A practical guide, hype‑free

This page explains how to think about the market share (the portion of a total that one participant represents) of USD1 stablecoins. By design, USD1 stablecoins are digital tokens that aim to be redeemable one‑for‑one for U.S. dollars. They have become a core settlement asset for crypto trading and a building block for payments experiments, remittances, and on‑chain finance. Because USD1 stablecoins are intended to behave like cash equivalents, users often assume that “bigger is safer.” Reality is more nuanced: size can reflect liquidity and network effects, but it can also reflect listing policies, cross‑border demand, and regulatory frictions. The purpose of this page is to help you interpret size and share with a clear, replicable framework supported by public sources. Where we cite facts about policy or industry structure, we include footnotes to official reports and reputable research, not corporate marketing. See the sources at the end for links to BIS, IOSCO, the Financial Stability Board, EUR‑Lex for MiCA, New York DFS guidance, and data providers such as Coin Metrics, Kaiko, Chainalysis, and CoinGecko. [1–12]

Why “market share” matters for USD1 stablecoins

Liquidity and slippage. Traders prefer deeper pools because large orders cause smaller price moves (slippage). Higher market share in trading pairs can signal tighter spreads and more resilient order books on centralized exchanges (platforms where a firm matches buyers and sellers) or lower price impact in automated market makers (programs that quote prices using formulas). [6],[7]

Acceptance and integrations. Wallets, exchanges, and payment processors shortlist a small set of USD1 stablecoins to keep integrations simple. A token with larger share is more likely to be supported across apps, point‑of‑sale pilots, custody platforms, and compliance tooling, which in turn reinforces share.

Reserve quality and confidence. Some users treat market share as a proxy for trust. That can be misleading. Confidence should be informed by disclosures and third‑party assurance (independent practitioners reporting according to standards such as AICPA AT‑C or ISAE 3000), not popularity alone. [10–11]

Policy focus. Regulators prioritize arrangements that could affect markets or payments at scale. Global standard setters have published recommendations for the oversight of stablecoin arrangements and crypto activities, and the European Union has enacted MiCA, a directly applicable regime. Large share attracts attention and may trigger “significance” thresholds with heightened obligations. [2–5]

Macro linkages. Reserve assets for USD1 stablecoins are often short‑dated U.S. Treasury bills and bank deposits. At scale, flows into or out of USD1 stablecoins can interact with money markets. Recent research explores how those flows may affect short‑term rates at the margin. [9]

What “market share” means here (and what it does not)

“Market share” can be defined in multiple, non‑exclusive ways. No single metric captures every facet of adoption or risk. Throughout this page, we use plain‑English definitions the first time a term appears.

  1. Supply share — the fraction of total circulating supply (the amount held by the public, excluding issuer‑controlled treasury addresses) represented by a given token. This is the simplest and most quoted measure.

  2. Transaction share — the fraction of on‑chain transfer value (the dollar value of tokens moved between independent entities) attributable to a token over a period. This tries to capture actual usage rather than inventory.

  3. Redemption and issuance share — the share of total primary market minting (new tokens created by the issuer) and burning (tokens redeemed for dollars and destroyed). These flows reflect how users move value between bank money and USD1 stablecoins.

  4. Trading share — on venues where assets are traded, the fraction of volume or open interest that uses a given USD1 stablecoins pair as the quote currency. Because centralized exchanges and decentralized exchanges record activity differently, you should treat these sub‑measures separately. [6–8]

  5. Holder share — the share of active wallets (distinct control points inferred from addresses using clustering heuristics) that hold non‑trivial balances of a token. Wallet counts require careful de‑duplication to avoid overstating adoption.

  6. Geographic share — the share of activity associated with users in a region. This is always an estimate, built from exchange country footprints, fiat on‑ramp locations, off‑chain surveys, and network heuristics. [8]

What market share is not: a guarantee of redeemability, a substitute for reserve transparency, or a promise that a peg will hold under stress. Always read issuer disclosures and assurance reports alongside any market share chart. [10–12]

Six complementary lenses (with practical formulas)

Below are six lenses you can apply together. Each lens includes a plain‑English formula you can compute from public data or commercial feeds.

1) Supply share (circulating)

What to measure. For each token, sum balances across all chains where it natively exists. Exclude known treasury, bridge, and blacklisted addresses to approximate free float (the supply actually available to the market).

How to compute. For a token T, let Circ(T) denote circulating supply. Total market float is the sum of circulating supply across all USD1 stablecoins. Then:

Supply share of T = Circ(T) divided by Σ Circ(all USD1 stablecoins).

Why it matters. This is a snapshot of inventory. It correlates with mindshare and ease of acquisition, but it does not say how often tokens move.

Caveats. Beware of double counting bridged versions (wrapped representations on other chains) and “rebasing” mechanics. Some feeds aggregate wrapped tokens with their native supply without flagging the difference. Ask your vendor whether they net out wrappers. [6]

2) Transaction share (on‑chain value moved)

What to measure. The dollar value transferred between independent entities over a period (for example, a month), excluding self‑transfers and known change addresses.

How to compute. For a token T, sum transfer amounts where the sender and receiver are not in the same entity cluster. Divide by the sum across all USD1 stablecoins.

Why it matters. Inventory can sit idle. Transfer value captures payments, exchange deposits and withdrawals, and collateral flows. In regions with capital controls or volatile local currencies, transfer value can outpace market capitalization growth. [8]

Caveats. On‑chain value can be inflated by “peel chains” (many small hops) or deflated if a large share of activity happens on centralized exchanges off‑chain. Heuristics help but are imperfect.

3) Redemption and issuance share (primary flows)

What to measure. The value of tokens created or destroyed at the issuer level. Many issuers publish daily or monthly supply changes, and assurance reports sometimes include details on redemptions.

How to compute. Over a period, compute Mint(T) and Burn(T). A token with high Burn(T) relative to Mint(T) may be experiencing net redemptions. Share is the token’s Mint or Burn divided by the Mint or Burn summed across USD1 stablecoins.

Why it matters. High issuance share can mean new demand. High redemption share can indicate flight to cash or rotation to other tokens. It can also reflect arbitrage when a peg trades at a premium or discount. [11–12]

Caveats. Primary activity is lumpy and can be dominated by a handful of market makers. Do not over‑interpret one month.

4) Trading share (venue‑specific)

What to measure. On centralized exchanges, the proportion of spot and derivatives trades where a USD1 stablecoins pair is the quote asset. On decentralized exchanges, the proportion of swaps where a pool uses a USD1 stablecoins token as one side.

How to compute. For a venue V, Trading share of T is Volume in pairs quoted or settled in T divided by all volume involving USD1 stablecoins on V. Compute separately for spot, perpetuals, and options.

Why it matters. Trading share speaks to liquidity preference by active participants. Shifts often coincide with policy changes, listings, fee schedules, and integration partnerships. [6–7]

Caveats. Beware of wash trading and internalization. Compare multiple data sources to reduce bias. For decentralized venues, be sure to filter obvious spam transactions.

5) Holder share (unique wallets)

What to measure. The fraction of unique wallets with a non‑trivial balance in the token. “Non‑trivial” might be a threshold like ten dollars to avoid counting dust.

How to compute. Cluster addresses to entities where possible. For each token, count entities above the threshold. Divide by the total entities holding any USD1 stablecoins.

Why it matters. Wallet breadth hints at grassroots adoption and network effects—how many distinct control points actually hold the token. [8]

Caveats. Clustering is an art. Heuristics vary by chain and tool. Centralized exchange omnibus wallets can mask thousands of end users behind a single address. Consider analyzing both entity‑level and raw address measures.

6) Geographic share (regional adoption)

What to measure. The portion of flows or balances linked to specific regions based on exchange activity, off‑ramp partners, on‑chain time‑of‑day patterns, and survey data.

How to compute. Attribute flows using a mix of exchange market share by country, fiat on‑ramp coverage, and on‑chain heuristics. Some analytics firms publish regional stablecoin usage percentages you can use as priors. [8]

Why it matters. Market share can look very different across regions due to local rules, bank relationships, and preferred chains.

Caveats. No dataset perfectly maps wallets to geography. Treat regional share as directional, not precise.

Where the data comes from and how to read it

On‑chain analytics vendors. Firms such as Coin Metrics provide time‑series for supply, active addresses, velocity, and chain distribution of USD1 stablecoins. Their “State of the Network” notes and stablecoin sector analyses explain methodology and known edge cases. [6]

Market microstructure research. Providers including Kaiko publish regular notes on stablecoin trading volumes, quote dominance, and depth on major venues. Their work is useful for venue‑specific share analysis and for understanding how policy changes shift liquidity. [7]

Regional studies. Chainalysis publishes an annual geography report with stablecoin insights across local exchanges and payment corridors, which can inform regional share assumptions. [8]

Open dashboards. Aggregators like CoinGecko publish market capitalization and volume tables for stablecoins, along with periodic industry reports summarizing growth and composition. Treat public tables as a starting point and cross‑check with methodology notes. [12]

Issuer disclosures and assurance. Issuers frequently publish monthly reserve attestations by independent firms. Look for reports carried out under recognized standards such as AICPA AT‑C in the United States or ISAE 3000 internationally. Distinguish between an attestation (an independent accountant reports on subject matter or an assertion) and an audit (a broader examination of financial statements). Read the scope paragraph carefully. [10–11]

Policy and law. The Financial Stability Board and IOSCO have issued high‑level recommendations for global stablecoin arrangements and crypto‑asset markets, while the European Union’s MiCA regulation is in force, with staged application dates and Level 2 measures developed by ESMA and the EBA. Local supervisors such as the New York Department of Financial Services have also issued guidance specific to dollar‑backed stablecoins under their oversight. [2–5]

Regional and venue effects you should expect

Europe. MiCA’s entry into application for asset‑referenced tokens and e‑money tokens in June 2024, followed by crypto‑asset service providers in December 2024, has already reshaped issuer and venue strategies. Some non‑euro tokens have adjusted their operations, while euro‑denominated products remain niche by market share compared with USD1 stablecoins, but are gaining attention as banks and payment firms explore compliant issuance paths. [3–5]

United States. Federal legislation remains a live topic, and several states supervise virtual currency businesses. New York’s DFS guidance codifies expectations for redeemability, reserve composition, and independent attestations for dollar‑backed stablecoins issued under its oversight. Market share in U.S. venues tends to favor tokens with clearer bank and trust relationships and deeper fiat rails. [4]

Asia. Venue‑level dynamics can dominate. If a major exchange in a country quotes most markets against one token, trading share will skew toward that token, even if supply share favors another. Research notes have highlighted how listing policies and fee schedules move share between quote assets over time. [7]

Emerging markets. Geography studies document strong growth in USD1 stablecoins transfer value where local currency volatility is high or cross‑border trade is significant. In some corridors, transfer growth outpaces other crypto use cases. [8]

How regulation shapes market share

Global standards. The Financial Stability Board’s recommendations for global stablecoin arrangements stress robust stabilization mechanisms, governance, transparency, and redemption at par, on demand. IOSCO’s policy recommendations for crypto‑asset markets and for decentralized finance complement that work from a market‑conduct angle. Tokens aligning with these expectations can find it easier to gain and keep listings and banking access, indirectly supporting market share. [2],[5]

European Union (MiCA). MiCA sets out rules for issuers of e‑money and asset‑referenced tokens, disclosures, reserve management, and supervision. ESMA and the EBA have developed Level 2 standards and guidance, including criteria for designating tokens as “significant.” Significance can trigger higher obligations like more frequent reporting. These rules tend to professionalize issuance and may consolidate share among entities that can meet them. [3–5]

United States. Supervisory guidance at the state level (notably New York DFS) requires redeemability, high‑quality and segregated reserves, and independent, regular attestations. Proposed federal legislation has also focused on reserve quality and disclosures. These rules, formal and informal, reward issuers with transparent reserve policies. [4]

Why this matters for your charts. After new rules take effect, venue quoting conventions can change, bank partners may shift, and issuers might alter chain distribution. If you are comparing market share across years, annotate your timeline near key policy milestones so you do not misread structural breaks as organic demand. [2–5]

A step‑by‑step method you can replicate

This method is data‑source agnostic. It is equally useful if you rely on public APIs or paid datasets.

Step 1 — Define scope clearly. Decide whether you will include only fiat‑backed USD1 stablecoins (redeemable for U.S. dollars held in cash and short‑dated government securities) or also include over‑collateralized and algorithmic designs. For this page, we focus on fiat‑backed USD1 stablecoins because that is how most regulators and market participants define the relevant category for payments and settlement risk. [2–5]

Step 2 — Build a clean token list. For each token, maintain chain‑by‑chain contract addresses and flags for native versus bridged representations. This prevents double counting.

Step 3 — Compute circulating supply. Pull supply per chain and subtract issuer‑controlled addresses. Where possible, reconcile to issuer dashboards or monthly attestations.

Step 4 — Tally transfer value. Aggregate on‑chain transfer value between independent entities by token, net of obvious self‑churn. Many analytics packages provide these filtered series. [6],[8]

Step 5 — Gather primary flows. Track mint and burn events from issuer wallets. Some issuers provide RSS feeds or CSV downloads. Map large burns to known exchange wallets when possible to understand whether redemptions are end‑user driven or venue‑driven.

Step 6 — Add venue trading data. On centralized venues, collect quote‑by‑quote volume and depth around the top markets. On decentralized venues, pull swap volume per pool and identify pools where a USD1 stablecoins token is one leg. Normalize across venues to avoid counting internal cross trades. [7]

Step 7 — Estimate holder breadth. For each token, count entities above a small balance threshold. Reconcile known exchange omnibus wallets to avoid misclassifying a single hot wallet as a million retail users.

Step 8 — Attribute regionally. Use exchange market share by country, on‑ramp coverage, time‑of‑day patterns, and public studies to assign rough regional weights. Treat the result as an estimate, not a precise census. [8]

Step 9 — Triangulate with policy timelines. Overlay dates when major regulatory changes took effect (for example, MiCA application dates, new DFS guidance, major IOSCO papers) so that structural shifts are contextualized. [2–5]

Step 10 — Document assumptions. For every chart or table, record how you defined scope, how you filtered data, and what you excluded. This is essential for reproducibility and for honest interpretation.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Double counting wrapped tokens. A token native to one chain can appear as many wrapped claims on other chains. If you sum all instances without netting, you inflate supply share. Solution: track canonical contracts and wrappers separately, and net at the end.

Confusing attestation with audit. Many monthly reports are attestations performed under AICPA or ISAE 3000 standards, not full financial statement audits. That does not make them meaningless, but you should read the scope, independence statement, and procedures performed before drawing conclusions about reserve quality. [10–11]

Assuming trading share equals usage. Quote dominance on an exchange can be driven by listings, market maker preferences, fee discounts, and internal settlement design—not just user demand. Treat trading share and transaction share as separate signals. [7]

Ignoring off‑chain flows. Large merchants, market makers, and OTC desks can move billions entirely off‑chain through issuer portals. You will not see those in on‑chain transfer data. Use primary mint and burn series as a cross‑check.

Misreading regional data. Attributing wallets to countries is inherently uncertain. Use ranges and cross‑validate against multiple studies. [8]

Overlooking macro linkages. Changes in short‑term rates can alter reserve income, incentives to hold balances, and issuer strategies. The macro backdrop can indirectly influence market share. [9]

Chasing one‑month stories. Shares jump around when a new venue lists a token, when fee schedules change, or when a chain experiences congestion. Wait for a few months of data before declaring a regime shift.

Glossary (plain English on first use)

USD1 stablecoins. A generic description for dollar‑redeemable stablecoins aiming to maintain one‑for‑one convertibility with U.S. dollars.

On‑chain. Recorded directly on a public blockchain ledger.

Off‑chain. Occurring outside the blockchain (for example, in bank accounts, issuer portals, and exchange internal ledgers).

Circulating supply. Tokens held by the public, excluding issuer treasury, burn addresses, and known bridging contracts.

Mint. Creation of new tokens at the issuer level.

Burn. Destruction of tokens after redemption for dollars.

Quote asset. The asset in which prices are expressed on an exchange. In a BTC‑USDC market, the quote asset is the USD1 stablecoins side.

Automated market maker (AMM). A program that sets token prices and executes swaps using formulas rather than a central order book.

Attestation. An independent accountant’s report on specified subject matter or an assertion, performed under standards such as AICPA AT‑C or ISAE 3000.

Audit. A broader examination of financial statements under auditing standards, distinct from a limited‑scope attestation.

Significant token. In the MiCA context, a token that meets quantitative thresholds and therefore faces heightened obligations set by supervisors. [3–5]

Frequently asked questions

Is a larger market share always better? No. Larger share can mean better liquidity and acceptance, but it says little about reserve composition, governance, or operational resilience. Always read disclosures and independent assurance reports. [10–11]

Why do trading and supply shares diverge? A token may dominate quotes on a popular venue while having a smaller global supply, or vice versa. Listings, fee policies, and market‑maker preferences drive exchange share, while supply reflects issuance and redemption dynamics.

What about euro or other currency stablecoins? This page focuses on USD1 stablecoins because they dominate global stablecoin value today and are the primary focus of cross‑border crypto settlement. Euro and other fiat tokens exist, but their market share is smaller and subject to separate regulatory requirements. [3–5]

Do policy changes really move market share? Yes. The introduction or enforcement of new rules can affect bank access, disclosure obligations, and venue quoting conventions, which can shift both trading and supply shares over time. [2–5]

How big is the USD1 stablecoins market today? Public trackers and research notes placed the fiat‑backed stablecoin market in the mid‑hundreds of billions of dollars in 2025, with new highs reached during the year. Always consult up‑to‑date dashboards and cross‑check methodologies before using a headline figure. [12],[13]

Closing thought

Market share is a useful summary statistic, but it is never the whole story. Combine supply, transaction value, primary flows, trading dominance, holder breadth, and regional attribution to see the full picture. Then layer in reserve transparency and the policy environment to understand whether share is likely to be durable. When you compare numbers across sources, make sure you are comparing like with like. The most reliable conclusions come from triangulation, not from a single chart.

Sources

  1. Bank for International Settlements, “Stablecoin growth – policy challenges and approaches” (BIS Bulletin No. 108, 2025). https://www.bis.org/publ/bisbull108.pdf [1]

  2. Financial Stability Board, “High‑level Recommendations for the Regulation, Supervision and Oversight of Global Stablecoin Arrangements” (Final report, Jul 17, 2023). https://www.fsb.org/2023/07/high-level-recommendations-for-the-regulation-supervision-and-oversight-of-global-stablecoin-arrangements-final-report/ [2]

  3. EUR‑Lex, “Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto‑assets (MiCA)” (consolidated). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1114/oj/eng [3]

  4. New York State Department of Financial Services, “Guidance on the Issuance of U.S. Dollar‑Backed Stablecoins” (Jun 8, 2022). https://www.dfs.ny.gov/industry_guidance/industry_letters/il20220608_issuance_stablecoins [4]

  5. International Organization of Securities Commissions, “Policy Recommendations for Crypto and Digital Asset Markets” and “Final Report with Policy Recommendations for Decentralized Finance” (Nov 2023 and Dec 2023). https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD747.pdf, https://www.iosco.org/news/pdf/IOSCONEWS720.pdf [5]

  6. Coin Metrics, “Stablecoin Sector Analysis” and related “State of the Network” research notes. https://coinmetrics.io/special-insights/stablecoin-sector-analysis/ [6]

  7. Kaiko Research, “USDC leads demand for regulated stablecoins” and other venue‑level analyses (2024–2025). https://research.kaiko.com/insights/usdc-leads-demand-for-regulated-stablecoins [7]

  8. Chainalysis, “The 2024 Geography of Crypto Report.” https://www.chainalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/the-2024-geography-of-crypto-report-release.pdf [8]

  9. Bank for International Settlements, “Stablecoins and safe asset prices” (Working Paper 1270, 2025). https://www.bis.org/publ/work1270.htm [9]

  10. AICPA, “U.S. Attestation Standards (AT‑C) — Clarified” and related SSAE updates. https://assets.ctfassets.net/rb9cdnjh59cm/1fdt7h15g7hYPQjnZgB6iF/c703b16c71ee60963aaff64394a611d5/ps-at-c-sections.pdf [10]

  11. BDO Italia, “Independent assurance report on Tether reserves (ISAE 3000 Revised)” (Jul 31, 2025). https://assets.ctfassets.net/vyse88cgwfbl/2SGAAXnsb1wKByIzkhcbSx/9efa4682b3cd4c62d87a4c88ee729693/ISAE_3000R_-_Opinion_Tether_International_Financial_Figure_RC187322025BD0201.pdf [11]

  12. CoinGecko Research, “Q2 2025 Crypto Industry Report” and “RWA Report 2025.” https://www.coingecko.com/research/publications/2025-q2-crypto-report, https://www.coingecko.com/research/publications/rwa-report-2025 [12]