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

ambcryptoPublicado em 2026-01-25Última atualização em 2026-01-25

Resumo

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.

Perguntas relacionadas

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.

Leituras Relacionadas

From Survival to Accelerated Growth: The Journey of Zcash's Three-Year Rise as Told by the Founder of ZODL

**From Survival to Accelerated Growth: Zcash Founder Details the 3-Year Rise** Three years ago, Zcash (ZEC) was a struggling pioneer in privacy technology, with a price near $30, low shielded supply (11%), and a community mired in governance disputes. Today, ZEC trades around $600, with over 31% of its supply (~$3B) in user-controlled shielded pools. This transformation resulted from breaking key constraints. First, **governance shackles were removed**. The old model guaranteed funding to two entities (ECC and ZF) regardless of performance, creating a monopoly. In 2024, ECC rejected further direct funding, forcing a change. The NU6 upgrade ended direct funding, allocating 8% to community grants and 12% to a protocol-controlled treasury for retroactive rewards, expiring in 2028 unless renewed by overwhelming consensus. The entities also relinquished their trademark-based veto power, freeing community governance. Second, the **product focus shifted** from pure cryptography to user growth. Previously, engineering excelled at privacy tech but failed to attract users. In early 2024, the team (later ZODL) pivoted to building products users wanted, like the Zodl wallet (default privacy, hardware support, cross-asset swaps). This drove shielded supply to grow over 400% in ZEC terms, with 86.5% of recent transactions being shielded, representing real user adoption. Third, the **narrative evolved** from the limiting "privacy coin" label to "unstoppable private money." This clarified Zcash's value proposition: a Bitcoin-like monetary policy with verifiable private payments via advanced cryptography. This structural narrative—protocol (Zcash), asset (ZEC), gateway (Zodl)—enabled broader exchange listings, institutional interest, and ETF filings. Finally, **organizational constraints were broken**. In early 2026, the ECC team left its non-profit structure after disputes over control, forming Zcash Open Development Lab (ZODL). ZODL raised $25M from top VCs (Paradigm, a16z, etc.), gaining the capital and agility of a startup to scale consumer products. Current metrics show strong momentum: social discussion volume for ZEC surged 15,245% in a year, with 81% positive sentiment. The focus is now on enhancing user experience (Zodl wallet), scalability (Tachyon project targeting Visa-level throughput with 25-second blocks), and post-quantum security (quantum-recoverable wallets coming soon). Zcash is positioned to become faster, more usable, scalable, and quantum-resistant.

marsbitHá 3m

From Survival to Accelerated Growth: The Journey of Zcash's Three-Year Rise as Told by the Founder of ZODL

marsbitHá 3m

Five Counterparty Risk Architectures: A Settlement-Layer Methodology for Classifying TradFi Models in Crypto Exchanges

**Summary:** This companion piece reframes the five TradFi-on-crypto exchange architectures, previously classified by "architectural fingerprint," through the lens of counterparty risk. The core question is: whose balance sheet bears the loss first in a stress scenario, and has it historically done so? Each of the five models corresponds to a distinct risk holder with its own documented failure modes. * **Model 1 (Stablecoin-Settled CEX Perpetuals):** Risk is held by the stablecoin issuer (e.g., reserve composition, bank connectivity) and the CEX's own book. History includes Tether's banking disconnections (2017) and reserve misrepresentations (CFTC 2021 Order). * **Model 2 (CFD Brokers):** Risk resides on the broker's balance sheet (B-book model). Regulatory differences (e.g., ESMA's mandatory negative balance protection vs. Mauritius FSC's lack thereof) define loss allocation rules, as seen in the 2015 SNB event (Alpari UK insolvency). * **Model 3 (Off-Chain Custody & Transfer Agent Chain):** Risk lies with the off-chain custodian/platform. User asset recovery depends on Terms of Use and corporate structure, exemplified by the Celsius bankruptcy ruling (2023) where Earn Account assets were deemed property of the estate. * **Model 4 (DEX Perpetual Protocols):** No single balance sheet bears risk. Loss absorption relies on a protocol's insurance fund and Auto-Deleveraging (ADL) mechanism, as demonstrated in the GMX V1 (2022) and dYdX v3 YFI (2023) incidents. * **Model 5 (Regulated CCP - DCM-DCO-FCM):** The most institutionalized model concentrates risk in the Central Counterparty (CCP). However, history shows CCPs can employ non-standard tools under extreme stress, such as mass trade cancellation (LME Nickel, 2022) or enabling negative price settlements (CME WTI, 2020). The report argues that regulatory choices and counterparty risk structures are co-extensive, not in an upstream-downstream relationship. It concludes with five separate observation checklists (not predictions) for monitoring the structural vulnerabilities of each risk model.

marsbitHá 20m

Five Counterparty Risk Architectures: A Settlement-Layer Methodology for Classifying TradFi Models in Crypto Exchanges

marsbitHá 20m

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片