Which stablecoins trade most actively relative to their size?
As of September 08, 2026, the aggregate stablecoin liquidity score stood at 4.30, measuring venue-reported trading volume relative to the square root of market capitalization across 20 tracked stablecoins. USDT recorded the highest score, at 4.21.
The stablecoin liquidity score measures venue-reported trading activity relative to the size of a stablecoin: L = volume ÷ √market capitalization, with both inputs expressed in billions of dollars. Taking the square root of market capitalization reduces the effect of size, allowing large and small stablecoins to be compared on a common scale. A $5bn coin and a $200bn coin generating the same daily trading volume therefore do not receive the same score.
The aggregate score is up 17.0% over the previous 90 days. USDF has the lowest score among the tracked stablecoins, at 0.0004.
The calculation adjusts for size and nothing else. It inherits the limitations of its venue-reported volume input, described under Coverage of the Volume Input below.[1] In particular, it is not a measure of order-book depth, executable liquidity or the amount that could be traded without materially moving the price. None of those can be inferred from reported volume alone.
The numerator is venue-reported trading volume, aggregated from market data across venues that publish trading activity. It is the same volume input used in the velocity index and carries the same limitations.
Reported turnover on unregulated cryptocurrency exchanges is known to contain a substantial non-economic component. In a study of 29 centralised cryptocurrency exchanges, Cong, Li, Tang and Yang estimate that wash trading at the unregulated exchanges in their sample averaged more than 70% of reported volume.[1]
Three implications follow.
First, the levels shown here are better treated as an upper bound on observable economic turnover, rather than as a direct measure of underlying economic activity.
Second, changes in an individual coin's score over time are generally more informative than its absolute level. Where the mix of reporting venues remains broadly stable, distortions in reported activity are more likely to affect the level of the series than its direction.
Third, differences between stablecoins partly reflect where they trade, rather than simply how intensively they are used. Coins concentrated on high-volume venues may consequently score more highly even when some of that difference does not represent additional economic activity.
Normalizing by the square root of market capitalization addresses the effect of size. It does not adjust for the composition or quality of reported volume. No filtering, discount or other adjustment is applied to the volume input.
Reported trading volume is high relative to the square root of market capitalization, consistent with a stablecoin trading actively rather than being held predominantly in passive balances.
For companies and market participants, the score indicates that reported activity is large relative to the coin's size, but does not establish how much can be executed at a given price. For policymakers, it suggests that a relatively large share of the monetary base is associated with observable market turnover rather than remaining idle.
Reported trading activity is moderate relative to the stablecoin's size. Volume may nevertheless be concentrated on a limited number of venues rather than distributed across a broad market.
For companies, the composition and location of reported volume should be examined before drawing conclusions about liquidity. For policymakers, the score is more informative when considered alongside measures of venue concentration and market structure.
Reported volume is low relative to outstanding supply. Such readings can be associated with stablecoins held predominantly in custody, used as collateral or deployed in yield-bearing positions rather than traded frequently.
For companies, a low score provides no direct evidence about executable market size. For policymakers, it may indicate that the instrument functions more as a store of collateral or balance-sheet asset than as an actively traded settlement instrument.
Formula: Li = (venue-reported 24h volumei ÷ 10&sup9;) ÷ √(market capitalizationi ÷ 10&sup9;), per coin, per day. The aggregate is total volume over the square root of total market capitalization, both in billions of dollars. Displayed values use a 7-day rolling average to reduce daily noise.
Why the square root: market-microstructure research finds that liquidity varies systematically with asset size[2], while a separate literature finds that price impact often rises sub-linearly, approximately with the square root, as traded volume increases.[3][4] The square-root transformation used here borrows that concave form as a pragmatic normalization for size.
It is an index-design choice, not an estimate of price impact: no order-book, execution or slippage data enters the calculation, and the score cannot determine how much of a stablecoin could be traded at a particular price.
Coverage: 20 stablecoins report both a volume and a supply figure and are included. A coin missing either is excluded for that day rather than counted as zero. The scope of the volume input is set out under Coverage of the Volume Input above.[1]
Updated daily. See the methodology for data sources and coverage.
The liquidity score measures how much venue-reported trading volume a stablecoin generates relative to its size. It is calculated as daily trading volume divided by the square root of market capitalization, with both expressed in billions of dollars.
The square root serves as a size normalization, allowing stablecoins with very different market capitalizations to be compared on the same scale. A higher score indicates more reported trading activity relative to size.
It does not measure order-book depth, executable liquidity or the amount that could be traded at a given price.
Dividing volume by market capitalization produces a turnover rate, which is what the velocity index measures. Dividing by its square root instead applies a weaker size adjustment, allowing large and small stablecoins to be compared without assuming that trading activity should rise one-for-one with market capitalization.
The transformation borrows the concave form found in the market-impact literature, where price impact rises approximately with the square root of traded volume rather than in proportion to it. Borrowing that shape is an index-design choice and should not be confused with a measure of price impact: no order-book, execution or slippage data enters the calculation. The score therefore cannot answer how much of a stablecoin could be traded without materially affecting its price.
USDT currently has the highest liquidity score among the tracked stablecoins, at 4.21.
Scores tend to be higher where reported trading is concentrated. Stablecoins used extensively as quote currencies across exchanges, or as settlement assets in over-the-counter and cross-border transactions, can generate substantially more reported volume relative to their size than coins held mainly in custody, as collateral or in yield-bearing positions.
Because the numerator is venue-reported volume, however, the ranking describes where and how a stablecoin trades as well as how much it is used. Comparisons between coins should therefore be read as comparisons of observable reported turnover, rather than as direct rankings of economic activity or liquidity quality.
A sustained decline means market capitalization is growing faster than the square root of reported trading volume. In other words, outstanding supply is increasing while the volume-based proxy for liquidity is failing to keep pace.
That can be consistent with issuance being driven more by demand for collateral, savings or other relatively inactive uses than by trading and payments. It can also reflect existing balances moving towards less actively traded forms of deployment.
The score contains no order-book or over-the-counter execution data, however, so it should be treated as one indicator rather than a standalone diagnosis. It is most useful when read alongside measures such as velocity and peg stability.
As of September 2026, USDT leads the tracked universe with a score of 4.21, while USDF has the lowest score, at 0.0004. Rankings move with daily reported trading volume and are updated each day.
The same volume, a weaker size adjustment The same volume input with a different denominator. Velocity divides reported volume by market capitalization; the liquidity score divides it by the square root of market capitalization. Read together, they separate turnover rate from size-normalized trading activity.
Where trading activity groups coins How stablecoins group according to observed behavior rather than size. Trading activity is one of the inputs that helps distinguish actively used settlement instruments from coins held predominantly as collateral or savings assets.
Whether the price holds through it Whether price stability holds alongside trading activity. Low reported turnover can coexist with a firm peg, just as high turnover can coexist with greater price instability.
The denominator behind the adjustment The denominator underlying the size adjustment. The liquidity score falls when market capitalization expands faster than the square root of reported volume, making the two series useful to read together.
Where the supply actually sits Where the underlying supply is held. Liquidity concentrated in a single settlement environment presents a different market structure from the same amount of activity distributed across several chains.
Definitions and coverage Definitions of the relevant universes, the hierarchy of source authority and the coverage and reconciliation rules behind the volume and supply series.