Stellar is quietly becoming one of the more interesting infrastructures for tokenized assets and global payments. But there is a major disconnect between network adoption and XLM economics.
Disclaimer: This content is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or professional advice. We do not recommend any buying, selling, or holding of digital assets.
All views are the author’s own. Digital assets involve high risk and volatility, and readers should conduct their own research before making any decisions.
This report is not sponsored by any mentioned companies.
Stellar has a very clear positioning as a financial blockchain infrastructure: fast and cheap transactions, native asset issuance, DEX and historical focus on payments create a good technological base for RWA. What is particularly interesting is that Stellar is not simply trying to “add RWA” to an existing network — asset tokenization fits well with Stellar’s original concept as an infrastructure for transferring financial value.
Stellar’s strength is the institutional use case. For tokenized bonds, funds, stablecoins and other financial assets, low transaction costs and fast settlement may be more important than the maximum number of DeFi applications.
However, the main problem with the investment case is that technological advantage does not yet equal economic advantage. Stellar competes not only with other blockchains, but also with specialized RWA platforms and financial infrastructures, which may have stronger regulatory relationships, distribution and institutional sales.
Therefore, the key question for CQS is whether Stellar can turn good infrastructure into a large-scale business with real economic activity. This is something that has not yet been proven as strongly as in the most successful blockchain ecosystems.
Business Score 8.2/10
Stellar’s financials show a very interesting but contradictory picture. On the one hand, TVL grew from $76 million in 2025 to $208 million, and the number of transactions increased from 320.9 million to 444.5 million. This confirms that the network’s usage is expanding.
On the other hand, Revenue and Fees show the opposite picture: the current $43.6 thousand is significantly lower than the $287.3 thousand in 2025. That is, the growth in usage is not yet converted into revenue growth. This is one of Stellar’s main weaknesses in our model.
Of particular importance is the relationship between network scale and Revenue. With a TVL of over $200 million and a Market Cap of over $5 billion, the protocol generates only tens of thousands of dollars in revenue. This means that the current valuation is largely based on the future potential of the network, and not on its current ability to generate economic cash flow.
Treasury at $3.1 billion is a very strong asset, but it needs to be treated separately from operating Revenue. A large treasury creates financial stability and a resource for ecosystem development, but in itself does not prove Product-Market Fit.
The main conclusion: Stellar has real use, but does not yet have adequate monetization. For CQS, this is a fundamental difference between “the network is used” and “the network creates economic value.”
Financial Score 6.7/10
The tokenomics of XLM are one of the most problematic blocks of the Stellar investment case. Unlike BNB, where the entire maximum supply is already circulating, Stellar has a significant gap between circulating supply and max supply: 34.3 billion out of 50 billion tokens. So, approximately 31% of the maximum supply is not yet in circulation.
This creates a potential supply overhang. Even if Stellar’s business grows, the additional supply may partially absorb the created economic value and restrain the token’s appreciation.
The second fundamental drawback is the lack of a buyback or dividend/revenue-sharing mechanism. The holder of XLM does not have a direct right to a part of the economic result of the network. Therefore, value capture occurs mainly through the demand for the use of the token itself, and not through participation in cash flow.
Thus, Stellar has a useful token, but not ideal investment tokenomics. For us, this is an important distinction: a good blockchain ≠ automatically a good token.
Token Score 5.8/10
After the decrease in Market Cap from approximately $11.5 billion in 2025 to $5.5–5.7 billion today, Stellar’s valuation has become much less aggressive. This is positive from the Grantham perspective: we don’t want to buy a strong narrative at any price.
However, XLM still has a difficult intrinsic value problem. With the current Revenue of $43.6 thousand, it is impossible to justify a multi-billion capitalization using traditional business valuation methods. So, the investor is actually paying for Stellar’s future scaling, and not for the current cash-generating business.
TVL, transactions and RWA adoption give reason for optimism, but so far it is not enough to call XLM clearly undervalued. For this, it is necessary to see a transition from “growth in usage” to “growth in economic monetization”.
Therefore, I would not call the current valuation cheap, but potentially interesting, provided that the RWA thesis is realized. This is a fundamental difference.
Valuation Score 7.0/10
Stellar is an interesting example of a situation where the quality of the infrastructure is ahead of the quality of the investment economics of the token. The network has a strong technology foundation, a significant treasury, TVL and transaction growth, and a logical positioning in payments and RWA.
But the numbers show an important problem: the growth in usage is not yet translating into growth in Revenue. This means that Stellar has not yet proven its ability to capture the economic value that its infrastructure creates.
This is where the main difference between Stellar and BNB Chain arises. BNB has a large-scale economic activity and a much stronger value capture mechanism for the token. Stellar still has potential, but much of that value remains at the network level, not the XLM token.
From Grantham’s perspective, this means: Stellar deserves attention, but investors should not pay today for an economic outcome that has yet to appear.
What is positive (✅):
Main concerns (🔴):
Yes, but not at any cost.
Stellar has an interesting infrastructure with real use cases in payments and RWA, a strong balance sheet and a good technology base. As a business platform it deserves attention.
But today I would not call it as proven an economic machine as BNB Chain. The main reason is weak monetization relative to the scale of the network.
Rather not — or only as a speculative/value opportunity with high risk.
XLM has real utility, but the current token economics do not provide a strong enough mechanism for accumulating value.
With a market cap of around $5.7 billion, the investor is essentially betting on Stellar’s future scaling in RWA and payments. This could be a very profitable scenario, but it is not yet confirmed by the current financial monetization.
Stellar RWA: The Blockchain With a $3.1B Treasury — But Where Is the Value Capture? was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
