Stablecoins form the basis of crypto ecosystems, making up most crypto trading pairs and driving large blockchain transactions.
The top five chains of Stablecoin’s market capitalization (Ethereum, Tron, BSC, Base, and Arbitrum) reveal clear patterns in publishing, bridging and usage. The distribution and use of stubcoin across these chains shows how users approach and use it, and why a particular network has become a priority venue for a particular Stablecoin publisher.
Rank Name 7D Change Stables MCAP Dominant Stub Coin Total MCAP was issued with a total MCAP over 1 Ethereum +2.20% $125.842B usdt. 73.97%$1.043B$5.978B 4 Bases 4 Bases – 0.82%$4.058B USDC: 91.91%$4.028B $2994M 5 ARBITRUM +6.03%$3.847B USDC: 52.22%$4.065B $1.811BB
Ethereum leads in Stablecoin’s market capitalization of over $125 billion, backed by a multi-billion-dollar net increase. This big foundation shows that Ethereum is a flexible platform for Stablecoin issuance, trading and Defi adoption. The key factors are the wide range of stubcoins found in Ethereum, from major publishers such as tethers and circles to algorithmic and excess material options.
USDT accounts for about half of Ethereum’s Stablecoin Supply, but USDC, Dai and others also maintain a notable share. This diversity demonstrates the importance of Ethereum to both facility and retail capital, eliciting the liquidity of lending protocols, liquidity pools and other debt equipment.
Tron is worth around $65 billion in Stablecoin, second, but much more concentrated. Tether essentially represents the entire pool of Trons, and stains directly into the network, reflecting the strategic focus of Tether operators. Tron has fewer competing issuers, and its low transaction costs helped turn it into a popular corridor for stable transfers.
Unlike Ethereum, the Tron shows zero bridge values, indicating that the stubcoins on the Tron are almost entirely native, rather than flowing from other chains. This highlights the specialized capabilities of the network in the market. Provide a consistent and cost-effective environment for USDT transactions. This attracts users who need fast, inexpensive transfers around engagement with a broader debt ecosystem.
BSC, which was dominated primarily by Tethers, ranks third in the market capitalization of Stablecoin over $7 billion, with measures of diversity, including BUSD and USDC. A significant portion of the stubcoins on the BSC, about $6 billion, is bridged from other chains.
Users rely on bridging solutions that bring liquidity to capture farming, trading and other debt operations. BSC’s trading costs are typically lower than Ethereum, making them more attractive to traders and acquirers who view them as a more economical environment despite having less complete stubcoin liquidity than Ethereum and Tron.
Base is one of the newcomers, but already has more than $4 billion in Stablecoins, driven primarily by USDC. A significant $3.9 billion total is bridged rather than natively issued, indicating that the base ecosystem has grown primarily by attracting liquidity from external sources, particularly Ethereum.
Much of this capital reflects users’ preferences for USDC mint and bridging, which are likely linked to the confidence of the broader Defi community in Coinbase’s relationship and its redemption process. Participants are moving on the basis of Stablecoins to take advantage of reduced transaction costs and seeking new yield opportunities in an environment that is closely fixed with Ethereum’s security guarantees.
Arbitrum is approaching $4 billion in Stablecoins and has a modest lead over the basis for Stablecoin supply, of which around $1.8 billion fills liquidity. Like bases, Arbitrum relies heavily on capital moving from Ethereum, with a Stablecoin configuration featuring USDC, Tether and other assets. Early entry as Layer-2 in Arbitrum helped ensure that various Defi protocols work on the network. These platforms have attracted stubcoin holders who are trying to deploy funds to protocols that replicate Ethereum’s robust liquidity without high gas charges.
While analyzing the importance of these distributions, the advantages of Ethereum and Tron reveal two key use cases that are stable. At Ethereum, users are looking for a wide range of defi environments and a variety of stubcoin issuers, but Tron is able to accommodate less refined massive capacity transfers with a focus on tethers for cost-effective settlements. Ethereum’s Stablecoin Mix is hardly dependent on Bridged Tokens and totals over $125 billion, while Tron’s $65 billion is almost entirely issued natively.
The concentration of stubcoins on only two networks highlights the market trends that concentrate around infrastructure that offers a wide range of features or minimal transaction costs. At the same time, it shows that users are willing to spread capital to other chains, but usually only if the new environment offers its own benefits or specialized applications.
Some chains do not host many official Stablecoin publishers on the network, indicating a much higher total of bridged Stablecoin than native publishing. Instead, they rely on bridging solutions to concentrate fluidity from larger or more established chains.
For example, BSC has over $7 billion embedded in it, with only about $1 billion being built directly or natively issued on BSC. The base follows a similar pattern, bridging over $3.9 billion, totaling over $4 billion, while Arbitrum’s $4 billion stubcoins have arrived via the cross-chain bridge.
In contrast, Tron’s bridge count is zero, making sure that Tron’s entire $65 billion Stablecoins are natively minted. This phenomenon is widely used in Layer 2 and sidechains, with users enjoying faster and cheaper transactions while leaning towards Ethereum’s liquidity and security model. Stablecoins work similarly on a particular chain, so the defining factor is faster and cheaper to travel, not native or bridged.
Post-Ethereum’s diverse mix of Stablecoins outweighed Tron’s USD domination.
