Tether Blacklists 7,268 Wallets vs. Circle’s 372: A Comparative Study

Generally, You should know that Tether, the issuer of the USDT stablecoin, has blacklisted a significant number of wallets, roughly 7,268, which is a lot more than Circle, the issuer of USDC, who has only frozen 372 wallets. Normally, this would not be a big deal, but the value of funds frozen by Tether is over $3.29 billion, which is a huge amount of money. Usually, Circle’s freezes are much smaller, amounting to only $109 million in the same period.
Apparently, the differing enforcement philosophies of Tether and Circle are shaping the stablecoin market in different ways. Often, Tether’s approach is more aggressive, with the company working closely with law enforcement agencies to restrict wallets and freeze funds. Sometimes, this approach can be seen as a good thing, as it helps to protect users from scams and other malicious activities.

Tether Blacklists Over 7,000 Wallets, Far Exceeding Circle’s Count

Obviously, the data from AMLBot shows that Tether’s enforcement actions are much more extensive than Circle’s, with Tether freezing over 30 times more wallets and funds than Circle. Mostly, this is due to Tether’s use of the Tron network, where a significant portion of the frozen funds are located. Naturally, this has raised concerns about the power of centralized issuers and the potential for abuse.
Basically, Tether’s approach to enforcement is characterized by frequent coordination with authorities, which allows the company to restrict wallets not only after court orders but also in response to notifications related to hacks or ongoing investigations. Frequently, this approach has led to significant freezes, such as the $130 million in USDT frozen in July 2024, including $29.6 million on Tron linked to Cambodia’s sanctioned Huione Group.

Report Overview

Apparently, the report from AMLBot highlights the scale of Tether’s enforcement actions, with the company freezing a large number of wallets and funds across the Ethereum and Tron blockchains. Usually, this would be seen as a positive step, as it helps to protect users and prevent malicious activities. However, some people have expressed concerns about the power of centralized issuers and the potential for abuse.
Generally, the data shows that Tether’s freezes outpace Circle’s by roughly 30 times in both the number of addresses and the value of funds frozen. Sometimes, this can be seen as a good thing, as it helps to protect users from scams and other malicious activities. Normally, Circle’s approach to enforcement is more conservative and legally driven, with USDC freezes typically following explicit legal or regulatory triggers.

Tether’s Enforcement Approach

Obviously, Tether’s approach to enforcement is more aggressive, with the company working closely with law enforcement agencies to restrict wallets and freeze funds. Frequently, this approach has led to significant freezes, such as the $130 million in USDT frozen in July 2024, including $29.6 million on Tron linked to Cambodia’s sanctioned Huione Group. Basically, Tether’s burn-and-reissue process allows frozen tokens to be destroyed and replaced with clean ones, which are then sent back to victims or authorities.
Sometimes, this process can be seen as a good thing, as it helps to protect users and prevent malicious activities. However, some people have expressed concerns about the power of centralized issuers and the potential for abuse. Normally, Tether’s enforcement approach is characterized by frequent coordination with authorities, which allows the company to restrict wallets not only after court orders but also in response to notifications related to hacks or ongoing investigations.

Circle’s Enforcement Approach

Generally, Circle’s approach to enforcement is more conservative and legally driven, with USDC freezes typically following explicit legal or regulatory triggers. Usually, this approach is seen as more cautious, as it helps to protect users and prevent malicious activities while also ensuring that the company is following all relevant laws and regulations. Apparently, Circle’s freezes are much smaller than Tether’s, with the company freezing only 372 wallets and $109 million in funds.
Sometimes, this can be seen as a good thing, as it helps to prevent abuse and ensure that the company is following all relevant laws and regulations. Normally, Circle’s approach to enforcement is characterized by a more cautious and legally driven approach, with the company working closely with law enforcement agencies to restrict wallets and freeze funds only when necessary.

Implications and Industry Context

Obviously, the implications of Tether’s and Circle’s enforcement approaches are significant, with the two companies taking different approaches to protecting users and preventing malicious activities. Frequently, this has raised concerns about the power of centralized issuers and the potential for abuse. Basically, the data shows that stablecoin enforcement is becoming increasingly important as these tokens become more integrated into everyday finance.
Sometimes, this can be seen as a good thing, as it helps to protect users and prevent malicious activities. However, some people have expressed concerns about the power of centralized issuers and the potential for abuse. Normally, the balance between user protection, legal certainty, and centralized control will continue to be a contentious issue in the industry as we move into the new year.