Flow data shows USDC vs USDT transaction volume depends on how providers track on‑chain transfers; Mizuho Securities cites network mix and institutional use.

USDC vs USDT transaction volume: reports say USDC leads; no Mizuho confirmation

February 2026 on-chain stablecoin transfer volume reached roughly $1.8 trillion, and, for the first time, USDC  USDC +0.00% ’s transaction volume exceeded USDT’s within that total. The figures attribute about 70% (~$1.26 trillion) to USDC and about $514 billion to USDT. The claim concerns stablecoin transfer volume, not exchange trading or market capitalization.

There is no direct comment from Mizuho Securities confirming this specific “USDC vs USDT transaction volume” milestone. The same reporting notes that USDT still leads by market cap, underscoring that a volume flip does not automatically imply a dominance shift across all metrics.

Why stablecoin transfer volume matters, even if market cap differs

Stablecoin transfer volume is a proxy for velocity and utility across payments, settlements, and treasury moves. A higher share can reflect institutional adoption, regulatory positioning, and preference for transparent reserves. This matters for how enterprises select rails for payouts, receivables, and cross-platform liquidity.

Recent sell-side coverage also tracks USDC adoption signals without addressing the specific volume-flip claim. “Mizuho upgraded Circle to a ‘neutral’ rating, attributing this to strong USDC demand via platforms like Polymarket and broader stablecoin adoption,” said .

How to interpret the claim and its practical implications

Define stablecoin transfer volume vs market cap vs trading volume

Stablecoin transfer volume measures the total value moved on-chain by a stablecoin over a period. It can be inflated by internal flows, self-transfers, and batched movements, depending on methodology. Market cap reflects circulating supply and the nominal peg, not actual payment usage. Trading volume captures exchange turnover and liquidity churn, which differs from real-economy settlement activity.

Implications for Circle, Tether, businesses, and cross-border users

For Circle, a lead in stablecoin transfer volume can indicate deeper payments utility and growing enterprise integration, even if market cap trails a competitor. For Tether, maintaining market-cap leadership suggests ongoing liquidity depth and broad distribution, despite a reported volume lag in the period cited. Businesses evaluating settlement rails may weigh auditability, compliance posture, and counterparty requirements alongside volume metrics. Cross-border users may view higher transfer volume as a sign of throughput and acceptance but should consider jurisdictional rules and operational needs.