On 15 September 2026, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) published Working Paper No 1377, examining methods for measuring stablecoin, cryptoasset and decentralised finance activity. The paper explores an apparent paradox: blockchain records are publicly accessible, yet simply adding them together does not accurately reconstruct underlying economic activity. Transfers, smart contract calls, technical movements between addresses and cross-chain operations can all affect the resulting figures.
Measurement methods can produce very different totals
Using data from networks including Bitcoin, Ethereum and Tron, the researchers found that estimates of Bitcoin transaction value can differ by up to a factor of six across measurement approaches. They also classified around 13 million active contracts, including approximately 1.4 million tokens.
Large figures alone do not imply a corresponding number of active users, an equivalent amount of readily cashable funds or sustained buying demand. The paper presents the authors’ research and does not constitute a BIS rating of any project or token.
The same stablecoin can serve different purposes across networks
Stablecoins should not be assessed through a single, undifferentiated measure of “on-chain volume.” The paper finds that the same stablecoin can show different usage patterns across blockchains. On Ethereum, activity is more closely associated with smart contract interactions. On Tron, holdings are more commonly outside smart contracts, consistent with transfer and store-of-value uses.
A practical implication is that comparisons across chains should begin by asking what the metric captures: wallet-to-wallet transfers, trade settlement, internal protocol operations or actual user payments.
Transfer activity is not the same as executable liquidity
This distinction is especially important when interpreting liquidity. A token may move frequently on-chain in a single day without users being able to sell it at the price shown on screen when they need to.
Actual execution also depends on order book depth, bid–ask spreads, liquidity pool design, transaction fees, price impact and redemption arrangements. For example, a token may show a latest price of US$1, while a larger sell order has to be filled across several price levels, resulting in an average execution price below US$1. The quoted price and the amount that can be traded at that price are separate considerations.
Check the definition and the time period
When comparing platform figures, users can look at both the measurement methodology and the reporting period. Does reported volume exclude repeated movements of the same asset? Has total value locked risen simply because token prices increased? Can assets sharing the same name on different networks be transferred across chains or redeemed without difficulty?
A single aggregate figure cannot necessarily answer these questions. Public blockchain data improves verifiability, but even the clearest-looking number needs an explanation of what it actually measures.