Ethereum лидирует по средним транзакциям стейблкоинов, Mantle и Sui превосходят гигантов L2

cryptonews.ruPublished on 2023-10-17Last updated on 2025-05-17

  • Ethereum лидирует в списке размеров транзакций среди стейблкоинов: средний размер транзакции составляет 68 тыс. долларов США.
  • Mantle и Sui превосходят сеть Ethereum L2, Arbitrum и Optimism по средним объемам переводов.
  • Base достигла исторического максимума с объемом стейблкоинов в 3,81 трлн долларов в первом квартале 2025 года и более чем 915 тыс. активных пользователей.

По данным CryptoRank.io, Ethereum (ETH) теперь лидирует среди всех блокчейнов со средним размером транзакции стейблкоина в $68 000.

Эта лидирующая позиция в крупных движениях стейблкоинов для Ethereum примечательна, поскольку сам ETH недавно продемонстрировал рыночную силу, на которую повлияло его обновление Pectra и более широкие тенденции, заданные Bitcoin. На момент публикации ETH торгуется по $2602 с рыночной капитализацией $314,17 млрд.

Mantle and Sui lead in stablecoins transaction size

Ethereum firmly holds the lead with an average stablecoin transaction size of $68K. @base ($20K) and @trondao ($8.9K) also rank among the top performers.

Interestingly, @Mantle_Official ($6.8K) and @SuiNetwork ($5.8K) have… pic.twitter.com/o6XEiqCLnA

— CryptoRank.io (@CryptoRank_io) May 15, 2025

Base и Tron следуют за Ethereum в рейтинге транзакций стейблкоинов

Следом за Ethereum сеть Base заняла второе место со средним показателем $20 200, а Tron занял третье место со средним показателем $8 900. Далее по списку Mantle и Avalanche также вошли в первую пятерку, обеспечив средние размеры транзакций стейблкоинов в размере $6 850 и $6 120 соответственно.

В отчете подчеркивается, что активность стейблкоинов на Base резко возросла в первом квартале 2025 года. Согласно последним данным, объем стейблкоинов Base достиг исторического максимума в 3,81 трлн долларов и привлек более 915 000 активных пользователей за квартал.

Между тем, в десятку лучших вошли Sui, Optimism, TON, Arbitrum и Polygon. Sui занял шестое место в списке с $5750, а Optimism зарегистрировал $2720. TON оказался на втором месте с $2510, Arbitrum — с $2100, а Polygon занял последнее место в этой группе с $1660.

Mantle и Sui превосходят основные сети Ethereum уровня 2

Примечательным аспектом результатов CryptoRank.io является производительность Mantle и Sui. Эти новые цепи превзошли две из самых известных сетей Ethereum Layer 2, Arbitrum и Optimism, с точки зрения среднего объема переводов на транзакцию стейблкоина. Такое превосходство указывает на растущее доверие пользователей и уверенность в этих цепях, которые часто рекламируются как высокомасштабируемые и эффективные.

Связанный:Источники сообщают, что закон GENIUS о стейблкоинах может быть принят Сенатом США в середине мая

Тенденция пользователей перемещать большие суммы за одну транзакцию часто отражает предпочтение сетей, предлагающих низкие комиссии и высокую пропускную способность, что может быть причиной увеличения среднего размера транзакций, наблюдаемого в Mantle и Sui.

Trending Cryptos

ctr
CitreaCTR
wstusdt
wrapped stUSDTWSTUSDT
apr
aPrioriAPR
ctx
Cryptex FinanceCTX
audio
AudiusAUDIO
mantra
MantraMANTRA
xvs
VenusXVS
waxl
AxelarWAXL
bill
Billions NetworkBILL
pyth
PYTH (Pyth)PYTH
rune
THORChainRUNE
velodrome
Velodrome FinanceVELODROME
brev
BrevisBREV
cake
PancakeSwapCAKE
jst
JUSTJST

Related Reads

Why Do Cryptocurrency Projects Frequently Change Their Names?

"Why do crypto projects frequently rebrand? Unlike traditional companies that protect brand equity as a core asset, over 16% of crypto projects have changed their names. This trend stems from key industry differences. Firstly, user loyalty in crypto is often low. Many participants are investors, airdrop hunters, or narrative traders, not traditional consumers. A name associated with price crashes, hacks, or failed narratives becomes a liability rather than an asset. Secondly, rebranding is a strategic tool. It can signal a legitimate pivot to new technologies (e.g., Matic to Polygon) or deliberately 'hitchhike' on hot narratives like AI or RWA to attract attention. It can also serve as crisis PR, attempting to distance a project from past security breaches or controversies. The most concerning aspect is when a name change coincides with a token migration or swap. This can allow projects to reset historical price charts, dilute tokenomics through added allocations, and create opportunities for price manipulation around the migration event. The core issue isn't rebranding itself, but the intent behind it. The key questions are: does the change reflect genuine strategic evolution and added value, or is it primarily an attempt to escape history, reset narratives, and manipulate perception for short-term gain?"

marsbit7m ago

Why Do Cryptocurrency Projects Frequently Change Their Names?

marsbit7m ago

PUMP price stalls despite 20% volume surge- Can whales restart the rally?

Despite a 20% surge in trading volume, the price of PUMP stalled, retreating from a high of $0.0015 to $0.0013 as traders took profits. Market activity showed mixed signals. On one hand, a dormant whale returned, spending 5,000 SOL ($358K) to acquire 242.66 million PUMP, indicating accumulation by high-networth investors. Exchange data showed a negative Spot Netflow, suggesting profit-taking has eased. Network fundamentals strengthened, with Daily Active Addresses jumping to 9.2k, a level not seen in nearly a month. However, momentum indicators remain weak. The Relative Strength Index (RSI) is below 50, indicating insufficient buying pressure. The DMI setup suggests significant opposing forces, favoring sideways price action between $0.0012 and $0.0015 in the near term. For a rally to restart, rising whale demand would need to materialize and help PUMP flip the $0.0015 resistance to target $0.0016.

ambcrypto1h ago

PUMP price stalls despite 20% volume surge- Can whales restart the rally?

ambcrypto1h ago

Loopring shuts down DEX – What went wrong for Ethereum’s L2 pioneer?

Loopring, an early Ethereum layer-2 scaling protocol, is shutting down its decentralized exchange. The primary cause was years of declining user engagement and activity, driven largely by the rise of more versatile zkEVM technologies. Unlike Loopring's specialized zkRollup design, zkEVMs allow existing Ethereum applications to deploy easily, accelerating ecosystem growth and drawing users away. This led to a steady drop in Loopring's key metrics, including daily active addresses, transaction volume, and protocol fees. The shutdown highlights that while innovative technology can establish scalability leadership, a lack of widespread composability can undermine its long-term viability. Loopring's future now hinges on whether its core zkRollup technology can find new life integrated into Layer-3 or modular infrastructure solutions, or if this marks the end for one of Ethereum's pioneering layer-2 innovations.

ambcrypto3h ago

Loopring shuts down DEX – What went wrong for Ethereum’s L2 pioneer?

ambcrypto3h ago

Can crypto recover from its $2.6T market cap wipeout? If not, what’s next?

Cryptocurrency markets are entering Q3 under significant pressure, with the total market cap falling from a record $4.7 trillion to around $2.05 trillion. Macroeconomic uncertainty, a strengthening U.S. dollar, and rising Treasury yields are driving a flight to safety, dampening investor appetite for risk assets like crypto. This negative backdrop is compounded by weak crypto-specific fundamentals, including a sharp decline in DeFi Total Value Locked (TVL) from $115 billion to $70 billion and a record number of hacks resulting in major losses. With technical indicators and market performance lagging behind other asset classes like the NASDAQ, the outlook for a recovery in Q3 appears increasingly bearish.

ambcrypto5h ago

Can crypto recover from its $2.6T market cap wipeout? If not, what’s next?

ambcrypto5h ago

LAB’s 23% price crash meets bearish bets – Can bulls defend $13?

LAB's price plummeted over 23% in 24 hours, trading near $13.53 as bearish sentiment dominated. Despite the sharp decline, on-chain data shows ongoing token accumulation, with negative spot exchange netflows indicating holders are moving LAB to private wallets rather than selling. However, this has not offset broader selling pressure. Technically, LAB is testing the lower support of its ascending channel near $13. A break below could target the $12 demand zone. Indicators like the MACD and Parabolic SAR remain bearish. In derivatives markets, a negative funding rate shows sustained short interest, though this creates potential for a short squeeze if buyers return. In summary, LAB faces heavy selling pressure with key channel support at risk. A successful defense of $13 could stabilize the price, while a breakdown would likely target $12 next.

ambcrypto7h ago

LAB’s 23% price crash meets bearish bets – Can bulls defend $13?

ambcrypto7h ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of ETH (ETH) are presented below.

活动图片

Top Questions