange never reports it, so a token that trades mostly on a CEX can show heavy volume and almost no liquidity.
- Volume 24h
- USD traded in the last 24 hours, across all Jupiter routes.
- Organic volume and organic share
- The part of that volume Jupiter classifies as non-bot flow, and organic divided by total. A low organic share means the volume is there but almost none of it looks like real demand.
- Trades 24h
- The number of buys plus sells — a count of events, unlike volume, which is their size.
- Traders 24h
- Distinct trading wallets. Summed per mint, so in a programme's row one wallet that traded two of its mints is counted twice.
- Trades per trader
- Trades divided by traders. This is the wash-trading tell: a handful of wallets producing thousands of trades. Above 25 the row is flagged.
- Holders
- Token accounts with a balance, as reported by Jupiter — accounts, not people.
- Top-10 %
- The share of supply held in the ten largest accounts.
- Venues
- Distinct DEX ids (from DexScreener pairs) plus exchange markets (from CoinGecko tickers) where the token has a pair.
- Venue spread
- The gap between the lowest and highest price for the same mint across venues that traded in the last two hours with real depth (DEX pools ≥ $10k liquidity, exchange markets ≥ $5k 24 h volume); a persistent gap is an arbitrage opportunity, a one-off gap is usually a stale quote.
- Last trade
- The most recent
last_traded_atacross a token's CoinGecko tickers — a per-venue timestamp. Shown as a relative age, with the exact time on hover. - Not collected
- Per-trade on-chain history; counterparty or wallet-level analysis; order-book depth on centralised exchanges; exact trade timestamps on DEXs. Nothing on this page can tell you who traded, or when a specific on-chain swap happened.