USDC overtakes USDT in adjusted volume YTD on compliance

USDC vs USDT: USDC now leads adjusted transaction volume

According to Mizuho, USDC has overtaken USDT in adjusted transaction volume year-to-date, a metric designed to capture real economic flows rather than raw throughput. The crossover puts emphasis on how stablecoins are used on-chain, payments, settlement, and transfers, rather than headline trading activity. It frames USDC vs USDT not as a price story, but as one of usage quality.

As reported by XT.com, USDT still has a much larger market capitalization, so USDC’s lead reflects activity share rather than overall size. That caveat is material when comparing dominance across supply, trading, and settlement lenses.

Based on data from Artemis Analytics, for full-year 2025 USDC processed roughly $18.3 trillion in raw transaction volume versus USDT’s $13.3 trillion, reinforcing the broader shift. While raw totals include every transfer, the directional alignment with adjusted figures suggests the trend is not confined to a single methodology.

Adjusted transaction volume explained: filtering noise to real activity

Adjusted transaction volume filters out non-economic noise such as bot loops, wash trading, spam transfers, and internal exchange shuffles to approximate genuine value transfer between distinct parties. Typical approaches de-duplicate self-to-self hops and remove programmatic bursts that lack settlement intent. The result is a cleaner proxy for payments, remittances, corporate treasury flows, and DeFi settlement.

Methodological choices matter: what constitutes an internal transfer, how cross-address clustering is handled, and the thresholds for bot detection can change reported totals. This review relies on published sell-side research and data-provider definitions to distinguish raw versus adjusted activity and to keep comparisons within clearly stated on-chain measures.

Institutional adoption, regulation, and use-case impacts of USDC’s lead

Institutions increasingly prioritize transparency, auditability, and regulatory alignment, which can influence their choice of settlement rail. This institutional adoption of stablecoins is reinforced by frameworks like Europe’s MiCA, and compliant issuers may see relatively greater utility in payments, B2B settlement, and remittances. In practice, USDC’s lead in adjusted transaction volume aligns with use cases that prize counterparty risk management and predictable redemption mechanics.

Analyst commentary links the shift to regulatory clarity and institutional use patterns rather than speculative churn. “Regulatory clarity, including frameworks like MiCA, is steering on-chain activity toward more transparent stablecoins, and USDC has recently overtaken USDT in that activity,” said JPMorgan analysts.

Implications vary by venue: trading desks may see little change in headline liquidity, while DeFi and cross-border settlement could increasingly route through the rails showing higher adjusted flow. Comparisons should be made carefully because adjusted metrics depend on provider filters and treatment of internal exchange movements. As more months of data accumulate, persistence of the adjusted-volume lead across chains, venues, and counterparties will be the clearer signal of whether this is a lasting change.