Why Are Stablecoin Founders Concentrated in Major Cities?Most stablecoin founders operate from offices in prominent cities such as San Francisco, New York, and London. This geographical concentration stands in stark contrast to where real transaction volumes are occurring. It is crucial to understand this disconnect, as it highlights a growing gap between the creation of stablecoins and their actual usage across global markets.
Ecosystem maps from leading firms indicate significant levels of founder activity in Western cities, yet the heat maps that track real transaction activity reveal a different story. Stablecoins are particularly active in regions that most Western investors may not even recognize.
What Do the Numbers Reveal About Stablecoin Transactions?During 2025, stablecoin payment volumes reached an impressive $400 billion. A significant portion of this, around 60%, stemmed from business-to-business transactions, as opposed to retail activities or decentralized finance (DeFi) yield farming.
As of March 2026, the global supply of fiat-backed stablecoins had surged past $273 billion, a notable leap from approximately $6.8 billion in March 2020. This translates to a staggering increase of 40 times over just six years. Adjusted transaction volumes rose by 91% year-over-year in the same year, culminating in $10.9 trillion.
Despite these remarkable figures, the companies issuing stablecoins primarily operate out of Western economies. Tether, for instance, is incorporated in the British Virgin Islands but has strong ties to operations in Hong Kong and Europe, while Circle is based in Boston.
Where Are Stablecoins Actually Moving Money?Estimates from the International Monetary Fund indicate that in 2024, stablecoin flows were predominantly concentrated in Asia-Pacific and North America. However, when one examines stablecoin activity relative to GDP, a markedly different landscape emerges. Regions such as Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and the Caribbean demonstrated the highest levels of engagement based on their economic size.
In this dynamic, Tether's USDT stands out, particularly in emerging markets, while Circle’s USDC captures more traction in developed economies where factors like regulatory compliance and institutional trust are valued. Many companies that contribute to the infrastructure supporting daily transactions may not be familiar names to Western investors.
Why Does This Geographic Mismatch Matter?Industry analysts have pointed out that this geographic disconnect can present strategic blind spots. Founders located in cities like San Francisco often tailor their products and strategies to align with US regulations, banking relationships, and user expectations. Meanwhile, notable demand for stablecoin services is rapidly increasing in places like Lagos, Jakarta, São Paulo, and Nairobi.
The existing regulatory landscapes further complicate this issue. Regions with surging stablecoin demand are developing their regulations, with the EU implementing MiCA, the US still in legislative discussions, and emerging markets rapidly crafting their own frameworks.
Traders observing the dynamics between USDT and USDC should be aware that the growth of stablecoin volumes in emerging markets may continue to surpass adoption rates in developed economies. Tether’s competitive advantage in these regions is likely to be a structural feature of the market rather than merely a result of historical positioning. On the other hand, Circle’s emphasis on regulatory compliance presents an advantage with institutional investors in Western markets.