RT Token Terminal 📊 (@tokenterminal)🏦🇺🇸 The AUM of tokenized money market funds is at an all-time high of ~$8.4 billion, up ~60x since the start of 2024.The @SecScottBessent playbook in action 👇 https://t.co/ZS6BFrbNnP ...

Tokenized Money Market Funds - Tokenized money market funds' AUM reaches an all-time high of approximately $84 billion [1] - The AUM of tokenized money market funds has increased by about 6000% since the beginning of 2024 [1]

RT Token Terminal 📊 (@tokenterminal)The AUM for VanEck's VBILL is closing in on $100M.The VBILL product is tokenized by Securitize, and is available on Ethereum, Solana, BNB Chain, and Avalanche. https://t.co/eXBCn2HcEq ...

RT Carlos Domingo (@carlosdomingo)About to get another asset with over $100M AUM, and that will be our 7th one, let's go!! ...

Core Insights - SPXL and QLD are leveraged ETFs with different targets: SPXL aims for triple the daily performance of the S&P 500, while QLD seeks double the daily returns of the Nasdaq-100, resulting in distinct sector exposures and risk profiles [1][2]. ETF Overview - SPXL, issued by Direxion, has an expense ratio of 0.87%, a one-year return of 35.6%, a dividend yield of 0.8%, and assets under management (AUM) of $5.9 billion. Its beta is 3.05, indicating higher volatility compared to the S&P 500 [3]. - QLD, issued by ProShares, has an expense ratio of 0.95%, a one-year return of 44.6%, a dividend yield of 0.2%, and AUM of $9.9 billion. Its beta is 2.22, reflecting lower volatility than SPXL [3]. Performance Metrics - Over five years, a $1,000 investment in SPXL would grow to $4,717, while the same investment in QLD would grow to $3,434. Both funds experienced a maximum drawdown of approximately 63% [4]. - SPXL has outperformed QLD over a longer timeframe, with a five-year total return of 366% (CAGR of 36.1%) compared to QLD's 252% (CAGR of 28.6%). Both funds significantly outperformed the S&P 500, which had a total return of 123% (CAGR of 17.4%) over the same period [8]. Sector Exposure - QLD's portfolio is heavily weighted towards technology (54%), followed by communication services (16%) and consumer cyclical (13%). It holds 121 companies, with top positions in Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft [5]. - SPXL spreads its assets across 516 holdings, with its largest positions mirroring the S&P 500, but with smaller weights in Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft compared to QLD [5]. Investment Considerations - Both SPXL and QLD provide leveraged exposure to major indexes, but they come with high fees and extreme volatility. The daily leverage reset mechanism can impact long-term returns if held beyond a single day [9].

🔺⛓️ ICYMI: The AUM of @BlackRock BUIDL on @avax is up by ~10x in the past two weeks. https://t.co/w2sp4KKWsv ...

RT Jon Ma (@jonbma)Solana will trade like oil & gas until Wall Street values blockchains using fundamentalsSolana can become VERY profitable networks as finance moves onchain -- tokenization is projected to grow from $600B to $9T in 2030.Here's a model I built out for Solana with key drivers:- Asset Under Manage (~TVL) as a % of Tokenization- Global Transfer Volume as a Velocity Multiple on AUM- Revenue as a % of Global Transfer Volume- Inflation RateIf you believe $SOL will1. Take 5% of Tokenization market ...

RT Hunter Horsley (@HHorsley)~$46,000,000 inflow into $BSOL yesterday.SOL purchased. AUM now ~$330M.Have seen wealth managers, institutional asset managers, and individuals buying. A broad mix.Grateful to investors for entrusting Bitwise to steward their assets.Onward — ...

RT Maple (@maplefinance)Maple has reached $5B in AUM. https://t.co/qcgEh23FNC ...

Core Insights - The article compares Fidelity High Dividend ETF (FDVV) and Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF (SCHD), focusing on their cost, performance, sector exposures, and structural details to determine which may better fit a dividend-focused strategy [1] Cost & Size - FDVV has an expense ratio of 0.16% while SCHD has a lower expense ratio of 0.06% - As of October 27, 2025, FDVV's one-year return is 10.9% compared to SCHD's -4.2% - FDVV offers a dividend yield of 3.0%, whereas SCHD provides a higher yield of 3.8% - FDVV has assets under management (AUM) of $7.1 billion, significantly less than SCHD's AUM of $70.2 billion [2] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, FDVV experienced a maximum drawdown of 20.19%, while SCHD had a lower maximum drawdown of 16.86% - An investment of $1,000 in FDVV would have grown to $2,419 over five years, compared to $1,716 for SCHD [3] Holdings & Sector Exposure - SCHD tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Dividend 100 Index, holding 103 companies with significant exposure to Energy (20%), Consumer Defensive (19%), and Healthcare (16%) - Key holdings in SCHD include AbbVie, Cisco Systems, and Merck & Co. - FDVV has a higher allocation to Technology (25%), Financial Services (19%), and Consumer Defensive (13%), with top holdings including NVIDIA, Microsoft, and Apple [4][5] Long-term Performance - Over the last decade, FDVV generated total returns of 13% annually, while SCHD produced 11% growth, both trailing the S&P 500's 14% return during the same period [6] Investment Considerations - Both ETFs offer attractive dividend yields, low expense ratios, and below-market betas, issued by reputable financial firms - Investors with existing exposure to the S&P 500 may find FDVV less appealing due to its significant holdings in the "Magnificent Seven" tech stocks, which account for nearly 18% of its assets - SCHD's focus on essential sectors may provide a more defensive investment option for those lacking exposure in these areas [7][8]