This is a segment from the Empire newsletter. To read full editions, subscribe. Just last week, the FT reported that Tether’s considering a US-only
Just last week, the reported that Tethers considering a US-only stablecoin. Why? Because their current $144 billion-dollar stablecoin USDT may not comply with potential new US regulation (which is still making its way through the relevant checkpoints down in DC).
Wintermute, in its last weekly market update, noted that some of USDTs market share had been “eroding,” thanks to both the as-of-yet nonexistent US regulation and, of course, MiCA.
Here‘s why it matters: No doubt, Tether is still the biggest and — as we’ve seen Circle‘s S-1 — most profitable player in the space right now. , as I’ve been writing the past couple of months, regulation and adoption could lead to further shakeups as we get new entrants into the space and as others eat up more market share.
“The stablecoin market cap soared 15% in 2025 to a record $233 billion, with USDC fueling much of the growth by adding $16 billion compared to USDTs $7 billion increase,” Wintermute wrote.
Then, lets take a look at specific ecosystems.
You have Tron, which saw a $6 billion bump — from $61 billion to $67 billion — pretty much only driven by USDT.
Solanas stablecoin market cap sits at $12 billion now, up from $5.3 billion.
And over on Ethereum, USDCs market share has jumped to 30% while USDT slipped slightly to 52% (a 4% decline), though it held on to its $64 billion valuation.
I am in no way, shape or form rooting for any of the OG stablecoin issuers to lose their footing or profitability; that‘s not why this type of data interests me. Rather, I think competition in the space is good, and it’s a win-win for consumers: force the heavyweights to keep innovating without monopolizing and make space for the new wave of entrants.
Disclaimer:
The views in this article only represent the author's personal views, and do not constitute investment advice on this platform. This platform does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the information in the article, and will not be liable for any loss caused by the use of or reliance on the information in the article.
0.00