New data highlights a sharp contrast in how the world’s two largest stablecoin issuers police illicit activity. Between 2023 and 2025, Tether froze roughly $3.3 billion in crypto assets, compared with about $109 million frozen by Circle, according to figures released by blockchain compliance firm AMLBOT. The gap, nearly 30-fold, points to very different enforcement models shaping the stablecoin market.
AMLBOT’s data shows that Tether blacklisted 7,268 wallet addresses over the two-year period. More than 2,800 of those actions were carried out in coordination with U.S. law enforcement, targeting funds linked to scams and other criminal activity. The scale of these interventions reflects Tether’s more hands-on approach to compliance and enforcement.
Network data also reveals where much of this activity occurred. Over 53% of Tether’s frozen tokens were located on the Tron blockchain, which has become a major settlement layer for the stablecoin. On Ethereum, banned wallets currently hold around $1.54 billion worth of frozen USDT, underscoring the breadth of enforcement across multiple networks.
A defining feature of Tether’s model is its “freeze, burn, and reissue” mechanism. Under this process, frozen tokens can be permanently invalidated and later reissued under controlled conditions, typically when funds are recovered and reassigned. Supporters see this as a way to actively disrupt criminal use, while critics argue it raises questions about issuer control.
Circle, the issuer of USDC, has taken a far more restrained path. According to AMLBOT, Circle froze 372 addresses during the same period, totaling about $109 million. The company limits freezes to cases involving explicit court orders or regulatory directives and does not burn or reissue tokens once they are frozen. On Ethereum, banned wallets hold roughly $109.25 million in USDC, closely matching Circle’s reported enforcement totals.
These figures underline a fundamental operational difference. Tether prioritizes rapid intervention and large-scale asset recovery, often working closely with law enforcement agencies. Circle, by contrast, emphasizes legal formality and narrow compliance triggers, stepping in only when directed by courts or regulators.
The data also highlights how issuer policies, jurisdictional cooperation, and technical mechanisms can shape the behavior of stablecoins during investigations, sanctions, or enforcement actions. As stablecoins continue to play a growing role in global crypto markets and cross-border payments, these differences are likely to remain a focal point for regulators and users alike.
