2025-10-01 00:39:00
This was originally posted on our Voronoi app. Download the app for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.
Stablecoins have become a central pillar of the crypto economy, offering traders and investors a digital asset pegged to the stability of the U.S. dollar. But behind their promise of stability lies an important question: what are they backed by?
This visualization breaks down the asset reserves of the two largest stablecoins, Tether (USDT) and Circle (USDC), which together represent over $240 billion in market value.
The data table below breaks down the assets backing Tether and Circle, and comes directly from Tether’s latest reserve attestation as of July 2025 and Circle’s transparency page. Market cap data comes from CoinGecko and is as of September 18, 2025.
| Asset | Tether ($171B market cap) | Circle ($74B market cap) |
|---|---|---|
| Treasury Debt (T-bills) | 64.9% | 37.6% |
| Treasury Repurchase Agreements (Overnight loans collateralized by Treasurys) | 11.1% | 49.6% |
| Cash (USD) | 0.02% | 12.8% |
| Other Investments | 3.0% | |
| Bitcoin | 5.5% | |
| Precious Metals | 5.4% | |
| Money Market Funds | 3.9% | |
| Secured Loans | 6.2% |
Tether, the dominant stablecoin in the cryptocurrency ecosystem, holds nearly two-thirds of its $171 billion reserves in short-term U.S. Treasury bills. These highly liquid assets provide security and quick convertibility.
An additional 11% is in overnight Treasury repurchase agreements, with the remainder spread across bitcoin, precious metals, cash, and other investments.
Circle is built on a simpler balance sheet. Nearly 88% of reserves sit in either Treasury securities (37.6%) or repo agreements (49.6%) in the Circle Reserve Fund managed by BlackRock, while cash deposits make up the rest at 12.8%.
Unlike Tether, Circle avoids allocating reserves to riskier assets like bitcoin, metals, or unspecified investments, giving it a cleaner—but less diversified—profile.
Both companies rely heavily on U.S. government-backed securities, but their strategies differ.
Tether’s inclusion of bitcoin and metals reflects a willingness to diversify, potentially increasing returns but also introducing volatility.
Circle’s concentration in Treasuries and cash emphasizes safety and simplicity. For investors and regulators, these differences raise questions about transparency, risk, and how resilient each stablecoin might be under stress.
To learn more about where stablecoins stand in the overall crypto ecosystem, check out this graphic breaking down the top 20 cryptocurrencies by market cap on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.
2025-09-30 23:33:00
Trump’s tariffs are hitting all of America’s major trading partners. But in U.S. trade, what matters isn’t just the tariffs a country faces—it’s how they stack up against competitors.
This visualization, made with the Hinrich Foundation, shows which countries are losing the most, and the least, from Trump’s tariffs.
The data seen here is sourced from Global Trade Alert and is calculated by comparing a jurisdiction’s own trade-weighted tariff rate against the average rate faced by its competitors on the exact same products.
When Trump took office in January 2025, he quickly hit America’s top trading partners with steep tariffs. The rates, however, varied widely by country.
China and India took the hardest hit, as trade-weighted tariff rates climbed to 47.3% and 38.0% by September 2025. Brazil (29.6%) and Switzerland (19.3%) also faced steep rates.
By contrast, Ireland (6.6%) and the UK (7.1%) saw much milder tariffs, while Canada (19.4%) and Germany (18.8%) landed in the middle.
Global Trade Alert compared tariff rates across competitors to rank which countries gained or lost ground. The final result is an estimate of relative tariff advantages (positive figures) and disadvantages (negative figures).
With China, India, and Brazil facing the steepest hikes, this gave their rivals a relative edge. Fourteen of the top 20 countries ended up with advantages. Leading the pack were the UK (+12.3%), Mexico (+10.8%), and Vietnam (+6.1%).
| Country | Relative Tariff Advantage (%) |
|---|---|
 UK |
12.3 |
 Mexico |
10.8 |
 Vietnam |
6.1 |
 Italy |
4.3 |
 Taiwan |
4.2 |
 Singapore |
4.0 |
 Thailand |
3.3 |
 Indonesia |
3.3 |
 Japan |
2.7 |
 Malaysia |
2.5 |
 South Korea |
2.4 |
 Germany |
2.1 |
 Netherlands |
1.8 |
 France |
1.4 |
 Ireland |
0.4 |
 Canada |
-4.0 |
 Switzerland |
-6.5 |
 Brazil |
-11.9 |
 India |
-14.8 |
 China |
-28.5 |
On the losing side, China took the biggest hit at -28.5%. India (-14.8%), Brazil (-11.9%), and Switzerland (-6.5%) followed. Canada (-4.0%) also landed with a slight disadvantage.
So what does this mean for tariff revenue for the U.S.?
Hypothetical numbers from Global Trade Alert show what additional revenue would be provided if 2024 trade levels were to continue without any supply and demand adjustments. Trade with China is projected to generate the most tariff revenue by far, with $205.2 billion. Mexico ($84.1 billion) and Canada ($78.8 billion) round out the top three.
Tariffs paid for imports fromIndia ($33.0 billion), Japan ($32.3 billion), and Germany ($29.9 billion) are also set to generate sizable sums. The UK, by contrast, is forecasted to contribute just $4.8 billion.
Trump’s tariffs reshaped the global trade landscape, hitting some countries hard while giving others a competitive edge. Both relative advantages and tariff revenues clearly show the ripple effects, underscoring how unevenly the costs and benefits are distributed.
Visit the Hinrich Foundation to learn more about the future of global trade.
U.S. tariffs have climbed to an average rate of 18.6%—the highest since 1933. But what does this mean for everyday consumers?
The UN has crunched the numbers projecting the ripple effects of Trump’s May 12th tariffs. Which economies are bracing for the biggest hits?
America’s goods trade deficits have dominated headlines, but a critical part of the equation is being ignored: services trade.
More data will be created, captured, and replicated in the next three years than in the rest of human history. But by how much?
Visual Capitalist has partnered with the Hinrich Foundation to explore the landscape of global trade and find out what students and trade professionals can do to…
CO₂ emissions are reshaping the flows of international trade. Which countries have the highest and lowest CO₂ emissions per capita?
Which countries have the highest and lowest life expectancies at birth?
Based on data from the IMF’s World Economic Outlook, which countries have the highest and lowest government debt ratios?
Based on the Hinrich Foundation’s 2024 Sustainable Trade Index, which economies are the most and least sustainable?
Which countries and regions decreased, banned, or increased Russian oil imports following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine?
The de-dollarization of China’s trade settlements has begun. What patterns do we see in USD and RMB use within China and globally?
Rising geopolitical tensions are shaping the future of international trade, but what is the effect on trading among G7 and BRICS countries?
High resource dependency in trade makes countries more susceptible to market fluctuations and climate change.
This graphic adds visual context to the global education gap, using data from 29 major economies.
This graphic visualizes 30 country’s credit ratings, using data from the 2023 Sustainable Trade Index.
The Sustainable Trade Index 2023 is an annual ranking of the world’s most sustainable economies. View this infographic to see the results.
The Hinrich Foundation visualizes the impact of corporate subsidies by G20 nations between 2008 and Q1 2023.
The Hinrich Foundation explores China’s use of economic coercion and the implications of its control over the solar energy sector.
We analyze recent trade policies implemented by G20 members to determine whether they are liberalizing or harmful.
We highlight key findings from the Hinrich Foundation’s latest report on carbon markets, produced in partnership with Visual Capitalist.
Which economies have hazy air, and which ones enjoy mostly clear skies? Find out in this geographic breakdown of air pollution levels.
Prior to invading Ukraine, Russia had one of the highest levels of geopolitical risk. How does geopolitical uncertainty vary around the world?
The U.S. has by far the most harmful tariffs, with nearly 5,000 in force. Which economy has the least tariffs?
Global trade is growing across regions and countries which is creating an explosion in new jobs and education opportunities.
See which economies have the most sustainable trade policies in the Hinrich Foundation’s 2022 Sustainable Trade Index.
In this infographic, we examine the current state of digital fragmentation and it’s implications on the world.
Asia’s digital economy is expanding quicker than ever, but cooperation between governments is needed to reduce barriers.
Free trade is a powerful engine for economic growth, but rising protectionism stands in the way. See what the data says in this infographic.
2025-09-30 22:22:47
This was originally posted on our Voronoi app. Download the app for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.
Even for the world’s largest companies by revenue, the efficiency of operations and sales differs drastically. While some companies rely on vast workforces, others achieve massive revenues with comparatively lean teams.
Revenue per employee is one of the straightforward ways to measure how efficiently a company converts its workforce into sales.
This infographic uses data from the Fortune Global 500 to highlight the revenue per employee of the world’s largest companies by revenue for fiscal years ending on or before March 31, 2025.
Among the world’s top 20 largest companies by revenue, the annual revenue per employee ranges from about $324,000 to $8.1 million. Here’s how they stack up:
| Company | Revenue per employee | Revenue (F.Y. ending March 31, 2025) |
Employees |
|---|---|---|---|
| McKesson | $8,160,250 | $359,051,000,000 | 44,000 |
| Cencora | $6,680,877 | $293,958,600,000 | 44,000 |
| Saudi Aramco | $6,392,522 | $480,193,500,000 | 75,118 |
| Exxon Mobil | $5,740,312 | $349,585,000,000 | 60,900 |
| Shell | $3,010,719 | $289,029,000,000 | 96,000 |
| Apple | $2,384,360 | $391,035,000,000 | 164,000 |
| Alphabet | $1,909,297 | $350,018,000,000 | 183,323 |
| CVS Health | $1,436,644 | $372,809,000,000 | 259,500 |
| UnitedHealth Group | $1,000,695 | $400,278,000,000 | 400,000 |
| Berkshire Hathaway | $946,567 | $371,433,000,000 | 392,400 |
| JPMorgan Chase | $879,183 | $278,906,000,000 | 317,233 |
| China State Construction Engineering | $841,861 | $304,121,300,000 | 361,249 |
| Sinopec Group | $823,053 | $407,490,100,000 | 495,096 |
| Toyota Motor | $820,914 | $315,110,200,000 | 383,853 |
| Costco Wholesale | $764,123 | $254,453,000,000 | 333,000 |
| Volkswagen | $543,067 | $351,093,300,000 | 646,501 |
| China National Petroleum | $418,863 | $412,645,300,000 | 985,155 |
| Amazon | $409,999 | $637,959,000,000 | 1,556,000 |
| State Grid | $404,940 | $548,414,400,000 | 1,354,310 |
| Walmart | $324,279 | $680,985,000,000 | 2,100,000 |
Wholesale pharmaceutical distributors such as McKesson ($8.1 million per employee) and Cencora ($6.7 million) dominate the top of the list, reflecting their lean and efficient business models.
Energy giants also post strong results, with Saudi Aramco ($6.4 million) and Exxon Mobil ($5.7 million) leading their sector. Meanwhile, among technology firms, Apple brings in around $2.4 million per employee, while Alphabet generates $1.9 million.
On the other end of the spectrum, massive employers such as Walmart (2.1 million employees), Amazon (1.6 million employees), and China’s State Grid (1.4 million employees) post much lower per-employee revenue.
Looking at industries, four of the top 10 companies by revenue per employee are in the healthcare space, with McKesson and Cencora operating as distributors, while CVS Health is primarily a pharmaceutical retailer.
The capital-intensive energy sector also fares well, making up three of the top 10 companies, followed by the technology sector, where companies benefit from the scalability of digital platforms and product ecosystems.
On the other hand, the retail industry, including wholesalers like Costco and Walmart, typically relies on large workforces that reduce the revenue generation per employee, despite their massive scales.
If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The World’s Largest Companies by Revenue on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.
2025-09-30 20:06:15
This was originally posted on our Voronoi app. Download the app for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.
About one-third of America’s 342 million people are renters.
And for many of the low-income households, keeping a roof overhead hinges on federal help.
The above map colors every U.S. state by the average monthly federal rent subsidy received per household receiving assistance in 2024, showing just how widely support can vary for families with similar needs.
Data for this visualization comes from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Policy Development and Research (also known as the HUD).
It tracks average HUD expenditures under major rental-assistance programs, including Housing Choice Vouchers, Public Housing, and project-based assistance.
Qualifying households pay 30% of their adjusted income as rent; the federal government covers the rest. Income limits to qualify for rental support vary by county, program, and household size.On average, low-income California renters received $1,604 a month from the federal government for rent in 2024, the highest in the country.
They beat the national average ($1,067) by more than $500.
| Rank | State / Territory | Average Rental Assistance / Month |
Average Family Expenditure / Month |
Annual Household Income |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | California | $1,604 | $559 | $21,832 |
| 2 | Massachusetts | $1,587 | $541 | $22,613 |
| 3 | Guam | $1,512 | $451 | $19,497 |
| 4 | New York | $1,435 | $545 | $22,339 |
| 5 | U.S. Virgin Islands | $1,298 | $387 | $17,395 |
| 6 | Florida | $1,291 | $457 | $17,969 |
| 7 | District of Columbia | $1,263 | $363 | $18,880 |
| 8 | Hawaii | $1,254 | $572 | $22,820 |
| 9 | Maryland | $1,244 | $470 | $19,470 |
| 10 | Connecticut | $1,237 | $512 | $20,429 |
| 11 | Colorado | $1,196 | $417 | $16,964 |
| 12 | New Jersey | $1,189 | $493 | $20,859 |
| 13 | Northern Mariana Islands | $1,161 | $224 | $9,661 |
| 14 | Rhode Island | $1,137 | $477 | $19,930 |
| 15 | Nevada | $1,132 | $421 | $16,827 |
| 16 | Washington | $1,125 | $445 | $18,508 |
| 17 | Arizona | $1,069 | $405 | $16,415 |
| 18 | Illinois | $1,069 | $394 | $16,393 |
| 19 | Maine | $997 | $447 | $18,486 |
| 20 | Virginia | $986 | $426 | $17,677 |
| 21 | Delaware | $985 | $444 | $18,677 |
| 22 | Vermont | $975 | $455 | $18,976 |
| 23 | Texas | $966 | $395 | $16,166 |
| 24 | New Hampshire | $947 | $493 | $21,120 |
| 25 | Oregon | $941 | $405 | $15,992 |
| 26 | Pennsylvania | $907 | $411 | $17,389 |
| 27 | Georgia | $897 | $384 | $16,422 |
| 28 | Utah | $847 | $405 | $16,344 |
| 29 | Minnesota | $833 | $434 | $18,341 |
| 30 | Alaska | $824 | $589 | $23,164 |
| 31 | South Carolina | $800 | $358 | $15,174 |
| 32 | Tennessee | $784 | $346 | $14,767 |
| 33 | Ohio | $780 | $331 | $13,528 |
| 34 | Michigan | $771 | $373 | $15,457 |
| 35 | Louisiana | $753 | $367 | $15,113 |
| 36 | Puerto Rico | $737 | $157 | $7,060 |
| 37 | North Carolina | $730 | $366 | $15,370 |
| 38 | Alabama | $723 | $352 | $15,538 |
| 39 | Idaho | $710 | $418 | $17,061 |
| 40 | Mississippi | $702 | $335 | $14,290 |
| 41 | Montana | $697 | $381 | $16,307 |
| 42 | Missouri | $693 | $354 | $15,235 |
| 43 | New Mexico | $687 | $357 | $14,959 |
| 44 | Indiana | $683 | $346 | $14,492 |
| 45 | Kentucky | $680 | $335 | $14,462 |
| 46 | Oklahoma | $677 | $320 | $13,616 |
| 47 | Wisconsin | $648 | $400 | $17,048 |
| 48 | Wyoming | $611 | $394 | $16,911 |
| 49 | Kansas | $604 | $361 | $16,041 |
| 50 | Nebraska | $602 | $408 | $17,901 |
| 51 | North Dakota | $595 | $372 | $16,128 |
| 52 | West Virginia | $581 | $334 | $14,006 |
| 53 | South Dakota | $575 | $362 | $15,850 |
| 54 | Arkansas | $555 | $332 | $14,595 |
| 55 | Iowa | $547 | $370 | $15,613 |
Sky-high market rents, especially in coastal metros, push federal vouchers higher to keep them competitive in tight housing markets.
Even with this support, participating families still spent roughly $559 of their own income on rent each month, underscoring the expensiveness of the Golden State.
Unsurprisingly, the states with the most expensive housing markets, like Massachusetts ($1,587) and New York ($1,435) are also present in the top five for rental assistance.
However, the presence of Guam ($1,512), and the U.S. Virgin Islands ($1,298) is interesting, because another overseas territory, Puerto Rico ($737), is further down the list.
For Guam, a steady demand for housing comes from an influx of residents due to the island’s military base.
The small land area and growing population put upward pressure on prices. Development opportunities are limited and infrastructure expansions (utilities, roads) are costly.
As of 2025, the average price of a single-family home in Guam is about $508,000, more than double a decade ago.
For the U.S. Virgin Islands, significant non-resident demand for seasonal and second homes skews sales toward higher price points.
These expensive housing markets have an effect on the rental market in two ways.
When home values surge, landlords face larger mortgage payments and higher property taxes, resulting in upward pressure on rents.
Then, when buying a home becomes unattainable for many, demand for rental properties climbs further driving up rental prices.
At the other end of the spectrum, nine of the 10 lowest-subsidy states are in the Midwest or South.
Iowa’s average allotment of $547 in 2024 was nearly half the national average, while Arkansas, South Dakota, and West Virginia all fell below $600.
Lower market rents partly explain the gap, but incomes are lower in these states as well.
HUD’s formula ties voucher size to local “fair-market rent,” so jurisdictions with pricey housing automatically receive larger checks.
Yet higher subsidies don’t always guarantee availability: California and New York still face long waitlists.
Meanwhile, smaller checks in the Midwest may mask hidden affordability strains, as aging housing stock and stagnant wages squeeze tenants.
Together, the data highlights a core policy challenge: balancing equity across regions while responding to hyper-local housing dynamics.
If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The Most Affordable ZIP Code for Renters by State on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.
2025-09-30 18:21:55
See visuals like this from many other data creators on our Voronoi app. Download it for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.
Since 2020, gas prices have risen in the double-digits across many urban centers globally.
As the war in Ukraine led to supply shocks, gas prices have jumped over 40% in Budapest, Vienna, and Zurich—among the hardest hit in Europe. Meanwhile, Cairo and Bangkok saw prices decline, making them global outliers.
This graphic shows the price of gas across major global cities in 2025, based on data from Deutsche Bank.
Below, we show the price of one liter of gas in U.S. dollars, along with its cumulative five-year change across 69 cities:
| City | Country | Price of 1 Liter of Gas 2025 (USD) | 5-Year Cumulative Change (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hong Kong |
 Hong Kong |
$3.07 | 36.4% |
| Zurich |
Switzerland |
$2.27 | 40.1% |
| Amsterdam |
Netherlands |
$2.26 | 22.2% |
| Geneva |
Switzerland |
$2.24 | 37.4% |
| Copenhagen |
 Denmark |
$2.23 | 40.3% |
| Singapore |
Singapore |
$2.22 | 42.3% |
| Oslo |
 Norway |
$2.20 | 34.1% |
| Paris |
France |
$2.12 | 23.3% |
| Helsinki |
 Finland |
$2.11 | 25.6% |
| Athens |
 Greece |
$2.09 | 22.9% |
| Tel Aviv-Yafo |
 Israel |
$2.09 | 22.2% |
| Milan |
Italy |
$2.07 | 19.0% |
| Dublin |
Ireland |
$2.04 | 32.5% |
| Lisbon |
 Portugal |
$2.04 | 19.3% |
| Frankfurt |
Germany |
$2.01 | 33.1% |
| Munich |
Germany |
$1.99 | 35.4% |
| Berlin |
Germany |
$1.97 | 30.5% |
| Rome |
Italy |
$1.97 | 18.0% |
| Birmingham |
United Kingdom |
$1.94 | 26.0% |
| London |
United Kingdom |
$1.92 | 25.5% |
| Edinburgh |
United Kingdom |
$1.91 | 29.1% |
| Brussels |
 Belgium |
$1.89 | 23.5% |
| Madrid |
 Spain |
$1.88 | 29.7% |
| Vienna |
 Austria |
$1.86 | 40.9% |
| Barcelona |
Spain |
$1.85 | 30.3% |
| Stockholm |
 Sweden |
$1.84 | 14.3% |
| Budapest |
 Hungary |
$1.80 | 45.2% |
| Luxembourg |
 Luxembourg |
$1.74 | 40.3% |
| Warsaw |
 Poland |
$1.73 | 40.7% |
| Prague |
 Czech Republic |
$1.71 | 32.6% |
| Wellington |
 New Zealand |
$1.70 | 29.8% |
| Auckland |
New Zealand |
$1.66 | 24.8% |
| Santiago |
 Chile |
$1.39 | 33.7% |
| Mexico City |
Mexico |
$1.32 | 46.7% |
| San Francisco |
 United States |
$1.30 | 34.0% |
| Vancouver |
Canada |
$1.30 | 32.7% |
| Los Angeles |
United States |
$1.27 | 35.1% |
| Johannesburg |
 South Africa |
$1.25 | 40.4% |
| Tokyo |
Japan |
$1.23 | -3.9% |
| Bangkok |
Thailand |
$1.22 | 43.5% |
| Cape Town |
South Africa |
$1.22 | 38.6% |
| Mumbai |
India |
$1.22 | 14.0% |
| Seoul |
South Korea |
$1.22 | 0.0% |
| Sydney |
 Australia |
$1.22 | 29.8% |
| Bangalore |
India |
$1.21 | 14.2% |
| Montreal |
Canada |
$1.19 | 38.4% |
| Istanbul |
 Turkey |
$1.18 | 20.4% |
| Melbourne |
Australia |
$1.16 | 24.7% |
| Manila |
 Philippines |
$1.15 | 16.2% |
| Delhi |
India |
$1.15 | 12.7% |
| Buenos Aires |
 Argentina |
$1.14 | 23.9% |
| Shanghai |
China |
$1.12 | 21.7% |
| Toronto |
Canada |
$1.11 | 35.4% |
| Beijing |
China |
$1.11 | 18.1% |
| Sao Paulo |
Brazil |
$1.09 | 36.3% |
| Rio de Janeiro |
Brazil |
$1.09 | 17.2% |
| Chicago |
United States |
$1.07 | 37.2% |
| Taipei |
Taiwan |
$1.05 | 14.1% |
| Bogota |
 Colombia |
$0.99 | 47.8% |
| New York |
United States |
$0.94 | 34.3% |
| Boston |
United States |
$0.91 | 42.2% |
| Jakarta |
Indonesia |
$0.79 | 27.4% |
| Abu Dhabi |
 United Arab Emirates |
$0.78 | 30.0% |
| Moscow |
 Russia |
$0.77 | 14.9% |
| Dubai |
United Arab Emirates |
$0.75 | 31.6% |
| Riyadh |
 Saudi Arabia |
$0.61 | 48.8% |
| Doha |
 Qatar |
$0.57 | 23.9% |
| Kuala Lumpur |
Malaysia |
$0.50 | 8.7% |
| Cairo |
 Egypt |
$0.32 | -34.7% |
With the highest fuel costs worldwide, Hong Kong tops the list at $3.07 per liter.
Hong Kong’s reliance on imported gas, compounded by high rent costs for fuel stations are among the key factors driving up prices. Over the past five years, prices have jumped by more than a third.
Zurich, Amsterdam, and Geneva follow next in line, each with costs above $2.25 per liter. Wars in the Middle East and Ukraine have pushed up prices, rising 40.1% in Zurich and 37.4% in Geneva since 2020.
In contrast, American fuel prices remain comparatively low thanks to its significant oil production. San Francisco is the nation’s most expensive city, where prices climbed from $0.97 to $1.30 per liter in five years. New York has also seen steady increases, rising from $0.70 in 2020 to $0.94 in 2025.
As we can see, Cairo has the cheapest fuel across 69 countries analyzed, at just $0.32 per liter, largely due to government subsidies and the country’s high domestic production volumes.
To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the largest oil producers in the world.
2025-09-30 00:04:00
The global stablecoin landscape is in flux, with regulatory regimes increasingly becoming a key differentiator in where stablecoin activity can scale with confidence. While some major jurisdictions now have stablecoin regulation in force, many countries still lack any tailored laws.
This graphic, created in partnership with Plasma, is part of Stablecoin Week and highlights the global state of regulations specific to stablecoin.
In our analysis, we’ve used three categories:
With those criteria in mind, here’s how regulation breaks down around the world.
| Jurisdiction | Stablecoin regulation status |
|---|---|
|
U.S. |
Regulations in force |
|
Canada |
Regulations in force |
|
Chile |
Regulations in force |
|
Japan |
Regulations in force |
|
Hong Kong |
Regulations in force |
|
Philippines |
Regulations in force |
|
Thailand |
Regulations in force |
|
Singapore |
Regulations in force |
 Cambodia |
Regulations in force |
 European Union |
Regulations in force |
|
UAE |
Regulations in force |
 Nigeria |
Regulations in force |
|
China |
Regulations proposed |
|
South Korea |
Regulations proposed |
|
Australia |
Regulations proposed |
|
UK |
Regulations proposed |
 Ukraine |
Regulations proposed |
|
Brazil |
Regulations proposed |
|
Türkiye |
Regulations proposed |
|
Malaysia |
Regulations proposed |
|
Israel |
Regulations proposed |
 Kenya |
Regulations proposed |
|
Mexico |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
 Peru |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
|
Colombia |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
|
Argentina |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
 Venezuela |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
 Guatemala |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
 Ecuador |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
 Bolivia |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
|
India |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
 Pakistan |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
 Bangladesh |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
 Iran |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
|
Indonesia |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
|
Vietnam |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
 Myanmar |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
 Laos |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
 Timor-Leste |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
|
Russia |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
 Iraq |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
 Yemen |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
|
Saudi Arabia |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
 Syria |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
 Jordan |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
|
Egypt |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
 Ethiopia |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
 Democratic Republic of the Congo |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
 Tanzania |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
 Sudan |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
 Uganda |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
 Algeria |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
|
South Africa |
No stablecoin-specific regulations |
Source: Chainalysis, government and news articles as of September 23, 2025. Data is for 25 stablecoin hubs as well as the 10 most populous countries in Asia, Southeast Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa.
Many developed countries that have received high stablecoin value have regulations in place.
For instance, the U.S. passed the Genius Act in July 2025, a significant milestone in stablecoin’s evolution. Among the stipulations, stablecoin issuers are required to have 100% reserve backing with liquid assets like U.S. dollars or short-term treasuries and must implement anti-money laundering programs.
Stablecoin regulation is much less common in developing countries and, in some cases, stablecoins are outright banned. Namely, cryptocurrencies in general are banned in Iraq, Algeria, and Bangladesh.
Meanwhile, some countries that allow stablecoin activity are taking steps to put laws in place. Türkiye recently proposed measures that will create daily and monthly limits on stablecoin transfers with the goal of preventing the rapid outflow of illicit funds.
In an example of more openness, Thailand announced in March 2025 that stablecoins USDT and USDC would be included in its list of approved cryptocurrencies for digital asset transactions. Traders are now able to directly trade one cryptocurrency for another without first needing to liquidate into Thai baht.
Regulation matters not just for reducing risk, but as a way to signal legitimacy. Clear stablecoin laws reduce legal uncertainty and enable institutional adoption. Regulatory clarity also supports smooth transactions across borders, a vital trait as stablecoins become embedded in cross‑border payments networks.
While many developing jurisdictions have not yet taken action, the clustering of regulation in major financial hubs is an important step. Notably, these frameworks may serve as blueprints for other regions still formulating their approach. For instance, the Deputy Secretary-General of the Hong Kong 3.0 Association recently offered to help Laos with stablecoin compliance solutions.
As regulation gains ground, Plasma is powering the new era of mainstream stablecoin adoption.
The GENIUS Act marks a turning point for stablecoin. Explore 8 key milestones in the digital dollar’s rise to mainstream finance.
U.S. dollar influence is shrinking in some spaces, but stablecoins could give the currency a new chapter of global dominance.
In the first half of 2025, one currency dropped over 50% against the U.S. dollar. What led to the decline?
To send money across borders, workers can be charged high remittance fees—over 50% of the amount transferred in some cases.
”
