The race for the tokenized euro

Euro stablecoin supply surpassed $806.6 million in July, an all-time high. It's still a tiny fraction of all stablecoins: U.S. dollars account for 99.6% of the roughly $300 billion in circulation. Across four charts, we answer four questions: how large the dollar's lead really is, what's behind the euro's growth, which issuers are winning the tokenized euro, and which chains it settles on.

1) How large is the dollar's lead?

• Dollar stablecoins are 99.6% of stablecoin supply, a bigger share than the dollar holds anywhere in traditional finance. For comparison, the dollar is on one side of roughly 90% of FX trades, carries around 60% of cross-border payment value, and makes up about 57% of central bank reserves.

• Euro stablecoins are growing faster than dollar stablecoins in percentage terms. Euro stablecoin supply rose 51.7% over the past year, against 16.8% for the dollar. In money terms, that is $0.3 billion added against $42.3 billion, so the gap widened by roughly $42.0 billion.

• Dollar stablecoins equal about 1.3% of the U.S. M2 money supply ($23.1 trillion); euro stablecoins, about 0.005% of the euro area's (€16.4 trillion). The euro is roughly 250x behind on that measure. Tokenization has barely touched either money supply.

2) What's behind the euro's growth?

• The euro stablecoin market is at an all-time high, but it took a 4.4-year round trip to get there. Supply first passed its February 2022 peak of $786.9 million this month, after falling 77.3% to a low of $178.3 million in early 2023. The market's composition also turned over: the 2022 peak was led by Tether's EURT and Angle's EURA, both since wound down.

• The growth coincided with MiCA, the EU rulebook that requires stablecoin issuers to hold a licence and full reserves. Euro stablecoin supply has tripled since MiCA's stablecoin rules took effect in June 2024, from $266.7 million to $806.6 million, a period in which the euro area economy barely grew and dollar stablecoin supply rose about 20%.

• Circle's EURC captured 78.3% of everything the market has added since MiCA took effect ($422.7 million of $540.0 million). Its share of euro stablecoin supply rose from 30.0% to 62.3% over the same period.

3) Which issuers are winning the tokenized euro?

• Circle, a U.S. company, leads the race for the tokenized euro with 62.3% of supply. It issues EURC through its French-licensed subsidiary. Europe wrote the rulebook and an American issuer has so far won under it, but European banks are entering the race, from Société Générale today to Qivalis, a 37-bank consortium including BNP Paribas and ING, launching next.

• Europe's banks went from absent to a quarter of the market in two years. Bank-issued tokens, led by Société Générale's EURCV, grew from 0.3% of supply in July 2024 to 26.9% today ($216.7 million). They are also a different kind of product: the average EURC address holds roughly $2,000, while EURXT, issued by Crédit Agricole's CACEIS for authorized institutional actors, averages $25.7 million per onchain holder.

• The top two issuers now hold 78.0% of euro stablecoin supply, close to the dollar market's shape one cycle earlier. Tether and Circle command roughly 90% of dollar stablecoins. The open question is whether Europe's challengers can find real demand, and eventually dethrone Circle.

4) Which chains does it settle on?

• The market's all-time high was reached without Ethereum, its home chain, recovering. Ethereum still hosts 67.6% of euro stablecoin supply, but at $525.9 million it remains 28.1% below its own early-2022 peak. The record came from expansion to new chains, led by Solana and Base.

• Even so, every regulated issuer still starts on Ethereum. Société Générale, Crédit Agricole, and Banking Circle issue almost entirely on Ethereum, and so does nearly every other euro stablecoin. The expansion beyond Ethereum is mostly one company's playbook: Circle's EURC is 96.5% of the euro supply on Solana and effectively all of it on Base.

• Where an issuer deploys its token says who it's for. Circle expanded EURC to Solana and Base, two of the highest-volume trading chains in crypto; Société Générale's newest deployment went to XRP Ledger, a move Ripple framed as enabling institutional use cases. As the next wave of issuers pick their chains, those choices will show whether they are chasing retail or institutions.

Access these charts and the underlying datasets in this dashboard.

Platform updates

• SK Hynix is now tracked on Token Terminal across five tokenized assets, with a combined onchain market cap of $26.7 million. Founded in 1983 as Hyundai Electronics, SK Hynix is the world's second-largest memory chipmaker and a key supplier for Nvidia. The company has traded on the Korea Exchange for decades and listed on Nasdaq on July 10. Tokenized versions from Binance bStocks, xStocks, Backpack, Ondo Finance, and Robinhood followed within days of the U.S. listing.

• Morpho Midnight is now live on Token Terminal, tracked as its own product on Base. Midnight is Morpho's fixed-rate, fixed-term lending product, complementing the variable-rate markets offered through Morpho Blue. TVL currently stands at $1.07 million with $151.4K in active loans. Additional metrics such as fees will be added in the coming weeks.

• Aave V4 is now live on Avalanche, the second chain after Ethereum. V4 is Aave's modular redesign introducing a hub-and-spoke architecture where shared liquidity pools connect to modular borrowing strategies. TVL ($2.6 million), active loans ($789K), fees, and revenue are all tracked. Aave V4 has been scaling quickly since its March launch, reaching $306.7 million in total TVL across both chains, up 52.6% over the past 30 days.

• Arcus, created by dYdX Labs in partnership with Robinhood, is now listed on Token Terminal with basic metrics. Arcus is a decentralized exchange on Robinhood Chain. Spot trading of 100+ tokenized stocks and crypto assets is live with zero fees. Perpetual futures across 125+ markets with up to 50x leverage are currently in closed beta.

Interested in getting listed? Read more here.

Most projects with liquid tokens do not provide regular, standardized reporting to their stakeholders. Token Terminal's reporting initiative exists to close this gap, giving investors the data to evaluate onchain businesses on fundamentals rather than narratives alone.

As part of its Data Partnership with Aave Labs, Token Terminal publishes monthly, data-driven reports on Aave’s onchain fundamentals. Each report includes granular breakdowns of different metrics and features qualitative commentary from the Aave Labs team.

Featured report: Aave June 2026

If you're evaluating how to formalize your project's data and reporting strategy, get in touch.

Native vs. bridged assets on Token Terminal

When an asset exists on 20+ chains, how much of it is issued natively and how much is a bridged representation? The answer matters because including both in a cross-chain total can double-count the same underlying value.

The native supply of an asset is minted directly on a chain by the issuer. Bridged supply is a representation of it, deployed on another chain by moving the asset across a bridge via a pre-determined mechanism.

The bridging mechanism determines how the natively-deployed asset supply relates to the bridged one, i.e. answering the question: is the supply minted on the bridged chain locked on the original one, or is it burned and then minted on a new chain?

The same interoperability protocol can support more than one bridging mechanism. For example, LayerZero's OFT is burn-and-mint while its OFT Adapter is lock-and-mint.

On our Tokenized assets page we default to showing native asset supply and keep bridged supply under a separate toggle. As a user, you get the issuer's true natively circulating asset supply by default and the full cross-chain picture when you switch it on.

• Toggle off (default): answers how much of the asset exists, i.e. true economic supply. Issuer size and market share where each token is counted once, on its native deployment chain(s) only.

• Toggle on: answers where the asset is deployed and liquid, a useful signal for where an issuer has chosen to build.

This distinction helps avoid double counting assets' supply on native and bridged chains by default while still providing users with the possibility to compare native, bridged, or total supply to help answer different questions during their analysis.

For investors, researchers, and analysts benchmarking cross-chain totals, we treat native issuance and bridged representations as two distinct categories. The mechanisms, design choices, and behaviors vary from bridge to bridge, and the way supply reaches each chain depends on both the issuer and third-party bridge operators.

Have a question about our methodology? Reach out here.