Stablecoin Market's $300 Billion Flow: Who Dominates the Chain?

At the beginning of 2026, Dune’s new stablecoin data set opens an important door in market analytics. Anyone who only knows the size of the supply is far from understanding market movements. These data investigate what’s happening deep within the stablecoin ecosystem: who holds these assets, how quickly they flow, and what they are actually serving.

Supply Distribution: Dominance Among EVM, Solana, and Tron

As of February 2026, the fully diluted supply of 15 major stablecoins on EVM networks, Solana, and Tron exceeded $304 billion. This represents a 49% increase over the previous year. Market share remains concentrated: 89% held by two entities—Tether’s USDT ($197 billion) and Circle’s USDC ($73 billion).

From a blockchain perspective, the picture is clear: Ethereum holds $176 billion (58%), Tron $84 billion (28%), Solana $15 billion (5%), and BNB Chain $13 billion (4%). Interestingly, despite nearly doubling the total supply, this chain distribution remained almost unchanged over the year.

Beneath the dominant players, a new layer is rapidly rising. USDS (MakerDAO’s Sky Ecosystem version) grew 376%, reaching $6.3 billion. PayPal’s PYUSD surged 753%, hitting $2.8 billion. Ripple’s RLUSD exploded—rising from $58 million to $1.1 billion, a 1,803% increase. However, not all alternatives grew at the same pace: USD0 decreased 66%, while Ethena’s USDe closed 23% below October’s peak.

Who Holds Them? Increasing Centralized Exchange Dominance

The identity of market participants is critical to understanding how stablecoins are used. Data shows that centralized exchanges (CEXs) dominate holdings on EVM and Solana. Holdings, which were $58 billion at the start of 2025, increased to $80 billion. Exchange trading and collateralization infrastructure continue to define the primary identity of stablecoins.

Large wallets hold $39 billion, and yield protocols account for $9.3 billion. Publisher addresses (wallets and mint/burn contracts) grew from $2.2 billion to $10.2 billion—more than quadrupling—directly reflecting the rapid rise in new supply. Notably, only 23% of the holdings are stored in unknown addresses. This high level of transparency is extraordinary for on-chain data and vital for understanding where stablecoin risks are concentrated.

Concentration Risk: USDT and USDC vs. New Competitors

172 million addresses hold at least one of the 15 stablecoins. Of these, 136 million hold USDT, 36 million USDC, and 4.7 million DAI. These three assets share a common feature: ownership is highly dispersed. The top 10 wallets control only 23–26% of the total supply. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is below 0.03—indicating near-perfect distribution.

In contrast, rival stablecoins tell a very different story. USDS, with $6.9 billion, is 90% controlled by the top 10 wallets (HHI 0.48). USDF is almost entirely controlled by the top 10 wallets—99% (HHI 0.54). The most extreme case is USD0: the top 10 wallets hold 99%, with an HHI of 0.84—implying that one or two mega wallets nearly monopolize the supply.

This concentration is not a flaw of crypto but a feature of design. These are either newly issued assets or models intentionally built by institutional investors. However, it shows that interpreting USDT and USDC supply requires a different approach. Concentration affects the risk of collapse, liquidity depth, and whether supply reflects natural demand or the behavior of a few dominant players.

Trillion-Dollar Flows: What Are Stablecoins Really Serving?

In January 2026, transfer volume of stablecoins on EVM, Solana, and Tron reached $10.3 trillion—more than double January 2025. Behind this figure is a supporting fact: Base, with only $4.4 billion in supply, recorded $5.9 trillion in transfers. Ethereum saw $2.4 trillion, Tron $682 billion, Solana $544 billion, and BNB Chain $406 billion.

By token, USDC dominates with $8.3 trillion in transfer volume—more than five times USDT’s $1.7 trillion. How is this possible if USDC’s supply is 2.7 times smaller than USDT’s? The answer: transfer speed and frequency.

Current usage patterns are profound. Liquidity provision and withdrawals from DEX pools account for $5.9 trillion. Direct DEX swaps total $376 billion. These two categories form the backbone of stablecoin infrastructure. Flash loans amount to $1.3 trillion, and lending activities $137 billion. Centralized exchange capital flows (investments + withdrawals) total $5.99 trillion, and bridge transactions $280 billion. Publisher activities (mint/burn) reached $1.06 trillion, nearly five times the $420 billion from a year earlier.

Ninety percent of total transfer volume can be explained by these categories—showing how deeply stablecoins are embedded across all layers of on-chain activity.

Blockchain Type Matters: Same Token, Different Utility Models

Daily transfer velocity (transfer volume ÷ supply) is one of the least analyzed metrics by analysts. Yet, it reflects not just holdings but actual usage speed. USDC, on Layer 2s (like Base), and on Solana, moves at astonishing speeds. On Base, USDC’s median daily circulation rate reaches 14x. This indicates high-frequency DeFi activity. On Solana and Polygon, daily velocity is stabilized at 1x. Even on Ethereum, USDC’s daily velocity is about 0.9x—almost all supply is moving daily.

USDT, however, is faster on payment networks like BNB and Tron. USDT’s daily velocity on BNB is 1.4x, and on Tron 0.3x (but very stable daily). On Ethereum, USDT’s velocity is only 0.2x—most of the $100 billion+ supply remains stagnant.

USDe and USDS show low circulation speeds, but this is not a bug—it’s a feature. Ethena’s USDe, designed for yield farming with sUSDe on Sky, and USDS, earning via Sky Savings Rate, have most of their supply locked in yield contracts and lending markets like Aave. Low velocity here indicates risk management and design choices, not failure.

New Market Frontiers: Nigeria’s Currency and Other Local Fiat Stablecoins

Dune’s full dataset extends far beyond dollar-pegged stablecoins. Over 200 stablecoins represent more than 20 currencies: Euro (17 tokens, $990 million), Brazilian Real (141 million), Japanese Yen (13 million), and critically, local fiat stablecoins like Nigeria Naira (NGN), Kenya Shilling (KES), South African Rand (ZAR), Turkish Lira (TRY), Indonesian Rupiah (IDR), Singapore Dollar (SGD), among others.

Total supply of non-dollar stablecoins is currently $1.2 billion, but they are present across six continents with 59 tokens—almost 30% of all tokens in the dataset. Local fiat stablecoins like Nigeria’s currency, as blockchain infrastructure develops, highlight the growth potential of new regional markets. The data enables tracking of these local market movements.

But the Tip of the Iceberg: Time to Dive Deeper

This analysis covers 15 stablecoins and several key metrics. But the full dataset is much broader: over 200 stablecoins across more than 30 blockchains. The scope is vast, but the key differentiator is the categorization layer.

Every transfer is linked to an on-chain trigger and categorized into one of nine activity types. Each balance is detailed by owner type. Noisy blockchain data is transformed into structured, comparable information. Mechanism shifts, cross-platform capital flows, concentration risks, participation patterns—all become visible.

This level of data can answer questions not yet asked: Which wallets accumulate before a new stablecoin is listed? How does ownership concentration change in the week before a collapse? What are the cross-chain bridge flows of euro stablecoins? How do mint/burn patterns correlate with market pressure?

It is built to support institutional analysis, research reports, risk models, compliance tracking, and dashboards. The depth is here. Start digging.