The total stablecoin market capitalization has reached approximately $308.2 billion, with USDT commanding about 59.6% of that share. But the sheer size masks a persistent problem: liquidity is spread thin. USDT is present on roughly 130 networks, creating many shallow pools and wrapped variants with different trust assumptions rather than a single deep market.
The USDC paradox
USDC's circulating supply has fallen to about $73.5 billion, yet in Q2 2026 it accounted for roughly 12.5% of total crypto trading volume. That gap between supply and trading activity shows that demand for a stablecoin can detach from how many tokens are actually in circulation. Redemption clarity and where a stablecoin is accepted matter more than its branding or custom ticker — a lesson that keeps playing out in the data.
Why custom stablecoins struggle
Liquidity farming incentives attract providers temporarily, but they don't stick around without organic demand. Order flow follows depth, not ideals. Smaller or newer tokens struggle to achieve meaningful fills without constant incentives or bespoke market maker deals. Custom stablecoins fragment liquidity further by splitting order flow into smaller, less trusted buckets. The result: most teams are better off using USDT or USDC rails unless they have a hard requirement that can't be met otherwise.
Visa's bet on Open USD
Visa's new stablecoin platform plans to support Open USD first. That choice signals that acceptance — where a stablecoin can be spent and redeemed — is the real differentiator. It's not about the ticker; it's about the network of places that take it.
What teams should consider
Liquidity is a network good that compounds where convertibility is credible and where most orders already route. Issuing a custom stablecoin is only advisable if there's a hard requirement that existing rails can't meet. For everyone else, the math is simple: piggyback on the deepest pools or spend heavily to build your own — and even then, retention is a long shot.
