Tether Ramps Up Wallet Freezes, Blocking Over $500M In USDT

bitcoinistPubblicato 2026-05-10Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-05-10

Introduzione

Tether has significantly increased its wallet freezing activity, blocking over $514 million in USDT across 370 addresses on the Tron and Ethereum networks in just the past 30 days. Data from BlockSec shows the vast majority of these freezes (328 addresses, $506 million) occurred on Tron. The pace is accelerating, with the 2025 annual total of $1.26 billion across 4,163 addresses at risk of being surpassed this year. Once frozen, wallets are rarely reinstated, and more than half of the associated funds are typically permanently destroyed. A growing portion of these enforcement actions are coordinated with law enforcement. Recent examples include freezing $344 million linked to suspected sanctions evasion with Iran and $61 million tied to "pig butchering" scams. Cumulatively from 2023-2025, Tether has frozen roughly $3.3 billion across 7,268 addresses, far exceeding actions by competitors like Circle. This surge has sparked broader debate within crypto about the power issuers and projects hold to freeze or recover funds, highlighting how compliance and central controls remain integral behind the scenes of decentralized ecosystems.

Once frozen, a Tether-blacklisted wallet almost never comes back. Only 3.6% of addresses placed on the blocklist in 2025 were later removed, according to BlockSec data.

More than half of the funds tied to those wallets were permanently destroyed using the contracts’ “destroyBlackFunds” function — a detail that underscores just how final these enforcement actions tend to be.

Freezes Surge Across Tron And Ethereum

In the past 30 days alone, Tether froze over $514 million in USDT across 370 addresses on the Ethereum and Tron networks.

BlockSec’s USDT Freeze Tracker shows 328 of those addresses were on Tron, with about $506 million locked there. Ethereum accounted for 42 addresses and $8.73 million. The gap between the two networks points to Tron as the main front in Tether’s enforcement push.

Source: BlockSec

The pace is picking up. All of 2025 saw Tether blacklist 4,163 addresses and freeze a combined $1.26 billion. At the current rate, that annual total could be surpassed well before December.

A broader study covering 2023 through 2025 put the cumulative figure at roughly $3.3 billion across 7,268 addresses — far ahead of rival stablecoin issuer Circle over the same period.

Law Enforcement Plays A Growing Role

Some of the largest recent freezes were tied directly to government investigations. In April, Tether coordinated with the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control to lock more than $344 million in USDT across two Tron addresses.

Bitcoin is currently trading at $80,349. Chart: TradingView

Officials said those wallets were linked to suspected sanctions evasion involving Iran. Months earlier, in February, Tether assisted authorities in seizing over $61 million connected to pig butchering scams — a form of fraud where victims are manipulated into sending large sums under false pretenses.

Tether had previously disclosed that it froze around $4.2 billion in tokens over three years due to links with illicit activity, with $3.5 billion of that amount locked since 2023 as law enforcement agencies stepped up crypto-related investigations.

Broader Questions Around Freeze Powers

The surge in blacklisting has sparked debate beyond stablecoins. Some decentralized finance projects have used upgradeable contracts and admin controls to halt or recover funds after major exploits, raising questions about who holds those powers and when they should be used.

For stablecoins like USDT, issuers retain direct control over minting and burning. Data shows these freeze mechanisms are now a routine part of fraud, sanctions, and scam investigations — used not occasionally, but consistently and at scale.

Featured image from Halo, chart from TradingView

Domande pertinenti

QWhat percentage of Tether-blacklisted wallets in 2025 were later removed, and what happens to the funds?

AOnly 3.6% of Tether-blacklisted addresses in 2025 were later removed. More than half of the funds tied to those wallets were permanently destroyed using the 'destroyBlackFunds' contract function.

QHow much USDT did Tether freeze in the past 30 days, and which blockchain network was most impacted?

AIn the past 30 days, Tether froze over $514 million in USDT across 370 addresses. The Tron network was the most impacted, with 328 addresses and about $506 million frozen, compared to 42 addresses and $8.73 million on Ethereum.

QWhat was the cumulative amount of USDT frozen by Tether from 2023 through 2025, and how does it compare to its rival Circle?

AFrom 2023 through 2025, Tether froze roughly $3.3 billion in USDT across 7,268 addresses. This amount is far ahead of what its rival stablecoin issuer, Circle, froze over the same period.

QWhat were two notable law enforcement-related Tether freezes mentioned in the article?

ATwo notable law enforcement-related freezes were: 1) In April, Tether coordinated with the U.S. Treasury's OFAC to freeze over $344 million in USDT linked to suspected sanctions evasion involving Iran. 2) In February, Tether assisted in seizing over $61 million connected to pig butchering scams.

QWhat broader debate has the surge in Tether blacklisting sparked, according to the article?

AThe surge in Tether blacklisting has sparked a broader debate about who holds freeze powers and when they should be used, extending beyond stablecoins to decentralized finance projects that use upgradeable contracts and admin controls to halt or recover funds after major exploits.

Letture associate

Wall Street's 'Compliance Hunt': The Great Stablecoin Reserve Migration

In a concentrated move over the past week, several Wall Street giants have advanced their tokenized money market fund initiatives, signaling a strategic shift driven by impending U.S. stablecoin regulations. JPMorgan Chase launched its second such fund, JLTXX, on Ethereum, explicitly targeting future stablecoin issuer reserve needs. Concurrently, Franklin Templeton partnered with Kraken to integrate its BENJI tokenized funds onto the exchange platform for use as collateral and cash management tools. BlackRock further solidified its position by filing for two new tokenized funds with the SEC, aiming to convert its massive traditional stablecoin custody business into a tokenized model. These parallel developments represent a multi-pronged institutional "compliance hunt" to capture future crypto liquidity. BlackRock and JPMorgan are focusing on the backend, preparing to serve as the core reserve and settlement infrastructure for compliant stablecoins as outlined by the GENIUS Act. This act defines strict "qualified reserve asset" requirements for stablecoin backing while prohibiting interest payments to holders. Franklin Templeton and Kraken, however, are exploiting a potential regulatory gap. By offering a tokenized fund (BENJI) that is not a stablecoin, they aim to provide yield-bearing, collateralizable digital cash instruments, circumventing GENIUS Act's ban on stablecoin yield. The impending CLARITY Act, which will delineate digital asset market structure, is seen as a complementary piece to GENIUS. Its treatment of passive income could solidify the niche for instruments like BENJI. With conservative market size estimates for tokenized money market funds reaching hundreds of billions by 2030, Wall Street institutions are positioning themselves early, using on-chain settlement as a key competitive differentiator to offer superior liquidity and composability for the next generation of dollar reserves.

marsbit22 min fa

Wall Street's 'Compliance Hunt': The Great Stablecoin Reserve Migration

marsbit22 min fa

Altman Drops Bombshell While Musk is Away: He Once Wanted His Children to Inherit OpenAI

In a California court, Sam Altman testified for the first time in the ongoing legal battle between Elon Musk and OpenAI. Altman made a striking claim: Musk once suggested that control of OpenAI could one day be passed down to his children. This statement reframes the long-standing conflict not as a simple governance dispute but as a foundational power struggle. Altman sought to counter the narrative that OpenAI betrayed its original non-profit, idealistic mission. He argued that from the beginning, it was Musk who sought increasing control over the organization, including a larger equity stake and ultimate decision-making authority. Altman opposed this, citing OpenAI's core principle that AGI should not be controlled by any single individual. He also addressed the key point of contention about OpenAI's shift to a for-profit structure, claiming Musk was aware of and initially supportive of exploring such a model to secure the massive funding needed for advanced AI research. Altman framed the change as a practical necessity, not a betrayal. Further testimony revealed internal concerns after Musk left OpenAI's board, with worries he might take retaliatory action. Altman critiqued Musk's management style as unsuitable for a research lab, damaging morale and culture. Throughout his testimony, Altman's focus appeared to shift from technological idealism to the realities of organizational governance and resource requirements. Regarding his brief ouster in 2023, Altman stated he seriously considered joining Microsoft but ultimately returned because OpenAI was too important to abandon.

marsbit1 h fa

Altman Drops Bombshell While Musk is Away: He Once Wanted His Children to Inherit OpenAI

marsbit1 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片