Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Crypto World

MetaMask and Ondo Set To Tokenize Securities, ONDO Price?

Published

on

MetaMask and Ondo Set To Tokenize Securities, ONDO Price?

Ondo Finance announced a major integration with MetaMask to bring tokenized US stocks and ETFs directly into the popular self-custodial wallet.

Yet the ONDO token barely moved on the news, continuing a month-long decline that has seen it lose over a third of its value.

Sponsored

MetaMask and Ondo Finance unveiled their integration at the Ondo Global Summit on February 3. The partnership brings more than 200 tokenized US securities to the MetaMask mobile wallet through Ondo Global Markets.

Advertisement

Users in supported jurisdictions can now buy, hold, and trade tokenized versions of major stocks, including Tesla, NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon. The offering also includes ETFs such as SLV for silver exposure, IAU for gold, and QQQ for tech stocks.

The integration works through MetaMask Swaps on the Ethereum mainnet. Users acquire Ondo Global Markets tokens using USDC, with trading available 24 hours a day, five days a week. Token transfers remain possible around the clock.

“Access to US markets still runs through legacy rails. Brokerage accounts, fragmented apps, and rigid trading windows haven’t meaningfully evolved,” said Joe Lubin, Founder and CEO of Consensys and Co-Founder of Ethereum. “Bringing Ondo’s tokenized US stocks and ETFs directly into MetaMask shows what a better model looks like.”

Ian De Bode, President at Ondo Finance, emphasized the strategic value of reaching MetaMask’s user base. He noted that the integration brings pricing comparable to traditional brokerages like Robinhood into a self-custodial, on-chain environment.

Sponsored

Advertisement

Geographic Restrictions Limit Impact

Despite the headline-grabbing announcement, a closer look reveals significant limitations. The list of excluded jurisdictions reads like a directory of the world’s major financial markets.

Users in the United States, the European Economic Area, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Canada, China (including Hong Kong), Singapore, Japan, Korea, and Brazil cannot access the service. The exclusions effectively limit availability to less-regulated emerging markets.

This geographic constraint likely explains the muted market reaction. The integration represents a technical milestone, but the addressable market remains small.

ONDO Token Shrugs Off the News

The ONDO token traded at $0.2811 at the time of publication, down 37.3% over the past month. The 24-hour price change showed a modest 0.2% decline, suggesting the market viewed the integration as a non-event for token value.

Advertisement

Sponsored

Looking at the monthly chart, ONDO has been in a steady decline from around $0.45 in early January to its current level near $0.28. The MetaMask news failed to reverse or even pause this downtrend.

Market data shows ONDO with a market cap of $1.37 billion and total value locked exceeding $2 billion. The disconnect between protocol metrics and token performance reflects a broader pattern in the real-world asset sector.

RWA Tokens Struggle Despite Sector Growth

Ondo’s price action fits a well-documented trend across RWA governance tokens. According to CoinGecko’s 2025 RWA Report, most tokens in the sector posted negative returns between January 2024 and April 2025, ranging from -26% to -79%.

Advertisement
Token Protocol Return
ONDO Ondo Finance +314.1%
OM MANTRA +733.9% → then crashed 90%
SYRUP Maple Finance +24.0%
CFG Centrifuge -26% to -79% range
GFI Goldfinch -26% to -79% range
ENA Ethena -26% to -79% range
RWA Governance Token Price Performance (Jan 2024 – Apr 2025). Source: CoinGecko

Sponsored

The report attributes this disconnect to structural factors. During bull markets, DeFi lending protocols offer alternative yield opportunities without requiring RWA exposure. Meanwhile, capital flows primarily into institutional products like BlackRock’s BUIDL fund and stablecoin infrastructure rather than governance tokens.

Tokenized treasuries grew 544% to $5.6 billion in market cap, with BlackRock’s BUIDL capturing 44% market share. Private credit protocols like Maple Finance dominate, accounting for 67% of active loans. Yet these successes rarely translate into token-holder returns.

The pattern suggests RWA governance tokens function more as speculative instruments than as direct claims on protocol growth.

Advertisement

What Comes Next

The MetaMask integration positions Ondo for growth if regulatory environments evolve. The infrastructure now exists for seamless trading of tokenized securities within a major self-custodial wallet.

Until key markets open up, the practical impact remains constrained. For ONDO holders, the announcement serves as another reminder that protocol milestones and token performance often diverge in the RWA sector.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

Aave’s TVL Falls $8B After $293M Kelp DAO Hack

Published

on

Aave’s TVL Falls $8B After $293M Kelp DAO Hack

Total value locked on decentralized lending protocol Aave dropped by nearly $8 billion over the weekend after hackers behind the $293 million Kelp DAO exploit borrowed funds on Aave, leaving roughly $195 million in “bad debt” on the protocol and triggering withdrawals.

Data from DeFiLlama shows that Aave’s TVL fell from about $26.4 billion to $18.6 billion by Sunday, losing the top spot as the largest DeFi protocol. 

Aave v3’s lending pools for USDt (USDT) and USDC (USDC) are now at 100% utilization, meaning that more than $5.1 billion worth of stablecoins cannot be withdrawn until new liquidity arrives or borrows are repaid. 

$2,540 is available to be withdrawn from the $2.87 billion USDT pool on Aave v3 at the time of writing. Source: Aave

Aave’s TVL fall shows how rapidly risk from a single security incident can spread throughout the broader, interconnected DeFi lending market, potentially leading to a severe liquidity crisis.

The incident began on Saturday when hackers stole 116,500 Kelp DAO Restaked ETH (rsETH) tokens worth about $293 million from Kelp DAO’s LayerZero-powered bridge and used them as collateral on Aave v3 to borrow wrapped Ether (wETH).

Advertisement

Crypto analytics platform Lookonchain said the move created about $195 million in “bad debt” on Aave, which contributed to the Aave (AAVE) token tanking nearly 20% from $112 on Saturday at 6:00 pm UTC to $89.5 about 25 hours later. 

Lookonchain noted that some of the largest crypto whales to withdraw funds from Aave were the MEXC crypto exchange and Abraxas Capital at $431 million and $392 million, respectively.

Source: Grvt

Several crypto networks and protocols tied to rsETH or the LayerZero bridge have paused use of the bridge until the problem is resolved, including DeFi platform Curve Finance, stablecoin issuer Ethena and BitGo’s Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC).

Aave has frozen several rsETH, wETH markets

Shortly after the Kelp DAO exploit, Aave said it froze the rsETH markets on both Aave v3 and v4 to prevent any suspicious borrowing and later stated that rsETH on Ethereum mainnet remains fully backed by underlying assets.

WETH reserves also remain frozen on Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Mantle and Linea, Aave said.

Advertisement

This incident marks the first significant stress test of Aave’s “Umbrella” security model, which was introduced in June 2025 to provide automated protection against protocol bad debt while enabling users to earn rewards.

Related: Aave DAO backs V4 mainnet plan in near-unanimous vote

Earlier this month, the Bank of Canada found that Aave avoided bad debt in its v3 market by using overcollateralization, automated liquidations and other strategies that shifted risk to borrowers.

In comments to Cointelegraph, Aave defended its liquidation-based model, framing it as a core safety mechanism that protects lenders while limiting downside for borrowers.

Advertisement

It comes as Aave parted ways with its longest-standing DeFi risk service provider, Chaos Labs, on April 6, following disagreements over the direction of Aave v4 and budget constraints.

Magazine: Are DeFi devs liable for the illegal activity of others on their platforms?