Stablecoin volumes surge to $35 trillion, but real-world payments still lag at 1%?

ambcryptoPublished on 2026-01-25Last updated on 2026-01-25

Abstract

Stablecoin supply has grown 76x since 2020, surpassing $300 billion, yet real-world payments remain a small fraction of total activity. A report by Artemis and McKinsey reveals that while stablecoin volumes reached $35 trillion in 2025, only $390 billion (about 1%) was used for real-world transactions like remittances and payroll. The remaining 99% was tied to crypto trading and speculation. Key drivers of real-world stablecoin payments include B2B transactions, which grew 733% YoY to $226 billion, and card-linked spending, which surged 673%. However, these volumes are still minimal compared to the $2 quadrillion global payment market. Tether’s USDT led supply growth, increasing by $48 billion, while Circle’s USDC also saw significant expansion. The report suggests that stablecoin payments could surpass legacy systems within a decade due to their cost and speed advantages.

Since 2020, stablecoins have grown 76x and crossed $300 billion in supply. However, their volumes are still far from rivalling traditional payments.

According to a recent report by Artemis and McKinsey, on-chain dollars are “barely” scratching the surface of broader traditional payment volumes, accounting for less than 1%.

The report stated that global annual payment volumes totalled $2 quadrillion in 2025. Over the same period, stablecoin volumes hit $35 trillion, but real-world payment volumes (remittances, payroll, etc) was $390 billion or about 1% of global share.

The remaining 99% of the stablecoin volume was linked to crypto trading, speculation, internal transfers, and other activities rather than real-world transactions.

Sectors driving stablecoin growth

Even so, stablecoin payments have been growing rapidly, especially across business-to-business (B2B) and card-linked spending.

On a year-on-year (YoY) basis, B2B stablecoin payments climbed to $226 billion or a 733% growth rate. This has been the top driver for real-world stablecoin payment volumes.

Alas, this was just 0.01% compared to the global share of B2B transactions.

Peer-to-peer payments (P2P) or consumer-to-consumer transfers ranked second with $77 billion, followed closely by consumer-to-business (C2B) transactions at $76 billion.

On the contrary, business-to-consumer (B2C) activities such as payrolls, creator rewards, etc, were ranked last with a paltry $10 billion.

However, card-related spending in stablecoins exploded by 673% in 2025, making it, alongside B2B, one of two sectors seeing massive growth and likely opportunities for payment integrators.

Overall, the $390 billion figure differs from Visa’s $11 trillion figure. Finally, the report claimed that strong stablecoin payment traction could surpass legacy transfers in less than a decade due to cost and speed benefits.

Tether’s USDT leads supply growth

Meanwhile, the stablecoin supply has increased by over $100 billion over the past year, with the market size rising from $204 billion to $307 billion.

Nearly half of the new growth was driven by Tether’s USDT, which increased by $48 billion to $186 billion.

Circle’s USDC increased by $26 billion too, bringing its market supply to $76 billion. Sky Protocol’s (formerly Maker) USDS, PayPal’s PYUSD and World Liberty Financial’s USD1 made it to the top five outliers.

In particular, USDS and PYUSD offer yield and may be the growth catalyst behind their 2025 expansion. Overall, 99% of the stablecoins remain denominated in U.S dollars, reinforcing their dominance against other global currencies.


Final Thoughts

  • Real stablecoin payments hit $390 billion in 2025, representing less than 1% of global volumes of $2 quadrillion.
  • B2B and card-related stablecoin payments saw explosive triple-digit growth of 733% and 673%, respectively.

Related Questions

QWhat is the total global annual payment volume in 2025, and what percentage of this do real-world stablecoin payments represent?

AThe total global annual payment volume in 2025 was $2 quadrillion. Real-world stablecoin payments, at $390 billion, represent less than 1% of this total.

QWhich two sectors saw the most explosive growth in stablecoin payments in 2025, and what were their growth rates?

ABusiness-to-business (B2B) and card-related stablecoin payments saw the most explosive growth. B2B grew by 733% and card-related spending grew by 673%.

QWhat was the primary driver for the $100 billion increase in the stablecoin supply over the past year, and what is its current market size?

ATether's USDT was the primary driver, increasing by $48 billion. The total stablecoin market size grew from $204 billion to $307 billion.

QAccording to the report, what is the main use case for the vast majority (99%) of stablecoin volume, as opposed to real-world transactions?

AThe remaining 99% of stablecoin volume was linked to crypto trading, speculation, internal transfers, and other activities rather than real-world transactions.

QWhat potential does the report claim for stablecoin payments in comparison to legacy transfer systems, and why?

AThe report claims that strong stablecoin payment traction could surpass legacy transfers in less than a decade due to their cost and speed benefits.

Related Reads

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

The article "a16z: AI's 'Amnesia' – Can Continual Learning Cure It?" explores the limitations of current large language models (LLMs), which, like the protagonist in the film *Memento*, are trapped in a perpetual present—unable to form new memories after training. While methods like in-context learning (ICL), retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and external scaffolding (e.g., chat history, prompts) provide temporary solutions, they fail to enable true internalization of new knowledge. The authors argue that compression—the core of learning during training—is halted at deployment, preventing models from generalizing, discovering novel solutions (e.g., mathematical proofs), or handling adversarial scenarios. The piece introduces *continual learning* as a critical research direction to address this, categorizing approaches into three paths: 1. **Context**: Scaling external memory via longer context windows, multi-agent systems, and smarter retrieval. 2. **Modules**: Using pluggable adapters or external memory layers for specialization without full retraining. 3. **Weights**: Enabling parameter updates through sparse training, test-time training, meta-learning, distillation, and reinforcement learning from feedback. Challenges include catastrophic forgetting, safety risks, and auditability, but overcoming these could unlock models that learn iteratively from experience. The conclusion emphasizes that while context-based methods are effective, true breakthroughs require models to compress new information into weights post-deployment, moving from mere retrieval to genuine learning.

marsbit1h ago

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

marsbit1h ago

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

An individual manipulated a weather sensor at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport with a portable heat source, causing a Polymarket weather market to settle at 22°C and earning $34,000. This incident highlights a fundamental issue in prediction markets: when a market aims to reflect reality, it also incentivizes participants to influence that reality. Prediction markets operate on two layers: platform rules (what outcome counts as a win) and data sources (what actually happened). While most focus on rules, the real vulnerability lies in the data source. If reality is recorded through a specific source, influencing that source directly affects market settlement. The article categorizes markets by their vulnerability: 1. **Single-point physical data sources** (e.g., weather stations): Easily manipulated through physical interference. 2. **Insider information markets** (e.g., MrBeast video details): Insiders like team members use non-public information to trade. Kalshi fined a剪辑师 $20,000 for insider trading. 3. **Actor-manipulated markets** (e.g., Andrew Tate’s tweet counts): The subject of the market can control the outcome. Evidence suggests Tate’sociated accounts coordinated to profit. 4. **Individual-action markets** (e.g., WNBA disruptions): A single person can execute an event to profit from their pre-placed bets. Kalshi and Polymarket handle these issues differently. Kalshi enforces strict KYC, publicly penalizes insider trading, and reports to regulators. Polymarket, with its anonymous wallet-based system, has historically been more permissive, arguing that insider information improves market accuracy. However, it cooperated with authorities in the "Van Dyke case," where a user traded on classified government information. The core paradox is reflexivity: prediction markets are designed to discover truth, but their financial incentives can distort reality. The more valuable a prediction becomes, the more likely participants are to influence the event itself. The market ceases to be a mirror of reality and instead shapes it.

marsbit2h ago

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

marsbit2h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片