Author: Prathik Desai
Compiled and organized by BitpushNews
It is widely acknowledged that stablecoins are growing. In just two years, their circulating supply has more than doubled, while their adjusted transaction volume has increased more than threefold. Last month, the monthly adjusted transaction volume of stablecoins reached a new all-time high. While some dismiss these figures, Crypto Twitter (CT) is celebrating.
However, numbers alone are insufficient to illustrate the nature of growth. Equally important is the context in which this growth occurs, such as who is using stablecoins, for what purposes, and whether usage patterns are evolving. Allium has provided us with a preview of their latest report on stablecoin infrastructure titled "Stablecoins: The Rise of a New Payment Rail." This report is highly significant because the data shows that the use of stablecoins is shifting from enabling low-cost cross-border remittances to supporting general commerce and supplier payments between businesses.
Most of the current debate surrounding stablecoins focuses on whether they are financial products (such as banks, treasury wrappers, or yield vehicles) or merely payment infrastructure. Policy discussions about stablecoin interest often assume that stablecoins primarily function as financial instruments. However, the data in the report presents a different conclusion: the composition of recent stablecoin activity increasingly resembles a payment rail rather than a savings product.
This mirrors the evolution pattern we have observed in the Automated Clearing House (ACH) network: initially replacing paper checks for payroll distribution, it has now become the foundational backbone for general commerce, B2B payments, and consumer bill payments.
This article will incorporate data from Allium's Stablecoin Infrastructure Report to explain why it changes our perspective on the trajectory of stablecoins.
Divergence in Velocity
Since January 2024, the circulating supply of stablecoins (total supply minus non-circulating supply) has grown by over 100%. During the same period, the adjusted transaction volume (excluding wash trading, intra-entity transfers, and circular transactions) has surged by 317%.
In the accumulation phase of any new asset, the growth in supply typically outpaces usage. As the asset matures, however, usage growth tends to exceed supply growth, indicating that asset holders are spending the asset more frequently. Here, the significantly faster growth in adjusted transaction volume compared to circulating supply suggests that stablecoins are transitioning from being a store-of-value asset to becoming a more widely adopted medium of exchange or value transfer tool.
This shift is reflected in the velocity of stablecoins, calculated as the adjusted transaction volume divided by the circulating supply.
The velocity of stablecoins has increased from 2.6 times to over 6 times in the past two years, reflecting that every dollar of stablecoin supply is now being transacted 2.3 times more actively than in January. A benchmark comparison with traditional payment rails highlights just how mature the use of stablecoins has become.
Another indicator establishing the maturity of stablecoin usage is the number of transactions. It is least susceptible to large-scale noise. Therefore, when the growth in the number of payment transactions outpaces the growth in transaction value, it indicates that the average payment size is declining. This behavior is a hallmark of payment rails gaining traction, rather than being an experimental tool shuttling between exchanges.
This raises the question: who is making these payments, and what are they paying for?
In 2025, the consumer-to-consumer (C2C) category remains the largest channel, surpassing consumer-to-business (C2B), business-to-business (B2B), and business-to-consumer (B2C). However, its growth rate is the slowest among the four categories.
The deceleration in C2C growth further confirms the maturation of stablecoin usage, as person-to-person transfers represent the simplest use case. They do not require merchant integration, invoicing tools, APIs, or significant procedural barriers, which is typically the starting point for any new payment technology.
A decade ago, when India introduced the Unified Payments Interface (UPI), retail users were the first to adopt, driven by cashback offers and other customer acquisition strategies. I recall using Google Pay (initially launched in India as Tez) to transfer funds between my own accounts solely because it offered me a one-dollar cashback. Only after the rollout of commercial tools, reporting mechanisms, and dedicated payment confirmation audio systems (speakers) did businesses and institutions begin to participate.
As the infrastructure matures, commercial use cases start to capture market share. And this transition appears to be underway.
The high growth in C2B indicates that an increasing number of users are utilizing stablecoins for general commerce, subscriptions, and merchant payments. Meanwhile, the growth in B2B suggests that commercial counterparties are beginning to adopt stablecoins for invoice processing, supply chain payments, and financial operations. Both growth rates (131% for C2B and 87% for B2B) exceed the overall payment growth rate of 76%, indicating that the share of commercial payments is expanding.
When you combine the growing volume of C2B transactions with the decline in the average order value for C2B transactions (from $456 to $256), it suggests a trend where people are beginning to use stablecoins for recurring purchases.
Although peer-to-peer (P2P) transactions still dominate in absolute terms, they are quickly ceding ground. Quarterly share data makes this rotation even more evident and undeniable.
After dropping below the 50% threshold in the first quarter of 2025, the proportion of C2C in total payment volume has never exceeded 50%.
The world seems to be moving beyond the experimental phase of using stablecoins for low-risk, low-frequency peer-to-peer transfers and is shifting towards consistently employing them for high-frequency payments.
When I first began tracking the adoption of stablecoins, one of the mainstream narratives supporting them was how they could empower cross-border remittances and potentially disrupt Western Union by allowing workers in developed economies to send money home. However, the data tells a different story.
Currently, about three-quarters of stablecoin payments occur domestically. Over the past year, the proportion of cross-border payment volumes at the national level has dropped from 44% to approximately 25-29% of the total payment volume. At the regional level, 84% of payment flows remain within the same geographic area.
Based on all the charts we have seen so far, it is clear that stablecoins are not competing with SWIFT in the international settlement domain. Instead, B2B metrics—including 74% domestic dominance, declining average transaction sizes, payroll disbursements, and growing invoicing use cases—indicate that stablecoins are competing with domestic payment rails like ACH.
For reference, ACH's B2B payments grew by approximately 10% in 2025, while stablecoin-based B2B payments grew by 87% during the same period. While I recognize that the absolute scale is still incomparable, we must consider the low base effect of stablecoins. Nevertheless, this growth cannot be ignored.
Outlook
For a long time, I viewed cross-border remittances and peer-to-peer transfers as the primary drivers of stablecoin adoption.
Imagine a son in India receiving dollars sent by his family in Dubai on a bank holiday without losing 7% to 8% to intermediary fees—the narrative was indeed compelling. That story remains valid, but perhaps it is no longer the main narrative.
Interestingly, the narrative around domestic consumption scenarios has quietly and rapidly surpassed everything else. The market share of C2C (person-to-person) has not returned to 50% for more than a year, and this metric has seemingly never gained much attention in crypto discussions. However, it is precisely this indicator that marks the transformation of stablecoins from a 'cryptocurrency product' into 'financial infrastructure'—enabling transactions between consumers and businesses or between businesses themselves.
It is worth noting that Allium's labeled payment transaction volume is based on the analysis of wallets they can cover, identify, and tag. Although this data shows that payment transactions account for only 2% to 3% of the adjusted total stablecoin transaction volume, this should be considered a lower limit—since there are certainly many wallets that Allium has not been able to include.
Next, I will focus on two directions: whether the proportions of C2B (consumer-to-business) and B2B (business-to-business) will continue to rise, and whether the average transaction value can remain low in the coming quarters. If these two trends persist even during a downturn in the cryptocurrency market, it would indicate that the stablecoin payment infrastructure has truly begun to decouple from the speculative cycles of the crypto market. Everyone acknowledges that stablecoins are growing. In just two years, their circulating supply has more than doubled, while the adjusted trading volume has increased more than threefold. Last month, the monthly adjusted trading volume of stablecoins hit a new all-time high. Some dismiss these figures, while Crypto Twitter (CT) celebrates them.
However, numbers alone do not reveal the nature of growth. Equally important is the context in which the growth occurs, such as who is using stablecoins, for what purposes, and whether usage patterns are changing. Allium has provided us with a preview of their latest report on stablecoin infrastructure titled 'Stablecoins: The Rise of a New Payment Rail.' This is a highly significant report because the charts show that the use of stablecoins is shifting from enabling low-cost cross-border remittances to supporting general commerce and supplier payments between businesses.
Much of the current debate about stablecoins centers on whether they are financial products (such as banks, treasury wrappers, or yield vehicles) or merely payment infrastructure. Policy-level discussions about stablecoin interest assume that stablecoins primarily function as financial instruments. However, the data in the report suggests otherwise: the composition of recent stablecoin activity increasingly resembles a payment rail rather than a savings product.
This mirrors the evolution pattern we have observed in the Automated Clearing House (ACH) network: from initially replacing paper checks in payroll distribution to becoming the foundational backbone for general commerce, B2B payments, and consumer bill payments.
This article will draw on data from Allium’s stablecoin infrastructure report to explain why it changes our perspective on the trajectory of stablecoins.
Divergence in Velocity
Since January 2024, the circulating supply of stablecoins (total supply minus non-circulating supply) has grown by over 100%. During the same period, the adjusted transaction volume (excluding wash trading, internal entity transfers, and circular transactions) has surged by 317%.
In the accumulation phase of any new asset, supply growth typically outpaces usage. As the asset matures, however, usage growth tends to exceed supply growth. This is because asset holders are spending the asset more frequently. Here, the significantly faster growth in adjusted transaction volume compared to the circulating supply of stablecoins indicates that stablecoins are maturing from being a store-of-value asset into a more widely adopted medium of exchange or value transfer tool.
This shift is reflected in the velocity of stablecoins, calculated as the adjusted transaction volume divided by the circulating supply.
The velocity of stablecoins has increased from 2.6 times to over 6 times in the past two years, reflecting that every dollar of stablecoin supply is now turning over 2.3 times more actively than in January. A benchmark comparison with traditional payment rails highlights how mature the use of stablecoins has become.
Another indicator establishing the maturity of stablecoin usage is the number of transactions. It is the least susceptible to large-scale noise. Therefore, when the growth in the number of payment transactions outpaces the growth in transaction value, it indicates that the average payment amount per transaction is declining. This behavior is a hallmark of payment systems gaining traction, rather than being experimental tools shuttling between exchanges.
This raises the question: who is making these payments, and what are they paying for?
In 2025, the consumer-to-consumer (C2C) category remains the largest channel, surpassing consumer-to-business (C2B), business-to-business (B2B), and business-to-consumer (B2C). However, its growth rate is the slowest among the four categories.
The slowdown in C2C growth further confirms the maturation of stablecoin usage, as person-to-person transfers represent the simplest use case. They do not require merchant integration, invoicing tools, APIs, or significant procedural barriers. This is the typical starting point for any new payment technology.
When India introduced the Unified Payments Interface (UPI) a decade ago, retail users were the first to adopt, driven by cashback offers and other customer acquisition strategies. I recall using Google Pay (initially launched in India under the name Tez) to transfer money between my own accounts simply because it offered me a one-dollar cashback. Only after the introduction of commercial tools, reporting systems, and dedicated payment confirmation audio devices (speakers) did businesses and institutions begin to join.
As the infrastructure matures, commercial use cases start to absorb market share. And this transition appears to be underway.
The high growth in C2B indicates that an increasing number of users are utilizing stablecoins for general commerce, subscriptions, and merchant payments. Meanwhile, the growth in B2B suggests that commercial counterparties are beginning to adopt stablecoins for invoice processing, supply chain payments, and financial operations. Both growth rates (131% for C2B and 87% for B2B) exceed the overall payment growth rate of 76%, indicating that the proportion of commercial payments is expanding.
When you combine the growing volume of C2B transactions with the declining average order value of C2B transactions (from $456 to $256), it hints at a trend where people are beginning to use stablecoins for recurring purchases.
Although the peer-to-peer (P2P) category still dominates in absolute terms, it will soon cede ground. Quarterly share data makes this rotation increasingly difficult to ignore.
After falling below the halfway mark in Q1 2025, the share of C2C transactions as a proportion of total payment volume has never exceeded 50%.
The world seems to be moving beyond the experimental phase of using stablecoins for low-risk, low-frequency peer-to-peer transfers and shifting towards consistently adopting them for high-frequency payments.
When I first began tracking the adoption of stablecoins, one of the mainstream narratives supporting stablecoins was how they would empower cross-border remittances and potentially disrupt Western Union by allowing workers in developed economies to send money home. However, the data tells a different story.
Currently, about three-quarters of stablecoin payments occur domestically. Over the past year, the proportion of cross-border payment volumes at the national level has dropped from 44% to approximately 25-29% of total payments. At the regional level, 84% of payments remain within the same geographic area.
Based on all our previous charts, it is clear that stablecoins are not competing with SWIFT in the realm of international settlements. Instead, B2B indicators, including 74% domestic dominance, decreasing average transaction sizes, payroll disbursements, and growing invoicing use cases, suggest that stablecoins are competing with domestic payment rails such as ACH.
For reference, B2B payments via ACH grew by approximately 10% in 2025, while B2B payments via stablecoins surged by 87% during the same period. I recognize that the absolute scale is still incomparable, and we must account for the low base effect of stablecoins. Nevertheless, this growth cannot be ignored.
Outlook
For a long time, I viewed cross-border remittances and peer-to-peer transfers as the primary drivers of stablecoin adoption.
Imagine a son in India receiving USD from his family in Dubai on a bank holiday without losing 7% to 8% to intermediary fees — this narrative was indeed compelling. This story still holds true, but perhaps it is no longer the main focus.
Interestingly, the narrative around domestic consumption scenarios has quietly and rapidly overtaken everything else. The market share of C2C (person-to-person) transactions has not returned to 50% for over a year, and this metric has seemingly never gained much attention in cryptocurrency discussions. However, it is precisely this indicator that marks the transformation of stablecoins from a 'cryptocurrency product' to 'financial infrastructure,' enabling transactions between consumers and businesses or between businesses.
It is worth mentioning that the payment transaction volume labeled by Allium is based on an analysis of wallets that they can cover, identify, and tag. Although this data shows that payment transactions account for only 2% to 3% of the total adjusted stablecoin transaction volume, this should be considered a lower bound – as there are certainly many wallets that Allium has not been able to cover.
Going forward, I will focus on two key trends: whether the proportions of C2B (consumer-to-business) and B2B (business-to-business) transactions will continue to rise, and whether the average transaction amount per transaction can remain low in the coming quarters. If these two trends persist even during a downturn in the cryptocurrency market, it would indicate that the stablecoin payment infrastructure has truly begun to decouple from the speculative cycles of the crypto market.
