- USDC witnessed interest from Genesis and other institutional investors.
- BUSD and USDT lagged in terms of transfer volume.
According to data provided by Dune Analytics, trading firm Genesis had a massive amount of USDC in its reserves. The increasing interest of these firms could be instrumental in helping USDC compete in the stablecoin space.
33.0% of Genesis’s trading portfolio consisted of USDC, coming second only to its Ethereum [ETH] reserves.
Source: Dune Analytics
Institutional interest
However, Genesis was not the only institutional investor interested in USDC. Many other whales also bought the stablecoin, causing a pike in the percentage of USDC held by large addresses.
However, contrary to USDC, whale interest in USDT declined materially during the same period, according to Santiment. BUSD also observed interest from whales. However, the interest started to falter after the regulatory issues began with Paxos.
Source: Santiment
However, there have been attempts to improve the state of BUSD. For instance, since 13 February, $5 billion worth of BUSD was burned. Despite this, BUSD’s market cap continued to decline.
At press time, USDT was still on top of the stablecoin throne in terms of market cap, with USDC coming in second. However, as interest in USDC grew, the hierarchy of stablecoins might change. One indicator of USDC’s growth would be the high number of transactions being made on USDC.
According to data provided by Dune Analytics, 70% of all transfer volume was due to USDC. The huge number of transfers being made with USDC has given Circle’s stablecoin a clear advantage in this area. With USDT trailing behind at 19.3%, it seemed unlikely that USDT would catch up with USDC anytime soon.
Source: Dune Analytics
No new addresses
Even though there were sectors where each stablecoin showed dominance, there was one area in which all stablecoins could not show growth.
According to Santiment’s data, the network growth of USDT, USDC, and BUSD declined over the past month. A decline in network growth implied that the number of times each stablecoin was being transferred by new addresses had decreased. This indicated new addresses were not showing much interest in any of the stablecoins at press time.
Source: Santiment
A decline in new addresses transferring stablecoins would affect the state of the space negatively in the long run. It remains to be seen how things will pan out for each of these stablecoins.
