Weekly Insights Charts Tracker Companies Networks Glossary
Indicator

Granger Causality: Does USDT Lead or Lag USDC?

Granger causality tests whether knowing yesterday's USDT market cap change helps predict today's USDC change — beyond what USDC's own history already tells us. If yes, USDT Granger-causes USDC: it is a leading indicator of USDC issuance and redemption cycles. This is not classical causation — it is predictive precedence in the time-series sense (Granger, 1969). For the stablecoin market, the question is whether Tether's issuance dynamics lead Circle's, or vice versa — revealing which issuer responds to market demand first, and which follows. The test is computed on daily market cap % changes, which for dollar-pegged stablecoins are equivalent to net minting and redemption flow signals. As of Apr 2026, over 366 daily snapshots from Apr 2025: Neither (p > 0.05).

F(USDT → USDC)
loading…
F(USDC → USDT)
loading…
Dominant Direction
predictive precedence
Significance (p < 0.05)
F > 3.84 threshold

Rolling Granger F-Statistic — USDT ↔ USDC

Rolling Granger F-statistic for both directions over the selected window. Amber dashes mark F = 3.84 (p < 0.05); coral dashes mark F = 6.63 (p < 0.01). Values above a threshold reject the null that the leading series adds no predictive value. Sustained crossing of the 3.84 line signals an emerging structural lead-lag relationship.

Current F-Statistics — Both Directions

F-statistics for both directions at the selected window. Bars are coloured when above F = 3.84 (p < 0.05). A higher bar in one direction indicates that direction as the primary predictor. Amber dashes mark the significance threshold.

Window Sensitivity — 30D / 60D / 90D

F-statistics across all three rolling windows. Consistency across windows signals a robust structural relationship. Divergence suggests the lead-lag may be regime-specific rather than persistent.

How to Interpret Granger Causality
F > 6.63 (p < 0.01)
Strong Lead Signal

The F-statistic exceeds the 99% significance threshold. The leading series provides highly significant predictive information about the following series. This is a robust structural lead-lag relationship. For policymakers: the leading issuer's operations are a reliable early warning signal for the follower's flows.

For enterprise: Build treasury strategy around the leading issuer's minting signals — they are a confirmed leading indicator. For policymakers: The leading issuer's capital flows are a systemic early indicator worth monitoring.

F 3.84–6.63 (p 0.01–0.05)
Marginal / Emerging Lead

F-statistic is above 95% threshold but below 99%. The relationship is statistically significant but may be driven by a specific regime or short period. If this coincides with a market expansion or stress episode, it may reflect a temporary information spillover rather than a structural lead.

For enterprise: Treat as confirming — not standalone — signal. Monitor across subsequent windows. For policymakers: Worth tracking; may solidify into a robust lead over time.

F < 3.84 (p > 0.05)
No Significant Lead

The series does not provide statistically significant predictive information about the other. USDT and USDC are likely responding to the same contemporaneous signals — macro liquidity conditions, crypto market flows — rather than to each other's lagged signals. This is the baseline for mature, liquid markets where information is quickly reflected across issuers.

For enterprise: No exploitable lead-lag at this window — both issuers react simultaneously to demand. For policymakers: Market is informationally efficient across the two primary issuers.

Methodology

Test: Granger causality F-test (Granger, 1969) with 1 lag. Tests whether lagged values of X significantly improve predictions of Y beyond Y's own history. Implemented by comparing a restricted model (AR(1) in Y) to an unrestricted model (AR(1) in Y + lagged X). F-statistic: F = ((RSS_r − RSS_u) / 1) / (RSS_u / (n − 3)), where q = 1 restriction, k = 3 parameters (intercept + Y_lag + X_lag). The Frisch–Waugh–Lovell theorem is used for numerical stability: the X coefficient is estimated from residuals after partialling out Y_lag from both Y and X.

Data: Daily market cap % changes (ΔMcap/Mcap) for USDT and USDC from CoinGecko daily snapshots. Market cap % changes are equivalent to net minting/redemption flow signals for dollar-pegged stablecoins.

Thresholds: F = 3.84 (p < 0.05 for F(1, ∞)) and F = 6.63 (p < 0.01 for F(1, ∞)). Exact p-values require numerical CDF evaluation; these thresholds are used as practical decision boundaries. For short windows (n < 50), treat results with caution — finite-sample critical values are slightly higher.

Important caveat: Granger causality is not classical causation. "USDT Granger-causes USDC" means USDT's past values help predict USDC's future values — not that Tether causes Circle to issue stablecoins. It reveals information spillovers and issuance timing dynamics.

Data source: CoinGecko API (daily snapshots). Update frequency: Daily at ~15:30 UTC. Coverage: Apr 2025 – present (366 snapshots). Computation runs entirely in the browser.

Frequently Asked Questions
What is Granger causality and why does it matter for stablecoins?
Granger causality tests whether one time series provides statistically significant predictive information about another, beyond the series' own history (Granger, 1969). For stablecoins, "USDT Granger-causes USDC" means that knowing yesterday's USDT market cap change helps predict today's USDC change — suggesting Tether responds to market conditions before Circle, or that USDT issuance signals that Circle subsequently follows. This reveals monetary leadership dynamics: which issuer sets the pace, and which reacts.
Is this actual causation — does USDT cause USDC to be issued?
No. Granger causality is predictive precedence, not classical causation. "USDT Granger-causes USDC" means USDT's past values help predict USDC's future values. The economic interpretation is that USDT issuance carries information about market demand that USDC subsequently responds to — or that both issuers react to a common underlying factor (crypto market liquidity demand), but with a 1-day difference in response speed. Do not interpret the F-statistic as proof that Tether controls Circle's operations.
What does the F-statistic mean in practice?
The F-statistic measures how much better the unrestricted model (using both Y's own lag and X's lag) predicts Y, compared to the restricted model (using only Y's own lag). F = 3.84 corresponds to p = 0.05 for large samples — a 5% probability of seeing this result by chance if there is no true relationship. F = 6.63 corresponds to p = 0.01. Practically: F above 3.84 means the lagged variable adds statistically significant predictive power. F below 3.84 means no significant predictive benefit from the lagged series.
Why use market cap % changes instead of raw market cap levels?
Granger causality tests assume the time series are stationary (no unit root). Raw market cap levels are non-stationary — they trend upward over time — which produces spurious statistical relationships. Daily percentage changes are approximately stationary and represent genuine minting/redemption flow signals for dollar-pegged stablecoins. This is the standard approach in empirical monetary economics for testing lead-lag relationships.
Why is the test computed with 1 lag only?
One lag (yesterday's value) tests whether information from one issuer reaches the other within 24 hours — the minimum granularity for CoinGecko daily snapshots. A 1-day lag captures the most direct information spillover between issuers. Adding more lags (2, 3 days) can improve statistical power but risks overfitting with smaller samples. For robustness, the window sensitivity chart shows whether the 1-lag relationship is consistent across 30D, 60D, and 90D rolling windows.