Standard Chartered Pushes $2 Trillion Stablecoin Forecast to 2030
Standard Chartered has delayed its $2 trillion stablecoin market cap target by two years, now expecting the milestone to arrive in 2030 rather than 2028. The bank's global head of digital assets research, Geoffrey Kendrick, published the revised outlook on 14 October 2026, citing a prolonged stall in stablecoin supply growth. For accounting teams and CFOs managing stablecoin positions, the finding matters less as a market prediction and more as a signal: the asset class is maturing in a lopsided way, with transaction activity racing ahead of supply, and the accounting and disclosure implications are real.
Why the Forecast Moved
Total stablecoin supply has been stuck in a narrow band for an extended period. Kendrick's report puts the current market at roughly $309 billion and notes that supply has hovered between $300 billion and $320 billion for the past twelve months. That is a significant deceleration compared with earlier growth phases.
Cyclical, Not Structural
Kendrick is explicit that he does not read the stall as a structural breakdown. His argument is that previous periods of flat or declining stablecoin supply occurred during weak crypto market conditions and were followed by renewed growth once broader market sentiment recovered. The current pause, in his view, fits that pattern. The $2 trillion target survives; only the timeline has shifted.
That distinction carries weight for finance functions. A structural breakdown would imply permanent impairment risk for stablecoin holdings and would warrant a formal review of whether those assets can still be classified as near-cash equivalents or must be written down. A cyclical stall does not trigger the same accounting response, but it does raise questions about how management communicates the holding risk in notes to the financial statements.
Usage Is Running Far Ahead of Supply
The more operationally significant finding in Kendrick's report is the divergence between supply and activity. While the total pool of stablecoins has barely moved, the volume of transactions flowing through that pool has expanded sharply.
Key Activity Metrics from the Report
| Metric | 2025 | 2026 (year to date) |
|---|---|---|
| Average monthly on-chain transfer value | ~$4 trillion | ~$10 trillion |
| Monthly record on-chain transfer value | Not stated | $19 trillion (May 2026) |
| Average stablecoin velocity (all) | ~15x | ~30x |
| USDT monthly velocity | Not stated | ~7x |
| USDC monthly velocity | ~45x | ~80x |
Velocity here measures how many times each unit of stablecoin changes hands in a given month. A doubling of overall velocity means the same pool of stablecoins is clearing roughly twice the economic activity it was a year ago. For firms using stablecoins operationally, that acceleration translates directly into a higher volume of transactions requiring capture, reconciliation, and reporting in their stablecoin accounting workflows.
USDC vs. USDT: Two Very Different Accounting Profiles
Kendrick's report draws a clear operational distinction between the two largest stablecoins, and it is one that finance teams should map onto their accounting policies.
USDT is described primarily as a dollar-savings instrument in emerging markets. Its velocity of roughly seven times per month reflects holding behaviour rather than active transactional use. For a firm or fund holding USDT as a quasi-cash reserve, the low velocity supports a presentation as a financial asset held at amortised cost or fair value, depending on the applicable standard, with relatively low transaction volumes to reconcile.
USDC is a different situation. A velocity of around 80 times per month means the average USDC unit is being transferred every few days. Kendrick attributes this to USDC's growing role in payments, financial settlement, and emerging AI-agent payment flows. For firms using USDC operationally, the transaction ledger is dense. Every transfer is a potential taxable or reportable event depending on jurisdiction, and the reconciliation burden scales with velocity, not just with supply. Robust crypto accounting software is not optional at that volume; it is a control requirement.
The Competitive Landscape and Its Accounting Implications
Kendrick identifies the developed-market payments and traditional finance replacement segment as the most contested battleground going forward. He points to several categories of challenger to the current USDT/USDC duopoly, including venue-focused stablecoins, longer-term infrastructure players, and multi-bank network models that would allow banks to issue a shared stablecoin while retaining the yield from its reserve assets.
What Multi-Issuer Models Mean for Balance Sheet Classification
The multi-bank network model is particularly relevant for accounting purposes. If a stablecoin is issued jointly by a consortium of regulated banks, the question of how to classify it on a corporate balance sheet becomes more nuanced. A bank-backed, multi-issuer stablecoin may sit closer to a bank deposit or a money-market instrument than to a crypto asset, depending on how regulators and standard-setters ultimately treat it. The IASB has not yet issued definitive guidance on this category. Firms that expect to receive or hold such instruments should document their classification rationale now, before the instruments are in widespread circulation.
The yield-capture question Kendrick raises is also an accounting issue. If a corporate treasury holds a stablecoin whose issuer retains reserve yield, the question is whether the holder receives any economic benefit beyond price stability. If not, the instrument may fail the contractual cash flow test under IFRS 9 and require fair value through profit or loss treatment, rather than amortised cost. That matters for P&L volatility.
Regulatory Risk and the GENIUS Act
Kendrick flags regulation as the single largest risk to his $2 trillion forecast. He specifically names the US GENIUS Act as a reference framework, noting that whether other countries adopt similar rules will shape the competitive dynamics of the stablecoin market significantly.
Implications for USDT in Emerging Markets
Kendrick's report includes a pointed observation: the main threat to USDT's dominance in emerging markets would be if global regulators were to closely follow the GENIUS Act's approach. The GENIUS Act imposes reserve, audit, and licensing requirements on stablecoin issuers. If those requirements are mirrored internationally, issuers that currently operate with lighter-touch compliance would face a choice between meeting those standards or losing market access.
For accounting and compliance teams, this is a forward-looking exposure item. Firms operating in emerging markets that rely on USDT for treasury operations or payment settlement should scenario-plan for a regulatory shift that either restricts USDT usage or forces migration to a compliant alternative. That migration would carry its own accounting consequences: derecognition of existing positions, potential foreign exchange implications, and revised counterparty risk assessments.
The FSB has also been active on cross-border stablecoin risks. Our earlier coverage of FSB cross-border stablecoin risks and what they mean for reporting sets out the multilateral regulatory context that sits alongside the GENIUS Act discussion.
Practical Steps for Finance Teams and CFOs
The Standard Chartered report does not change the accounting rules, but it sharpens the context in which those rules apply. Several actions are worth prioritising now.
Review Classification Policies for Existing Stablecoin Holdings
A supply stall combined with rising velocity means your stablecoin balances may be turning over far faster than when your accounting policy was last reviewed. If USDC positions are cycling at 80 times per month, the assumption that a stablecoin balance is a static cash equivalent needs revisiting. Check whether your policy captures the transaction flow correctly and whether disclosures in notes to the accounts reflect the actual pattern of use.
Assess Regulatory Exposure Under Emerging Frameworks
The GENIUS Act, and any jurisdiction-level equivalents, may impose new requirements on firms that hold or transact in stablecoins, not just on issuers. Monitor the legislative calendar and engage legal counsel to assess whether your treasury or payment operations would be affected. This is particularly relevant for firms operating across US and non-US jurisdictions simultaneously.
Stress-Test Your Reconciliation Infrastructure
With monthly on-chain transfer value hitting $19 trillion in May 2026 and averaging $10 trillion across the year, the operational load on reconciliation systems is substantial. Firms that process stablecoin payments or maintain stablecoin treasury positions need digital asset accounting software that can handle high-velocity transaction streams without manual intervention. A reconciliation gap at these volumes is not just an operational inconvenience; it is an audit risk.
Standard Chartered's own expanding role in the institutional stablecoin space is relevant context here. Our piece on Standard Chartered RLUSD custody and institutional stablecoin strategy covers how the bank is positioning itself as infrastructure for exactly the kind of institutional stablecoin activity Kendrick's research describes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a stablecoin supply stall affect how we classify stablecoin holdings on the balance sheet?
Not directly. Classification under IFRS 9 or US GAAP depends on the contractual features of the instrument and the entity's business model, not on market-wide supply levels. However, a prolonged stall may prompt auditors to scrutinise whether the asset still meets the definition of a cash equivalent under IAS 7 or ASC 305, particularly if liquidity conditions in the secondary market have tightened. Review your classification rationale and document it clearly.
How does USDC's high velocity affect our transaction reporting obligations?
High velocity means a high number of discrete on-chain transfers. In most jurisdictions, each transfer of a stablecoin that constitutes a disposal or settlement of a financial obligation is a reportable event for tax or regulatory purposes. At 80 turnovers per month, firms using USDC operationally will generate a large volume of individual events. Automated capture through capable crypto bookkeeping software is the only practical way to maintain a complete and accurate record for audit and tax filing purposes.
What does the potential shift to multi-bank stablecoins mean for our treasury policy?
If regulated bank consortia begin issuing shared stablecoins, treasury teams will need to assess these instruments afresh. The legal form, reserve structure, and redemption rights may differ materially from existing stablecoins. Classification could shift toward deposits or debt instruments rather than crypto assets, with different accounting treatment and different capital implications for regulated entities. Update your treasury policy to include a classification trigger for new stablecoin types before you receive the first payment in one.
Is the GENIUS Act directly relevant to non-US firms?
Potentially yes. Non-US firms that issue stablecoins accessed by US persons, or that process payments denominated in US-regulated stablecoins, may fall within the Act's reach depending on how extraterritorial provisions are drafted and enforced. Kendrick's report also notes that the Act could set a template for other jurisdictions. Non-US firms should track the GENIUS Act's final form and assess whether equivalent domestic legislation is likely to follow.
Should we disclose the Standard Chartered forecast in our own investor or board reporting?
Third-party forecasts from banks are not audited financial data and should not be presented as fact in financial statements. However, a revised market forecast of this scale is relevant context for investor letters, board risk reports, and treasury strategy papers. Frame it as one analyst view among several, note the revised timeline and the reasoning (cyclical stall, not structural break), and cross-reference any related regulatory risks your legal team has flagged.
Source: The Block