The recent Visa and Allium Labs study on stablecoin transactions has sparked significant discussion. Their findings suggest that over 90% of stablecoin transactions are not from genuine users, raising questions about the true nature of activity in this rapidly growing sector.
Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies designed to maintain a stable value, typically pegged to a fiat currency like the US dollar. They offer the potential for efficient trading, remittances, and everyday transactions. However, the recent data indicates a substantial gap between reported transaction volumes and actual organic usage.
Understanding the Data Discrepancy
Visa's analysis, which tracked transactions over a 30-day period ending April 24, revealed a total stablecoin transaction volume of $2.65 trillion. However, only about $265 billion of this was classified as "organic payments activity." This means less than 10% of the volume came from genuine user transactions.
Key Factors Behind Inflated Volumes
Several factors contribute to this significant discrepancy:
- Automated Bot Activity: The crypto space is known for high-frequency trading bots that execute transactions at immense scale and speed. These automated systems can drastically inflate volume metrics without representing real user adoption.
- Transaction Double-Counting: A simple exchange of one stablecoin for another can create double the recorded volume. For example, converting $100 of USDT to USDC registers as $200 in total transaction volume.
- Complex Smart Contracts: Many decentralized finance (DeFi) applications involve intricate smart contracts that generate multiple internal transactions for a single user action, further amplifying the reported numbers.
To isolate genuine user activity, Visa and Allium Labs applied specific data filters. These included a single-directional volume filter, which counts only the largest stablecoin amount in a transaction, and an inorganic user filter, which excludes accounts with extreme transaction counts or volumes.
Growth in Real User Adoption
Despite the noise in the overall volume data, the analysis uncovered a positive underlying trend: consistent growth in monthly active stablecoin users. By April 24, there were 27.5 million monthly active users across all blockchain networks, indicating steady and genuine interest in these digital assets.
This growth suggests that while automated activity dominates volume metrics, a large and expanding base of real people are exploring and using stablecoins.
A Shift in Transaction Share: USDC vs. USDT
The Visa dashboard also revealed a notable shift in the stablecoins being used for transactions.
USDC's Rising Transaction Dominance
USD Coin (USDC) has demonstrated remarkable growth in its share of stablecoin transactions. Starting at 23% in September 2023, its share more than doubled, consistently accounting for over 50% of all transactions since December 2023 and peaking at 60% in February 2024.
USDT's Market Cap Leadership
This trend presents a curious contrast with market capitalization figures. Tether (USDT) remains the undisputed leader in terms of market cap, which stood at approximately $111 billion compared to USDC's $33 billion as of early May. This indicates that while USDT is held as a store of value, USDC is increasingly being favored for actual transactional purposes.
Industry experts offer different perspectives on these findings. Some, like Pranav Sood of Airwallex, see it as evidence that stablecoins are still a nascent payment instrument requiring further infrastructure development. Others, like Nick van Eck of Agora, critique the methodology, arguing that legitimate high-volume trading firms are being unfairly filtered out, skewing the perception of "real" usage.
The Broader Context: Stablecoins vs. Traditional Payments
The conversation about transaction authenticity occurs alongside stablecoins' meteoric rise in the broader payments landscape. Market research firm Sacra reports that stablecoin transaction volume has exploded from $26 billion in January 2020 to approximately $1.4 trillion in April 2024. Some projections suggest they could potentially rival the total payment volume of traditional giants like Visa in the near future.
The advantages driving this adoption are clear:
- Speed: Stablecoin settlements occur in minutes, compared to the 6-9 hours typical for traditional cross-border systems.
- Cost: Transaction fees can be a fraction of a cent, a stark contrast to the average $12 fee for international wire transfers.
Recognizing this potential, major financial institutions—including Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, and Mastercard—are actively experimenting with integrating stablecoin technology into their own payment infrastructures.
👉 Explore advanced on-chain analytics tools
Frequently Asked Questions
What is considered an "organic" stablecoin transaction?
In the Visa/Allium study, organic transactions were identified using filters to exclude activity from bots and automated systems. This generally means transactions initiated by human users for purposes like payments, remittances, or personal trading, rather than high-frequency arbitrage or smart contract operations.
If 90% of volume is inorganic, are stablecoins failing?
Not necessarily. The high inorganic volume highlights that the current metrics are flawed for measuring real adoption. The steady growth to 27.5 million monthly active users is a more reliable indicator of genuine, growing interest and usage in the ecosystem.
Why is USDC used for more transactions than USDT, even though USDT is larger?
The difference suggests divergent use cases. USDT's larger market cap indicates it is widely held as a dollar-based store of value, particularly on exchanges. USDC's higher transaction share suggests it is becoming the preferred medium of exchange for actual transfers and payments within the digital economy.
How do stablecoin transaction costs and speeds compare to Visa?
Stablecoins operating on efficient blockchain networks can settle transactions in minutes for a cost of less than one cent. This contrasts with traditional card networks, which involve multiple intermediaries and can have higher fees for merchants, though often are free for consumers.
Are traditional financial companies threatened by stablecoins?
Currently, it's more about collaboration and adaptation than direct threat. Major banks and payment processors are not ignoring stablecoins; they are actively researching and piloting projects to integrate the technology to improve their own services, reduce costs, and increase speed.
What does this mean for the future of stablecoins?
The findings underscore that stablecoin technology is maturing but still evolving. For stablecoins to become a dominant payment method, focus must shift from raw volume metrics to improving user experience, regulatory clarity, and scalability to handle genuine mass adoption.