How BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, and J.P. Morgan Are Taking Divergent Paths to Dominate the Next Era of On‑Chain Finance
In the rapidly evolving landscape of digital finance, three major financial institutions have emerged with fundamentally different approaches to asset tokenization. BlackRock’s BUIDL, Goldman Sachs’ GS DAP, and J.P. Morgan’s Kinexys represent divergent strategic visions for the future of on-chain finance, each targeting distinct segments of the institutional market with purpose-built infrastructure.
While all three initiatives share the common goal of modernizing financial markets through blockchain technology, their architectures, asset classes, and strategic objectives reveal sharply different philosophies about how tokenization will reshape the industry.
Three Platforms, Three Philosophies
BlackRock’s BUIDL (USD Institutional Digital Liquidity Fund) has taken the bold step of launching on Ethereum’s public blockchain, positioning itself as a tokenized money market fund that provides investors with daily dividend accruals in USD. Launched in partnership with Securitize Markets, BUIDL focuses on tokenized U.S. Treasuries, offering institutional investors on-chain yield with enhanced liquidity and transparency. The platform represents BlackRock’s bet that public blockchains can deliver both the transparency and the institutional-grade reliability that traditional investors demand.
Goldman Sachs has charted a different course with its Digital Asset Platform (GS DAP), building on Digital Asset’s Canton Network, a permissioned distributed ledger technology. Rather than creating a single product, Goldman has constructed a comprehensive institutional infrastructure designed for issuing, registering, and settling digital assets including securities and bonds. The platform’s collaboration with BNY on tokenized money market fund settlement demonstrates its focus on accelerating settlement times and reducing operational costs across the institutional ecosystem.
J.P. Morgan’s Kinexys (formerly Onyx Digital Assets) has prioritized speed and scale, developing a private, permissioned blockchain system optimized for instant payment settlements and tokenized collateral management. With over $1.5 trillion in tokenized transactions processed by mid-2025, Kinexys has achieved remarkable adoption through its flagship products: JPM Coin for payment rails and the Tokenized Collateral Network (TCN). The platform’s 24/7 programmable payments and instant settlement of intraday repos address critical pain points in institutional treasury management.
Strategic Positioning and Market Focus
The strategic differentiation among these platforms becomes clearer when examining their primary use cases and target markets.
BUIDL operates as a product in the truest sense: a tokenized investment vehicle designed to deliver yield to on-chain investors. By anchoring its offering in U.S. Treasuries and providing daily accruals, BlackRock has created a cash-equivalent token that bridges traditional finance and decentralized finance. The choice of Ethereum as the underlying blockchain signals confidence in public infrastructure and positions BUIDL to integrate with the broader DeFi ecosystem.
GS DAP functions as a platform, providing the essential plumbing for digital asset issuance and lifecycle management. Goldman Sachs has positioned itself not as a product provider but as an infrastructure enabler, allowing institutions to issue tokenized bonds, funds, and other securities with significantly reduced settlement times. This platform approach reflects Goldman’s traditional role as a market maker and facilitator rather than a direct asset manager.
Kinexys represents a network play, focusing on the movement of cash and collateral rather than static asset ownership. J.P. Morgan’s emphasis on instant settlement and programmable payments addresses immediate operational needs in treasury and liquidity management. The platform’s impressive transaction volume demonstrates market validation of its core value proposition: speed and reliability in institutional cash movement.
Technical Architecture and Blockchain Strategy
The choice of blockchain infrastructure reveals fundamental differences in how these institutions view the trade-offs between transparency, control, and interoperability.
BlackRock’s embrace of Ethereum places BUIDL in the public blockchain camp, accepting the challenges of public infrastructure in exchange for composability and transparency. Investors can verify holdings on-chain, and the fund can potentially interact with other Ethereum-based protocols and applications.
Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan have both opted for permissioned systems, prioritizing control, privacy, and regulatory compliance over public verifiability. GS DAP’s use of Canton Network provides enterprise-grade privacy and compliance features while maintaining the benefits of distributed ledger technology. Kinexys’s private blockchain offers similar advantages with additional emphasis on transaction speed and throughput.
These architectural choices reflect different assessments of regulatory risk, customer requirements, and long-term strategic positioning. Public blockchains offer greater transparency and potential network effects, while permissioned systems provide more direct control and easier regulatory compliance.
Measuring Success: Volume, Utility, and Market Adoption
Early market traction provides some indication of which approaches are resonating with institutional clients.
Kinexys has established clear leadership in transaction volume, processing over $1.5 trillion in tokenized transactions. This success stems from addressing immediate, high-frequency needs in payment settlement and collateral management. The platform’s ability to provide 24/7 settlement for intraday repos has found strong product-market fit with institutional treasury desks.
BUIDL has gained traction as an on-chain yield vehicle, attracting investors seeking exposure to tokenized Treasuries with the convenience of daily dividend accruals. The fund’s transparent, on-chain structure appeals to digitally-native institutional investors and provides a bridge between traditional money market funds and blockchain-based finance.
GS DAP’s success metrics differ from the others, as the platform’s value lies in its utility as infrastructure rather than transaction volume or assets under management. Goldman’s partnerships, including the collaboration with BNY, suggest growing adoption among institutions seeking to modernize their digital asset operations.
Implications for the Broader Market
The divergent approaches taken by BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, and J.P. Morgan have important implications for the evolution of tokenized finance.
First, the market appears large enough to support multiple models. The coexistence of yield products, issuance platforms, and settlement networks suggests that tokenization will fragment into specialized niches rather than converging on a single dominant approach.
Second, the public versus private blockchain debate remains unresolved in institutional finance. BlackRock’s bet on Ethereum demonstrates that public blockchains can meet institutional requirements, while Goldman and JPM’s permissioned systems show that privacy and control remain paramount for many use cases.
Third, regulatory clarity will increasingly determine which models can scale. Platforms operating on permissioned infrastructure may find easier paths through regulatory frameworks, while public blockchain implementations may face additional scrutiny but benefit from greater transparency.
“Tokenization is no longer an experiment it’s the new battleground where Wall Street is quietly rebuilding the plumbing of global finance.”
Looking Ahead: Competition and Convergence
As these platforms mature, the competitive landscape will likely intensify. BlackRock’s BUIDL could expand beyond Treasuries into other tokenized assets, potentially competing with GS DAP’s issuance capabilities. Kinexys might develop additional asset classes beyond payment settlement and repos. GS DAP could launch proprietary investment products to compete with BUIDL.
Interoperability between these platforms represents both an opportunity and a challenge. Cross-platform asset transfers would benefit the ecosystem but require coordination between competing institutions operating on incompatible blockchain infrastructure.
The ultimate measure of success for these initiatives will be their ability to demonstrate clear value over traditional systems. Faster settlement, reduced costs, enhanced transparency, and improved liquidity must translate into tangible benefits that justify the technical complexity and regulatory uncertainty of tokenization.
Conclusion
BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, and J.P. Morgan have each made substantial commitments to asset tokenization, but with notably different strategic visions. BUIDL serves as a product for on-chain yield seekers, GS DAP provides platform infrastructure for digital asset issuance, and Kinexys operates as a high-speed network for institutional payments and collateral.
These divergent approaches reflect the nascent state of tokenized finance, where the optimal model remains undetermined and market experimentation continues. As the industry matures, some approaches will likely prove more durable than others, but the current diversity of strategies suggests a robust and dynamic market taking shape.
For institutions observing from the sidelines, the message is clear: tokenization is no longer theoretical. The world’s largest financial institutions are committing significant resources to blockchain-based infrastructure, each betting that their particular approach will define the future of institutional finance. The next several years will reveal which bets were prescient and which require recalibration.