Stablecoins have emerged as a fundamental element of the cryptocurrency landscape, comprising the majority of trading pairs and driving a significant portion of blockchain transactions.
The leading five chains based on stablecoin market capitalization—Ethereum, Tron, BSC, Base, and Arbitrum—exhibit unique trends in stablecoin issuance, bridging, and overall utilization. The way stablecoins are distributed and employed across these networks illustrates user preferences and highlights why certain platforms have become favored by specific stablecoin issuers.
| Rank | Name | 7d Change | Stables Mcap | Dominant Stablecoin | Total Mcap Issued On | Total Mcap Bridged To |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ethereum | +2.20% | $125.842b | USDT: 52.21% | $139.159b | $1.33m |
| 2 | Tron | +1.39% | $65.143b | USDT: 99.25% | $65.15b | $0 |
| 3 | BSC | +0.01% | $7.006b | USDT: 73.97% | $1.043b | $5.978b |
| 4 | Base | -0.82% | $4.058b | USDC: 91.91% | $4.028b | $29.94m |
| 5 | Arbitrum | +6.03% | $3.847b | USDC: 52.22% | $4.065b | $1.811b |
Ethereum stands at the forefront, boasting a stablecoin market cap exceeding $125 billion, bolstered by a significant weekly increase in the billions. This substantial foundation underscores Ethereum’s flexibility as a platform for stablecoin issuance, trading, and DeFi engagement. A critical factor contributing to this success is the wide array of stablecoins available on Ethereum, ranging from major players like Tether and Circle to various algorithmic and overcollateralized options.
While USDT constitutes nearly half of Ethereum’s stablecoin supply, USDC, DAI, and others also hold important positions. This diversity highlights Ethereum’s significance for both institutional and retail investors, attracting liquidity for lending protocols, liquidity pools, and other DeFi applications.
Tron follows closely behind with approximately $65 billion in stablecoin value, but with a much narrower focus. Tether comprises nearly the entire stablecoin pool on Tron, demonstrating a strategic initiative by Tether’s operators to issue directly on the network. The limited number of competing issuers and lower transaction fees on Tron have made it a popular choice for stablecoin transfers.
In contrast to Ethereum, Tron shows no bridged value, indicating that its stablecoins are primarily native rather than transferred from other chains. This emphasizes the network’s specialized role: it provides a reliable and cost-efficient environment primarily for USDT transactions, appealing to users looking for quick and affordable transfers without needing to engage with a broader DeFi ecosystem.
BSC occupies the third spot, with a stablecoin market cap exceeding $7 billion, largely dominated by Tether but also including some diversity with BUSD and USDC. Notably, around $6 billion of BSC’s stablecoins are bridged from other chains.
Users often depend on bridging solutions to facilitate liquidity for yield farming, trading, and other DeFi activities. The lower transaction costs on BSC compared to Ethereum attract traders and yield hunters who appreciate the more cost-effective environment, despite BSC having less total stablecoin liquidity than Ethereum or Tron.
Base, a relatively new player, has already achieved over $4 billion in stablecoin assets, predominantly from USDC. A significant portion, around $3.9 billion, is bridged rather than issued directly, suggesting that Base’s ecosystem has grown mainly by capturing liquidity from external sources, chiefly Ethereum.
This influx of capital mirrors users’ preferences for minting and bridging USDC, possibly linked to Coinbase’s connections and the general DeFi community’s trust in its redemption process. Users are transferring stablecoins to Base to benefit from reduced transaction costs while seeking new yield opportunities in an environment closely tied to the security assurances of Ethereum.
Arbitrum, with nearly $4 billion in stablecoins, holds a slight advantage over Base in total supply, with about $1.8 billion sourced from bridged liquidity. Like Base, Arbitrum significantly relies on capital migration from Ethereum, featuring a stablecoin mix of USDC, Tether, and other assets. Its early establishment as a Layer-2 has facilitated the growth of various DeFi protocols on the network, attracting stablecoin holders who wish to utilize funds in platforms mimicking Ethereum’s robust liquidity without incurring high gas fees.
An examination of these distributions reveals that the prominence of Ethereum and Tron illustrates two key use cases for stablecoins. Users on Ethereum tend to seek a comprehensive DeFi environment with multiple stablecoin issuers, while Tron serves the needs of users who engage in volume-heavy transfers, prioritizing Tether for cost-efficient settlements. The stablecoin landscape on Ethereum exceeds $125 billion in overall value with minimal reliance on bridged assets, while Tron’s total of $65 billion consists almost entirely of USDT issued natively.
This concentration of stablecoins across just two networks underscores the tendency for the market to cluster around infrastructures that provide either extensive functionality or low transaction costs. Simultaneously, users have shown they are willing to diversify funds to other chains, but typically only if the new environment offers distinct advantages or specialized applications.
Several chains exhibit a much larger bridged stablecoin total compared to native issuance due to the lack of a multitude of official stablecoin issuers on their networks, relying instead on bridging solutions to channel liquidity from more established chains.
For instance, BSC has $6 billion bridged out of over $7 billion, indicating that merely about $1 billion is directly minted or issued on the platform. A similar pattern emerges with Base, which has $3.9 billion bridged out of a little over $4 billion total. Additionally, Arbitrum reports $1.8 billion of nearly $4 billion in stablecoins arriving through cross-chain bridges.
Conversely, Tron’s bridged amount remains at zero, confirming that all $65 billion in stablecoins on the network consists of natively minted Tether. This trend is common among Layer-2 solutions and sidechains, where users enjoy faster and cheaper transactions while still benefiting from Ethereum’s liquidity and security features. Because stablecoins effectively operate similarly once they’re on a specific chain, the crucial aspect becomes the speed and cost efficiency of their transfer rather than whether they are natively created or bridged.