Stablecoins have rapidly transitioned from niche financial instruments used primarily on cryptocurrency exchanges to becoming viable tools for everyday payments. However, as their popularity surges, a critical issue continues to hinder broader adoption: high transaction fees.
Data from Artemis, a blockchain analytics firm headquartered in New York, reveals that stablecoin-based payments are expanding across a wide range of sectors. Between January 2023 and August 2025, 33 companies accounted for an estimated $136 billion in stablecoin transactions, with an annualized volume of $122 billion. This sharp growth underscores the increasing role of stablecoins in the global financial ecosystem.
Tether’s USDT remains the undisputed leader in this space, accounting for 85% of transaction volume, followed by Circle’s USDC. These stablecoins are most active on networks such as Tron, Ethereum, Binance Smart Chain, and Polygon. This widespread usage reflects a shift in how individuals and institutions view stablecoins—not just as trading assets, but as practical tools for transferring value.
According to Artemis co-founder Anthony Yim and data scientist Andrew Van Aken, what once served as a utility for crypto traders is now being embraced by mainstream fintech giants. Companies like Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, and Stripe are actively incorporating stablecoins into their platforms, signaling a new era of digital payments.
Despite this momentum, the benefits of stablecoins are often undercut by substantial fees. While peer-to-peer transactions on efficient blockchains like Solana may only cost fractions of a cent, the broader reality is less rosy. When users interact with centralized exchanges or need to convert between fiat and stablecoins, they face a web of costs—including trading fees, network transaction fees, and foreign exchange spreads—that can rival or even surpass the costs of traditional banking.
Investor and media personality Kevin O’Leary recently criticized the lack of scalability in current blockchain infrastructure. He noted that Ethereum’s network congestion led to transaction fees exceeding $1,000 in some cases. “It’s like paying a thousand-dollar toll to drive on a one-lane highway,” he remarked, emphasizing that the blockchain industry must prioritize infrastructure capable of handling mainstream demand.
O’Leary’s critique reflects a broader skepticism: while blockchain promises efficiency and financial inclusion, its current limitations make it impractical in many real-world scenarios. “We’ve been talking about on-chain finance for over a decade,” he said. “Now that adoption is here, the system is revealing its weaknesses. Innovation must solve real-world problems—not just fuel hype.”
Regulatory developments have also added complexity to the stablecoin landscape. The recent passage of the GENIUS Act under President Donald Trump created a national legal framework for stablecoin issuers. While the law was designed to legitimize the space, critics argue that it falls short on key issues like consumer protections and transparency.
Further controversy surrounds Trump’s personal involvement in the crypto sector. His family reportedly owns a controlling 60% stake in World Liberty Financial, the firm behind the USD1 stablecoin. This token gained attention after a $2 billion fund in the United Arab Emirates used it to purchase a stake in Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange.
Adding to the storm, Trump issued a pardon for Binance founder Changpeng Zhao, who had faced jail time for failing to prevent illicit transactions on the platform. The move drew criticism, with some accusing the administration of favoring private interests over public trust.
Despite these controversies, the core appeal of stablecoins remains strong. Pegged to fiat currencies like the U.S. dollar and backed by interest-bearing assets such as Treasury bonds, stablecoins offer a dependable store of value. Issuers profit from the interest earned on these reserves, creating a sustainable revenue model—at least in theory.
Artemis’ findings suggest that while stablecoin adoption is growing, it still represents only a fraction of the global payment industry. Traditional systems dominate both in volume and infrastructure, but stablecoins are beginning to carve out a meaningful presence in cross-border payments, e-commerce, and remittances.
One promising area is the integration of stablecoins in e-commerce checkouts. Companies are exploring stablecoin settlements to reduce credit card fees and eliminate chargebacks. Early pilots indicate that stablecoins can streamline transactions and increase transparency for both merchants and consumers.
Another frontier is the use of stablecoins in underbanked regions. In areas with limited access to banking services, stablecoins provide a low-barrier entry point to digital finance. Mobile apps powered by stablecoins allow users to send, receive, and store money without needing a traditional bank account.
Yet, scalability remains a roadblock. Layer-2 solutions and alternative blockchains like Solana, Arbitrum, and Optimism aim to address this by offering faster and cheaper transactions. However, widespread adoption of these technologies is still in its infancy, and interoperability between chains remains a technical hurdle.
Moreover, the issue of centralization continues to cast a shadow over stablecoins. While they offer stability through fiat backing, they also concentrate power in the hands of a few issuers. This raises concerns about censorship, governance, and systemic risk—particularly if a major stablecoin issuer encounters financial trouble.
In conclusion, stablecoins are at a crossroads. Their utility in real-world payments is increasingly evident, and adoption by major financial players signals confidence in their future. But high fees, regulatory ambiguity, and infrastructure limitations threaten to stall progress. Solving these challenges will require coordinated efforts across technology, policy, and industry to fulfill the promise of stablecoin-powered finance.