출처 검증 리서치: Franklin Benji Onchain FUND

Verified source facts

1. Franklin Templeton says FOBXX was the first U.S.-registered mutual fund to use a public blockchain as its official system of record for transactions and share ownership. 2. Franklin Templeton says BENJI supports peer-to-peer share transfers and onchain dividend distribution subject to the fund's framework. 3. The fund prospectus remains the controlling source for eligibility, purchase, redemption, fees and investment risk. 4. Franklin Templeton describes the Benji platform as blockchain-enabled recordkeeping and transfer-agency infrastructure.

Comparison at a glance

1. Rights analysis: Legal share

Tokenization analysis must follow the legal and operational chain, not the visual token. The legal share question asks about registered fund interest. Identify the issuer, tokenization sponsor, recordkeeper, custodian, broker or platform, and every agreement connecting them. Then read the prospectus first. A wallet balance alone cannot answer which person or system has the enforceable obligation.

Test the arrangement under a disagreement. If the chain record and master securityholder file diverge, which one controls? If an intermediary fails, is the holder a customer, beneficial owner, secured claimant, or unsecured creditor? If a transfer is technically possible but legally restricted, what process reverses or freezes it? The available sources frame these questions, while future amendments remains outside the evidence set.

Turn the legal share finding into an ordinary-language rights statement: who owes what, through which record, under which rule, and how the holder can act. Read the prospectus first before comparing yield, speed, or interface quality. Because future amendments is not proven, the conclusion must remain conditional and dated rather than borrowing certainty from the token's technical appearance.

2. Rights analysis: System of record

The system of record question asks about blockchain-enabled ownership record. Then identify the authoritative register.

The available sources frame these questions, while exception handling remains outside the evidence set.

Turn the system of record finding into an ordinary-language rights statement: who owes what, through which record, under which rule, and how the holder can act. Identify the authoritative register before comparing yield, speed, or interface quality. Because exception handling is not proven, the conclusion must remain conditional and dated rather than borrowing certainty from the token's technical appearance.

3. Rights analysis: Token representation

The token representation question asks about BENJI relationship to the share. Then trace legal and technical linkage.

The available sources frame these questions, while wallet display errors remains outside the evidence set.

Turn the token representation finding into an ordinary-language rights statement: who owes what, through which record, under which rule, and how the holder can act. Trace legal and technical linkage before comparing yield, speed, or interface quality. Because wallet display errors is not proven, the conclusion must remain conditional and dated rather than borrowing certainty from the token's technical appearance.

4. Rights analysis: Wallet eligibility

The wallet eligibility question asks about approved investor and address. Then complete documented onboarding.

The available sources frame these questions, while jurisdictional access remains outside the evidence set.

Turn the wallet eligibility finding into an ordinary-language rights statement: who owes what, through which record, under which rule, and how the holder can act. Complete documented onboarding before comparing yield, speed, or interface quality. Because jurisdictional access is not proven, the conclusion must remain conditional and dated rather than borrowing certainty from the token's technical appearance.

5. Rights analysis: P2P transfer

The p2p transfer question asks about permitted holder-to-holder movement. Then verify recipient eligibility.

The available sources frame these questions, while transfer rejection remains outside the evidence set.

Turn the p2p transfer finding into an ordinary-language rights statement: who owes what, through which record, under which rule, and how the holder can act. Verify recipient eligibility before comparing yield, speed, or interface quality. Because transfer rejection is not proven, the conclusion must remain conditional and dated rather than borrowing certainty from the token's technical appearance.

6. Rights analysis: NAV

The nav question asks about fund pricing and cutoffs. Then retain the applicable timestamp.

The available sources frame these questions, while future market closure remains outside the evidence set.

Turn the nav finding into an ordinary-language rights statement: who owes what, through which record, under which rule, and how the holder can act. Retain the applicable timestamp before comparing yield, speed, or interface quality. Because future market closure is not proven, the conclusion must remain conditional and dated rather than borrowing certainty from the token's technical appearance.

7. Rights analysis: Distribution

The distribution question asks about onchain dividend processing. Then reconcile to official statements.

The available sources frame these questions, while tax treatment remains outside the evidence set.

Turn the distribution finding into an ordinary-language rights statement: who owes what, through which record, under which rule, and how the holder can act. Reconcile to official statements before comparing yield, speed, or interface quality. Because tax treatment is not proven, the conclusion must remain conditional and dated rather than borrowing certainty from the token's technical appearance.

8. Rights analysis: Redemption

The redemption question asks about conversion back to cash. Then test the documented path.

The available sources frame these questions, while stress-time liquidity remains outside the evidence set.

Turn the redemption finding into an ordinary-language rights statement: who owes what, through which record, under which rule, and how the holder can act. Test the documented path before comparing yield, speed, or interface quality. Because stress-time liquidity is not proven, the conclusion must remain conditional and dated rather than borrowing certainty from the token's technical appearance.

9. Rights analysis: Recovery

The recovery question asks about lost access and record correction. Then document transfer-agent authority.

The available sources frame these questions, while case outcome remains outside the evidence set.

Turn the recovery finding into an ordinary-language rights statement: who owes what, through which record, under which rule, and how the holder can act. Document transfer-agent authority before comparing yield, speed, or interface quality. Because case outcome is not proven, the conclusion must remain conditional and dated rather than borrowing certainty from the token's technical appearance.

10. Rights analysis: Marketing claim

The marketing claim question asks about speed and 24/7 access language. Then separate interface from fund rights.

The available sources frame these questions, while future service availability remains outside the evidence set.

Turn the marketing claim finding into an ordinary-language rights statement: who owes what, through which record, under which rule, and how the holder can act. Separate interface from fund rights before comparing yield, speed, or interface quality. Because future service availability is not proven, the conclusion must remain conditional and dated rather than borrowing certainty from the token's technical appearance.

Decision scenarios

Scenario 1: when legal share becomes decisive

Consider a reader whose main constraint is registered fund interest. The correct response is not to infer a universal platform or product winner. It is to read the prospectus first, retain the evidence, and define a stop condition before funds or permissions are committed. If the evidence changes, the decision must be reopened. This produces a repeatable operating rule rather than a one-time opinion.

Scenario 2: when system of record becomes decisive

Consider a reader whose main constraint is blockchain-enabled ownership record. It is to identify the authoritative register, retain the evidence, and define a stop condition before funds or permissions are committed.

Scenario 3: when token representation becomes decisive

Consider a reader whose main constraint is BENJI relationship to the share. It is to trace legal and technical linkage, retain the evidence, and define a stop condition before funds or permissions are committed.

Scenario 4: when wallet eligibility becomes decisive

Consider a reader whose main constraint is approved investor and address. It is to complete documented onboarding, retain the evidence, and define a stop condition before funds or permissions are committed.

Scenario 5: when p2p transfer becomes decisive

Consider a reader whose main constraint is permitted holder-to-holder movement. It is to verify recipient eligibility, retain the evidence, and define a stop condition before funds or permissions are committed.

Scenario 6: when nav becomes decisive

Consider a reader whose main constraint is fund pricing and cutoffs. It is to retain the applicable timestamp, retain the evidence, and define a stop condition before funds or permissions are committed.

Sources and editorial method

• Five years of BENJI — Franklin Templeton
• Franklin OnChain U.S. Government Money Fund prospectus — Franklin Templeton
• Benji Technology Platform — Franklin Templeton