Inside the USD Stablecoin sector, 05 November 2026

Sector Composition and Concentration

As of 05 November 2026, the USD Stablecoin sector tracked by this site comprised 52 constituents with an aggregate market capitalisation of $288.25 billion. Concentration within that total is pronounced: the two largest members alone — Tether at $178.29 billion and USDC at $70.78 billion — together accounted for roughly 86% of the sector total. The 15 largest members listed here range from $698 million (GHO) to $178 billion (Tether), a spread of more than 250-fold, illustrating that the sector is not evenly distributed across its constituents.

Fee-Stream Availability

Of the 15 largest members reported, only one — Ethena USDe — carried a measurable annualised fee figure, recorded at 12.17% annualized from the trailing 30 days to 05 November 2026. The remaining 14 members in this table returned null for that field. This absence does not necessarily mean those assets generate no fees; it may reflect data unavailability, structural differences in how revenues are distributed, or the absence of an on-chain fee mechanism that is directly observable. Readers should treat the fee column as incomplete rather than as evidence that most stablecoins are fee-free.

Distance from All-Time Highs

The percent below all-time high figures across the 15 listed members span a wide range. At the narrower end, USDGO stood 0.20% below its all-time high and United Stables 0.85% below as of 05 November 2026. At the wider end, Global Dollar was recorded at 39.54% below its all-time high and Tether at 24.46% below. For assets designed to maintain a fixed peg, a large negative distance from an all-time high may reflect historical episodes of supply contraction, redemption, or peg deviation rather than price decline in the conventional sense — the metric carries different interpretive weight here than it would for a freely floating asset.

What the Sector Label Does and Does Not Convey

The label USD Stablecoin groups assets that share a stated objective — maintaining value relative to the US dollar — but it does not indicate that the underlying mechanisms are comparable. Within these 15 members alone, the structural approaches include fiat-backed reserves, crypto-collateralised designs, algorithmic or hybrid models, and synthetic constructions. These differences affect counterparty exposure, redemption rights, collateral transparency, and the conditions under which the peg may be maintained or stressed. The sector label is therefore best read as a description of a shared target, not a shared architecture. Aggregating market capitalisation across mechanistically distinct assets provides a measure of collective scale, but that aggregate figure does not imply that all 52 constituents behave uniformly under equivalent conditions. Readers comparing individual members should consult the structural disclosures specific to each asset rather than inferring comparability from sector membership alone.