Verified Platforms
Quick Links
Where to Stay Secure
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
A headline that says one stablecoin overtook another sounds like a finish line. It is really a question wearing a costume: overtook on which number?
For years the ranking felt settled. USDT was the big one, USDC the compliant challenger a step behind. Then in early July the order flipped in public. Circle's USDC had pulled ahead of Tether's USDT in the stablecoin volume race. One number had moved. It was easy to read that as all of them.
Two people pull this apart at Kodex, and they read markets differently. Tao takes it the way a sharp newcomer does, close enough to the headlines to feel their pull and honest enough to say when one unsettles him. Eunha lives between structure and emotion, and pulls the real answer through the questions people skip on the way to a verdict. What they take apart is one sentence, USDC overtook USDT, and the four different sizes hiding inside it.
Eunha does not start with a verdict. She starts with a question of her own.
"Bigger," she says. "You read that USDC is bigger now. Bigger how?"
Tao stops. "By volume. It said volume."
"Then hold that word. There are at least four numbers people call size, and volume is one of them. Three of the other four still belong to Tether."
Tao pulls the article back up and reads the first line aloud. Circle's USDC is leaving Tether behind in the stablecoin volume race. The number underneath it is real. In June, USDC handled far more adjusted transaction volume than USDT.
"So it is true," he says.
"It is exactly true, and narrower than it sounds," Eunha says. "The sentence has a clause it hides. USDC overtook USDT in adjusted transaction volume. Cut the last three words and the claim quietly grows into USDC is bigger, which is a different thing the data never said."
Not bigger. Busier, on one specific measure.
Tao asks what the other numbers are. Eunha holds up a hand. Before you read June, you build the ruler, she tells him. Otherwise you cannot tell what actually moved.
A stablecoin is a claim: one token you can redeem for one dollar, standing on reserves the issuer says it holds. What actually keeps that peg intact is its own subject. But that single promise gets measured in ways that pull against each other, and the gaps between them are exactly where the word "bigger" gets slippery.
"Give them to me," Tao says. "All four."
Eunha writes them out, no live figures yet. She wants the shape before the score.
First, adjusted transaction volume. The dollars that settle on-chain after a filter strips out the noise. It answers how much real money moved.
Second, raw on-chain volume, and the count of transfers underneath it. Every transfer, filters and all. It answers how busy the token is, and how often hands touch it.
Third, market cap. For a stablecoin this is just circulating supply, the dollars parked inside the token right now. It answers how much is sitting in it.
Fourth, reserve backing. What each token is actually worth if you go to redeem it. It answers the only question that keeps you up at night.
"Four numbers, four different questions," Eunha says. "A token can lead one and trail the next without contradicting itself. So the first move is never to ask who is bigger. It is to ask bigger on which row."
| The number | What it measures | What it says about safety |
|---|---|---|
| Adjusted transaction volume | Real dollars settled on-chain, after filtering | Nothing |
| Raw on-chain volume and transfer count | Every transfer, and how many happen | Nothing |
| Market cap | Dollars parked in the token right now | Nothing on its own |
| Reserve backing | What each token is worth on redemption | This is the only row that does |
Three of those four numbers measure activity or size. One measures whether you get your dollar back. They are not the same axis, and no amount of the first three adds up to the fourth.
The leader changes with the ruler. Only one ruler measures safety, and it is not the one that moved.
"So volume is the row USDC won," Tao says. "What is adjusted about it?"
The $1.79 trillion is not raw, Eunha explains. It comes off Visa's Onchain Analytics dashboard, and it is built by subtraction. Visa removes bot activity, exchange-internal transfers, and other movement that does not reflect real economic activity, then reports what survives the cut.
"Someone decided what counts as real," she says. "A raw number counts everything and trusts you to sort it. An adjusted number sorts first and hands you the conclusion."
Adjusted volume is a measurement with an opinion.
"And the opinion is not neutral about what wins. The filter rewards large, deliberate settlement payments over a flood of tiny transfers. A token used for institutional-scale settlement scores beautifully. A token used for a million small sends can look quieter even when more people are touching it every hour."
Picture two transfers of equal size. One is a bot shuffling funds between two wallets it controls, farming activity for its own sake. The other clears an invoice and never comes back. Raw volume counts them the same. Visa's filter keeps the second and drops the first.
That is not a flaw in the number. It is the number's whole purpose.
Tao sees where this is going. "So the number that flipped is built to favor exactly the thing USDC does."
"Now you are reading it correctly," Eunha says. "The flip is real. It is also partly a story about the ruler, not only the runners."
Now the figures. Eunha lets them land one at a time, because stacked together they blur.
June adjusted stablecoin volume hit $1.79 trillion, up about 63% from roughly $1.1 trillion in May, and up around 125% from a year earlier. Across the first half of 2026 the tally reached $8.82 trillion, more than all of 2024 put together. The pie is growing fast, and the slices are being recut inside it.
Inside June, USDC took roughly 67%, about $1.21 trillion. USDT settled around $573 billion. Over the full half, USDC ran near 70% of adjusted volume to USDT's 25%. On this one measure, the gap is the widest on record, and USDC last led it years ago.
Tao does the division. "So USDC moved more than twice the dollars. That is the flip."
"That is the flip. Here is the split underneath it." USDT settled about 145 million transfers in the same window, against USDC's 57 million. USDT moved more times. USDC moved more dollars.
More dollars is not more often.
Divide one figure by the other and the behavior shows. The average USDC transfer runs several times larger than the average USDT one. USDT is lunch money and cross-border remittances, sent constantly in small clips. USDC is payroll and treasury movements, sent rarely and in size.
"Two tokens, two jobs," Eunha says. "USDT is the one people reach for constantly, in small amounts, as the everyday dollar. USDC is the one carrying large, deliberate payments, and its volume concentrated on Solana and Base, where the settlement rails and Circle's own ecosystem sit."
"So USDC is used more is..."
"Not what the number says. USDT is used more often. USDC moves more money per use. USDC won volume really means USDC won the big-ticket lane. Both are true. Only one reached the headline."
"If USDC is moving all that money," Tao says, "why is USDT still the one people call bigger?"
Because bigger and busier are different measurements, and they do not have to agree. USDT still leads by market cap: about $184 billion in circulating supply against USDC's $73 billion, roughly 2.4 times the size. For a stablecoin, market cap is really just how many dollars are parked in it, which is a separate fact from how many move.
Eunha draws the picture. USDT is where dollars sit still: held on exchanges, across emerging markets, on OTC desks, as the default dollar for people who cannot easily open a bank one. USDC is where dollars move, increasingly on regulated institutional rails. Standard Chartered and BNY built services around USDC rather than stand up their own, which is why its throughput skews large and formal.
"Parked dollars and moving dollars are not the same crowd," she says. "A currency can be the one everyone holds and not the one everyone moves. Volume measures the moving. Supply measures the holding."
One is a reservoir. The other is a river.
"USDT wins the reservoir. USDC, right now, wins the river. Neither win cancels the other, and neither is what a nervous holder should actually be checking."
Tao asks the question that matters most to anyone holding either coin. "Fine. But if USDC is moving the most real money, doesn't that at least make it the safest? The market voted with its feet."
"This is the one inference to refuse," Eunha says. "Flatly. Volume is a signal about use. Safety is a question about reserves. They do not touch. A volume record is not a weak proof of safety. It is not a proof of safety at all."
A token can top every activity chart and still be a claim on reserves you have never watched anyone audit. Volume tells you a dollar moved from one wallet to another. It says nothing about whether the dollar behind it is fully there, held in cash and short Treasuries, unpledged, and redeemable on the worst day of the year. Whether reserves are truly present and unencumbered is exactly what a proof-of-reserve feed can and cannot show. And the moment a stablecoin starts paying you to hold it, where that yield comes from is another risk layer volume will never surface.
What actually earns trust is duller than any chart. Monthly attestations. The share of reserves sitting in cash and short Treasuries rather than riskier paper. Who holds the custody. How fast a large holder can pull its money out on a bad day. None of that nudges a volume number. All of it decides whether the peg survives the hour everyone wants out at once.
"Read the winning chart as what it is. Evidence that a token is useful. Do not let it answer a question it was never measuring."
A busy token and a safe token are different claims. A chart can only ever vouch for the first.
The honest answer is that it depends on the ruler, and now you can hold the ruler yourself.
By adjusted transaction volume in June 2026, yes, and by the widest margin on record. By raw transfer count, no, USDT still moves more often. By market cap and circulating supply, no, and not close, with USDT roughly 2.4 times larger. By reserve safety, the question does not even parse, because volume was never measuring it.
So the accurate version of the headline is quieter. USDC overtook USDT in one of four ways, the one Visa's filter is built to reward. Less of a coronation. More of a fact.
The value here is not the answer for this month. It is the reflex for the next one. When a token overtakes another, before you infer size or safety, ask:
That is the Survival Framework move: read the structure before the headline, and let the ruler show itself before you trust the ranking.
Tao closes the tab. The headline has not changed. What he does with it has.
"USDC overtook USDT," he says. "On one number."
"On one number," Eunha says. "Now you know to ask which."
On adjusted transaction volume, yes. In June 2026 USDC handled about $1.21 trillion against USDT's roughly $573 billion, near 67% of the month's total. On circulating supply and raw transfer count, no: USDT still leads both.
By market cap, no. USDT's circulating supply is about $184 billion versus USDC's $73 billion, roughly 2.4 times larger. Bigger only favors USDC if you define size as settlement volume rather than dollars held.
It is Visa's Onchain Analytics figure for on-chain stablecoin transfers after bot activity, exchange-internal transfers, and other non-economic movement are filtered out. It measures deliberate settlement flows rather than every transfer, which makes it a constructed number, not a raw one.
No. Volume measures how much value moves through a token, not what stands behind it. Reserve quality, audit cadence, and redeemability are separate questions that no volume chart can answer.
Because market cap tracks dollars held, not dollars moved. USDT is the default held dollar across exchanges and emerging markets, so more supply sits parked in it even in a period when USDC moves more value.
