USDT’s payments dream, and the dark side of the data

Intro: This weekend, the news around USDT has been lively: Binance C2C giveaways, Japan’s convenience store tests, and stablecoin wealth-management yields at 8.5%—it sounds like another push for “stablecoins going live.” But at the same time, an on-chain data analysis has thrown cold water: within USDT transfer volumes, real payments may account for only a small portion. When “a payments revolution” and “a capital game” play out at the same time, which story should we believe?

1. Breaking out of the crypto bubble: from exchanges to convenience stores

According to a report from the crypto community, Japanese convenience store giant Lawson conducted a second round of stablecoin payment tests in Tokyo, supporting USDC, USDT, and JPYC. Most notably, it used a standard POS checkout counter with MetaMask, rather than dedicated crypto equipment. If this is true, it would mean stablecoins are shifting from “dollars in exchanges” to “money you can spend at convenience stores.” However, for now this test is limited to internal staff, and the details have not yet been officially confirmed by Lawson. More observation is needed.

Similar stories are also happening in Nigeria. Tron founder Justin Sun said on social media that stablecoins are enabling local remote workers and young creators to receive payments directly from customers around the world. Of course, this still involves scattered cases and cannot constitute conclusive evidence.

II. Hidden capital flows: the battle over stablecoin investing returns versus bank profits

The high yields on stablecoins are becoming the biggest entry point for attracting funds. According to information listed on multiple platforms, the annualized yield of USDT demand-deposit wealth management on Binance reaches 8.5%, and Bitget also offers a similar product, while current U.S. bank deposit rates are generally as low as 0.01%. This gap in returns gives money originally kept in banks a new destination.

More importantly, regulators have started pricing this conflict. According to media reports, the CLARITY bill in the U.S., focused on stablecoin yields, has become the center of attention. It could determine whether stablecoins can legally earn interest like bank deposits. If the bill passes, stablecoins would formally challenge banks’ deposit base; if it is blocked, the “yield story” would be greatly discounted. The bill is still in contention, with uncertainties.

III. The dark side of data: in a trillion-dollar transfer volume, how many are “real people”?

While the market is excited about payment use cases, an on-chain analysis presents an entirely different perspective. According to Followin, analysis of USDC and USDT transfer volumes on Ethereum, Base, and Tron shows that USDC’s turnover rate is ten times that of USDT, but most of it is not real payments. For example, on Base, nearly 90% of transfers come from three smart contracts; on Ethereum, 65% of USDC comes from “wash volume” operations via flash loans.

This means stablecoins’ total transfer volume could hit even new highs, but the proportion actually used by users to buy coffee or pay salaries may be negligible. The data looks impressive, but it still falls short of the “everyday payments” narrative.

Specifically for USDT, it has the highest transfer volume on Tron. On Tron, nearly 80% of transfers are difficult to categorize, and perhaps that is the part closest to real payments. But this conclusion also lacks fine-grained data support and still needs further verification.

IV. The point of disagreement: the story is great, but who is the protagonist?

Now, when it comes to USDT, the market has two parallel stories:

In one story, USDT is becoming the infrastructure for global payments—convenience stores accept it, young people in Nigeria use it to receive payments, Binance C2C’s curated section marks one year, and nearly 1.2 million users have used the service.

In the other story, USDT is merely a “settlement layer” for the crypto market—it moves money between exchanges, gets volume “washed” in DeFi via flash loans, and real consumption and payment are minimal.

These two stories are not contradictory, but which one will become dominant will shape USDT’s future. If payment scenarios can continue to take root—for example, more merchants integrate like Lawson—then the “payment currency” narrative will be strengthened. If it’s only internal fund transfers within exchanges, then USDT will forever remain the crypto world’s “internal currency.”

V. Conditions for falsification: what signals would show the narrative has been broken?

To verify which of the two narratives is stronger, we need to watch for several possible falsification signals:

• If the share of stablecoins’ real payments on-chain (excluding contract-to-contract transfers and flash-loan activity) continues to decline, then even if total transfer volume hits new highs, the payment narrative will not hold up.

• If regulators directly suppress stablecoin yields—such as by banning exchanges from offering “savings”-like products—investment funds will quickly withdraw.

• If large payment pilots such as those by Japan’s Lawson are canceled or remain stuck in long-term PoC status, it indicates that merchants’ willingness to accept them has not really opened up.

• If stablecoins in a major region are deemed securities or currency and are forced to be shut down, then compliance risk will outweigh everything.

None of these signals has happened yet, but there is also no evidence that can fully confirm payment certainty. USDT is at a crossroads: one side is real adoption, the other is data illusion.

Conclusion: USDT’s next step likely won’t be on the candlestick chart—it will be in convenience store checkout counters and discussions surrounding the Washington bill. At this intersection, maintaining observation and admitting uncertainty may be the most honest attitude.