TL;DR
- Stablecoins now drive 44.4% of all Arbitrum sequencer fees - up from 5% in 2021 - across 243 weeks of on-chain data.
- 98.5% of that revenue comes from just two issuers - USDC and USDT. A disruption to either would be the single largest revenue shock Arbitrum has faced.
- A $4.26 billion non-USD stablecoin market is generating fees for Ethereum, Polygon, and Base every week - with almost zero presence on Arbitrum.
- EUR grew 172% YoY post-MiCA. BRL surged 218% in a single quarter on 14.50% interest rates. JPY user adoption grew 7,003% YoY. These are structural forces, not trends.
- Option A: Attract non-USD stablecoins through ecosystem initiatives → $2.2M–$11.1M in additional annual sequencer fees.
- Option B: Strategic equity stake in a stablecoin issuer → $6.4M/year from a 10% stake in Transfero alone, from day one.
- Under every combined scenario modelled, total DAO stablecoin revenue is a 3.3x or greater multiple of today’s $2.93M annual baseline.
About This Research
This report is the final deliverable of a research engagement funded through the Firestarters Grant program, awarded to Lampros DAO by ArbitrumDAO. The engagement was structured around two research tracks that the DAO had not previously addressed with formal on-chain analysis.
Track 1 - Sequencer Fee Attribution: Quantifying what share of Arbitrum’s sequencer revenue is driven by stablecoin activity, and modelling the revenue exposure the DAO carries from its current stablecoin concentration.
Track 2 - Non-USD Stablecoin Benchmarking: Mapping the non-USD stablecoin market across ecosystems, modelling the sequencer fee opportunity if comparable activity existed on Arbitrum, and evaluating the equity-in-issuer model as a strategic option for the DAO.
The work was conducted over eight weeks across four phases:
data collection and baseline (Phase 1),
sequencer fee attribution modelling (Phase 2),
non-USD benchmarking and revenue projections (Phase 3),
and synthesis into this final public report (Phase 4).
All underlying data, SQL queries, and analysis notebooks are publicly available and linked in the Supporting Research section. This report synthesises the complete findings across both tracks into a single document for the Arbitrum community.
Executive Summary
Arbitrum earns nearly half its sequencer revenue from stablecoins - a share that has grown from 5% in 2021 to 44.4% in the most recent 12-week period, with the long-term trend approaching 50% across 243 weeks of on-chain data. That growth reflects five years of deepening DeFi adoption and the structural role stablecoins now play in Arbitrum’s economy. That is the strength.
But 98.5% of that stablecoin revenue flows from just two issuers - USDC and USDT. The remaining 22 stablecoins contribute 1.5% combined. Arbitrum’s stablecoin revenue is not diversified - it is a two-issuer dependency, and a disruption to either would be the largest single revenue shock the network has faced.
On the other side of that fragility is a measurable growth opportunity. A $4.26 billion non-USD stablecoin market is building momentum on other chains - EUR expanding post-MiCA regulation, BRL surging 218% in a single quarter driven by Brazil’s 14.50% interest rates, JPY users growing 7,003% year-over-year. These are structural forces, not temporary trends. Almost none of this activity is on Arbitrum.
The diversification that reduces the concentration risk and the growth that expands the revenue are the same thing: non-USD stablecoins, activated on Arbitrum. This report addresses both, with data, projections, and two concrete paths the DAO can act on.
The Complete Picture at a Glance
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Current stablecoin revenue | $56,259/week |
| Concentration risk | USDC (76%) + USDT (22.5%) = 98.5% of all stablecoin fee revenue |
| Non-USD supply not on Arbitrum | $4.26 billion generating fees for Ethereum, Polygon, and Base |
| Revenue upside at base case | $5.54M/year (supply-based) |
| Equity-in-issuer upside | 10% stake in Transfero (BRZ issuer) = $6.4M/year from reserve yield alone |
| Risk exposure | Moderate stress scenario costs $1.90M/year in lost sequencer revenue |
Two Paths the DAO Can Act On
Option A - Attract Non-USD Stablecoins Through Ecosystem Initiatives: Use ARB grants to bring EUR and BRL stablecoins to Arbitrum with DeFi integrations that drive active usage. Revenue flows through sequencer fees as adoption builds.
Option B - Take a Strategic Equity Stake in a Stablecoin Issuer: Invest treasury capital for equity in a non-USD stablecoin issuer, tied to a deployment commitment on Arbitrum. Revenue begins from reserve yield on day one and compounds as sequencer activity grows.
Concentration Risk: A Strong Foundation on a Narrow Base
Stablecoins are structurally embedded in Arbitrum’s revenue, as established in the Executive Summary. But the source of that revenue tells a very different story from the size of it.
The statistical relationship is strong: when stablecoin activity rises in any given week, total Arbitrum revenue rises with it (Pearson r = 0.71 in ETH terms). Yet almost all of that movement traces back to just two issuers. USDC and USDT together account for 98.5% of stablecoin-generated fees. The remaining 22 stablecoins contribute 1.5% combined.
When Two Tokens Drive 98.5% of Revenue, That Is Not Diversification
| Token | Share of Stablecoin Fees | Share of All Arbitrum Fees | Impact if This Issuer Exited Arbitrum |
|---|---|---|---|
| USDC | ~76% | ~34% | Stablecoin fee share would collapse from 44.4% to ~10.7% |
| USDT | ~22.5% | ~10% | Stablecoin fee share would fall from 44.4% to ~38.7% |
| USDC + USDT combined | ~98.5% | ~43.8% | Stablecoin fees would reduce to near-zero |
| All other 22 stablecoins | ~1.5% | ~0.7% | Individually negligible, collectively negligible |
The combined USDC and USDT exit scenario illustrates the fragility clearly. Removing just two issuers would reduce the stablecoin contribution to Arbitrum’s total revenue from 44.4% to 0.67%. The remaining 22 stablecoins would contribute almost nothing. This is not theoretical - regulatory actions and market disruptions have removed dominant stablecoins from ecosystems before. The revenue base that looks strong in aggregate is, in practice, two tokens and a long tail that barely matters.
The Risk Is Measurable and Concentrated
Stress testing quantifies what the DAO stands to lose when both stablecoin and non-stablecoin activity contracts together - as they do in any real market downturn.
| Scenario | Stablecoin Drop | Non-Stablecoin Drop | Total Fee Decline | Annual Loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mild | 20% | 10% | 14.4% | $951,340 |
| Moderate | 40% | 20% | 28.9% | $1,902,732 |
| Severe | 60% | 30% | 43.3% | $2,854,072 |
A moderate stress event would cost the DAO approximately $1.90M annually. The DAO retains about 71% of sequencer revenue even in this scenario - manageable, not existential. But the risk is concentrated entirely in two issuers. The most effective response is not to hedge against that concentration. It is to eliminate it through diversification, which is exactly what the second half of this story is about.
The Missing Market: $4.26 Billion Sitting on Other Chains
Of the 16 non-USD stablecoins analyzed across 8 blockchains, 10 have no Arbitrum presence at all. Their combined global supply is approximately $4.26 billion - generating sequencer fees for Ethereum, Polygon, and Base every week. Not a dollar of it comes to Arbitrum.
These are not obscure or experimental tokens. Several are large, actively traded, and well-established.
The Tokens Generating Fees Elsewhere
| Token | Currency | Global Supply | Weekly Volume | Velocity | What Makes This a Missed Opportunity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EURC | EUR | $368.1M | $6,701.2M | 43.59 | The most actively traded non-USD stablecoin in this dataset. Already on Base, Avalanche, and Solana. Not on Arbitrum. |
| BRZ | BRL | $1,160.7M | $31.3M | 0.10 | Largest BRL stablecoin. Supply surged 219% in Q1 2026. Has a deep DeFi ecosystem on Polygon. |
| JPYC | JPY | $2,150.5M | $8.6M | 0.00 | Largest JPY token by supply. Capital is accumulating without active trading on any chain. |
| EURCV | EUR | $62.7M | $85.1M | 1.58 | Issued by Société Générale-Forge. Volume grew 13,060% YoY. Active on Ethereum. |
| BRLA | BRL | $79.4M | $27.1M | 0.88 | Second BRL stablecoin. Growing steadily on Polygon and Gnosis. |
| EURI | EUR | $47.0M | $9.7M | 0.20 | EUR stablecoin with 94% of supply on Ethereum. No multi-chain deployment yet. |
EURC stands out as the most urgent gap. It generates $20,190 in weekly fees from $368M in supply - a fee-per-supply-dollar rate of 0.000084, nearly 6x the USD stablecoin baseline on Arbitrum - with a velocity of 43.59, meaning each dollar turns over 43 times per week through active DeFi usage. Circle has already deployed EURC on Base, Avalanche, and Solana.
EURe: The Proof of Concept That Is Already Working
Six non-USD tokens have some Arbitrum presence, but most contribute negligible fees. EURe is the exception - with just $1.35M in supply, it generates $74.64 in weekly fees at a fee-per-supply-dollar rate of 0.000034, which is 2.4x higher than Arbitrum’s own USD stablecoin baseline of 0.0000144. EUR stablecoins with proper DeFi integrations are more fee-efficient than the USD stablecoins that dominate the network. The rest of the non-USD market has not yet arrived - but the infrastructure that can support it is already here.
Supply Is Not Enough - Velocity Is What Generates Revenue
The single most important insight from this research applies equally to USD and non-USD stablecoins: supply does not generate fees. Activity does.
EURC has $368M in global supply and generates $20,190 in weekly fees. JPYC has $2.15B in supply - nearly six times more - and generates $506. GYEN has $1.06B and generates $53. The two largest non-USD tokens by supply together generate less than 3% of what EURC generates alone. The difference is velocity. EURC turns its supply over 43.59 times per week through active DeFi usage. JPYC and GYEN barely move.
This is not specific to non-USD tokens. Across 243 weeks of USD stablecoin data on Arbitrum, stablecoin supply has almost no direct relationship with total sequencer fees (Pearson r = 0.07). What generates fees is transaction flow - how actively stablecoins are being used and through what protocols. A stablecoin that bridges $500M and sits dormant contributes approximately zero. The same token deployed into lending pools, trading pairs, and yield vaults could generate millions annually.
Why the Demand Is Structural, Not Speculative
The growth in stablecoin activity in EUR, BRL, and JPY is not driven by market sentiment or hype. It is driven by regulatory changes, macroeconomic forces, and institutional dynamics that are not going away.
EUR: Permanent Regulatory Change Created a Captive Market
MiCA regulation took effect June 30, 2024. Tether chose not to comply, leading major EU exchanges to delist USDT for European retail customers. EUR stablecoins did not outcompete USD stablecoins - regulation removed their primary competitor overnight. EUR supply grew 172% YoY, senders grew 155%, and EURC is the only globally-distributed MiCA-licensed EUR stablecoin at meaningful scale.
BRL: Interest Rates Turning On-Chain Capital Into a Yield Vehicle
Brazil’s SELIC rate at 14.50% makes holding BRZ in DeFi yield protocols far more attractive than traditional banking. This is a yield-seeking story driven by economics, not blockchain ideology. BRZ supply grew 332% YoY and surged 218% in a single quarter - almost entirely on Polygon.
JPY: Institutional Capital Building Positions Before the Infrastructure Is Ready
JPY unique senders grew 7,003% YoY, and volume grew 3,153%, yet velocity is near zero - capital is accumulating without being actively traded. This suggests institutional users building on-chain JPY positions before the DeFi infrastructure needed to deploy that capital productively is available.
Two Currencies to Deprioritize
Not every currency represents an opportunity. XSGD has declined across supply, volume, and senders for multiple consecutive quarters due to the displacement of USD stablecoins in Singapore. TRYB volume collapsed 97% YoY amid Turkish regulatory uncertainty. Neither should feature in any Arbitrum stablecoin initiative - knowing where not to focus is as strategically important as knowing where to focus.
| Currency | Supply YoY | Senders YoY | Why the Growth Is Durable |
|---|---|---|---|
| EUR | +171.95% | +154.82% | MiCA permanently removed USDT from EU exchanges. This will not reverse. |
| BRL | +1,107.63% | +8.95% | 14.50% SELIC rate makes on-chain BRL capital financially productive. Macro-driven. |
| JPY | +193.80% | +7,003.53% | Institutional accumulation is building before DeFi infrastructure catches up. |
| CHF | +446.58% | +686.55% | Growing DeFi ecosystem; ZCHF volume +640% YoY. Early-stage but compounding. |
| CAD | +106.91% | +390.74% | Steady adoption; CADC already showing velocity of 2.39 on Arbitrum. |
| SGD | N/A | -40.91% | Contracting. USD displacement in Singapore. Deprioritize. |
| TRY | N/A | -32.61% | Collapsing. Turkish regulatory uncertainty. Deprioritize. |
Revenue Projections: Translating the Opportunity Into Numbers
The non-USD stablecoin opportunity can be quantified using empirical rates derived from Arbitrum’s own on-chain data. Two independent projection methods produce a range of outcomes rather than a single point estimate.
The supply-based model applies the observed non-USD fee-per-supply-dollar rate (0.0000795 per dollar per week) - calculated from the six non-USD tokens on Arbitrum over the 12-week analysis window.
The volume-based model applies the fee yield from Arbitrum’s USD stablecoin data (0.00000332 per dollar of volume) to projected transaction volume, using each token’s observed velocity on other chains. Three adoption scenarios reflect different levels of supply migration: Conservative (10%), Base Case (25%), and Optimistic (50%).
Supply-Based Annual Revenue
| Currency | Conservative (10%) | Base Case (25%) | Optimistic (50%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| AUD | $5,980 | $14,951 | $29,901 |
| BRL | $512,894 | $1,282,236 | $2,564,472 |
| CAD | $927 | $2,317 | $4,633 |
| CHF | $12,545 | $31,363 | $62,725 |
| EUR | $208,979 | $522,450 | $1,044,899 |
| JPY | $1,327,380 | $3,318,448 | $6,636,897 |
| SGD | $7,949 | $19,873 | $39,746 |
| TRY | $139,506 | $348,766 | $697,532 |
| TOTAL | $2,216,161 | $5,540,403 | $11,080,806 |
JPY leads the supply-based projections at every scenario level, driven by the sheer size of JPYC and GYEN’s combined global supply ($3.2B). BRL is second, reflecting BRZ’s $1.16B supply. EUR is third by supply scale but first by confidence - a distinction explained in the volume-based results below.
Volume-Based Annual Revenue
| Currency | Conservative (10%) | Base Case (25%) | Optimistic (50%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| AUD | $93 | $232 | $464 |
| BRL | $3,157 | $7,893 | $15,785 |
| CAD | $93 | $232 | $464 |
| CHF | $1,731 | $4,326 | $8,654 |
| EUR | $281,430 | $703,576 | $1,407,153 |
| JPY | $109 | $272 | $544 |
| SGD | $426 | $1,065 | $2,131 |
| TRY | $307 | $768 | $1,535 |
| TOTAL | $287,346 | $718,365 | $1,436,730 |
The volume-based results reveal a striking reversal: EUR dominates completely, accounting for 98% of volume-based revenue at the base case, while JPY, which leads on supply, generates almost nothing ($272). This is not a modeling inconsistency. It is the velocity story expressed in dollar terms. EUR stablecoins are actively traded; JPY stablecoins barely move. The supply-based model shows the ceiling. The volume-based model shows the floor. The actual outcome depends on how deeply each currency integrates into Arbitrum’s DeFi infrastructure.
How Non-USD Adoption Changes Arbitrum’s Revenue Profile
| Metric | Current State | With Non-USD Base Case (Supply) | With Non-USD Base Case (Volume) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weekly Total Sequencer Fees | $126,695 | ~$232,926 (+84%) | ~$140,515 (+11%) |
| Weekly Stablecoin Fees | $56,259 | ~$162,890 (+189%) | ~$69,997 (+24%) |
| Stablecoin Share of Total Fees | 44.4% | ~70.0% | ~49.8% |
| Non-USD Share of Stablecoin Fees | <0.1% | ~34.5% | ~19.7% |
Two things stand out. First, the upside is material in both scenarios - even the conservative volume-based case adds 11% to total weekly fees. Second, and more strategically significant, the concentration profile changes dramatically: under base case supply adoption, USDC’s share of stablecoin fees would fall from ~76% to ~35%, with non-USD currencies representing 34.5% of stablecoin revenue. The risk concentrated in two issuers today would be genuinely diversified. This is not just a revenue story - it is a resilience story.
The Equity-in-Issuer Model: Revenue That Does Not Depend on Adoption Timelines
Everything covered so far is about sequencer fees. But there is a second revenue path that is structurally different: holding equity in the companies that issue non-USD stablecoins. This path does not depend on DeFi adoption curves or ecosystem integration timelines - it generates income from day one.
The mechanism is straightforward. When a user deposits €1,000 to receive EURC, the issuer invests that €1,000 in short-term government bonds and keeps the interest. A DAO equity stake captures a proportional share of that income. More importantly, an issuer with ArbitrumDAO as an equity holder has a direct financial incentive to deploy primarily on Arbitrum and grow usage - creating a flywheel: equity drives alignment, alignment drives deployment, deployment drives sequencer fees.
The critical variable is Brazil’s interest rate. The SELIC rate at 14.50% is approximately 7x the ECB rate. For Transfero - the issuer of BRZ - every dollar of supply earns 14.5 cents annually in reserve income. The same dollar in EURC earns 2 cents. The BRZ equity opportunity is not in the same category as any EUR issuer.
Equity Income Projections
Annual supply figures are based on the April 2025 - March 2026 full-year average global supply, which provides a more reliable annual revenue estimate than a 12-week snapshot.
| Issuer | Token | Annual Avg Supply | Est. Annual Revenue | DAO at 5% | DAO at 10% | DAO at 20% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Circle | EURC | $246,385,030 | $4,927,701 | $246,385 | $492,770 | $985,540 |
| Monerium | EURe | $22,725,124 | $454,502 | $22,725 | $45,450 | $90,900 |
| Transfero | BRZ | $443,437,978 | $64,298,507 | $3,214,925 | $6,429,851 | $12,859,701 |
| StraitsX | XSGD | $17,169,312 | $317,632 | $15,882 | $31,763 | $63,526 |
| PayTrie/Loon | CADC | $1,793,374 | $40,351 | $2,018 | $4,035 | $8,070 |
A 10% equity stake in Transfero would generate $6.4M per year from reserve yield alone - more than the entire supply-based base case projection for all 16 non-USD stablecoins combined. This income is earned regardless of whether a single BRZ transaction occurs on Arbitrum, making it a revenue floor independent of adoption timelines. Paired with a deployment commitment, the DAO earns from both streams simultaneously.
Yield-Sharing Caveat
These projections reflect reserve yield only. Some issuers share a portion of yield with token holders through interest-bearing vaults or with DeFi protocols through liquidity programs. This yield-sharing reduces the issuer’s retained profit and therefore the DAO’s proportional equity income. The degree of yield-sharing varies by issuer and has not been modeled here due to the absence of verified public data. Any investment due diligence process must investigate yield-sharing arrangements directly with each issuer before committing capital.
The Full Revenue Picture: Both Streams Combined
Sequencer fees and equity income operate on different timelines and depend on different variables. Sequencer fees grow as DeFi adoption deepens and stablecoin velocity builds on Arbitrum. Equity income begins at close and is structurally independent of what happens on Arbitrum. Viewing them together gives the DAO a complete picture of the total stablecoin revenue opportunity.
| Revenue Source | Conservative | Base Case | Optimistic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current USD stablecoin sequencer fees (annual) | $2,925,476 | $2,925,476 | $2,925,476 |
| Non-USD stablecoin fees - supply-based (annual) | $2,216,161 | $5,540,403 | $11,080,806 |
| Non-USD stablecoin fees - volume-based (annual) | $287,346 | $718,365 | $1,436,730 |
| Equity income: Transfero 10% stake (annual) | $6,429,851 | $6,429,851 | $6,429,851 |
| Total: supply-based non-USD + equity | $11,571,488 | $14,895,730 | $20,436,133 |
| Total: volume-based non-USD + equity | $9,642,673 | $10,073,692 | $10,792,057 |
The equity income row is identical across all three adoption scenarios. That is intentional and significant. Transfero earns reserve yield on BRZ’s global supply at Brazil’s prevailing interest rate - a calculation that has nothing to do with Arbitrum’s DeFi ecosystem development. It is the most certain number in this entire table, and it provides a revenue floor beneath all scenarios. Even under the most conservative combined outcome - volume-based projections at 10% adoption plus equity income - total DAO stablecoin revenue reaches $9.6M annually, a 3.3x multiple of the current $2.93M annual stablecoin fee baseline. The upside, if pursued, is substantial and grounded in observable data.
Two Paths Forward for the Arbitrum Community
The following two options translate the findings into governance-ready choices. They are not mutually exclusive and are presented without a ranked recommendation - the right answer depends on the DAO’s priorities, risk appetite, and governance timeline.
Option A - Attract Non-USD Stablecoins Through Ecosystem Initiatives
| Dimension | Detail |
|---|---|
| Core thesis | Deploy Ecosystem Initiatives targeting non-USD stablecoin issuers to deploy natively on Arbitrum, paired with DeFi ecosystem integrations that drive velocity rather than passive supply accumulation. |
| Where to start | EURC is the highest-leverage near-term target. It is already on Base, Avalanche, and Solana. A coordinated approach with Circle to extend EURC to Arbitrum, combined with DeFi integrations that replicate or exceed its velocity (43.59), would establish EUR as the first non-USD currency generating significant sequencer fees on the network. |
| Revenue potential | $2.2M - $11.1M in additional annual sequencer fees depending on adoption depth. EUR and BRL are the highest-confidence currencies based on existing velocity and ecosystem maturity. |
Option B - Take a Strategic Equity Stake in a Stablecoin Issuer
| Dimension | Detail |
|---|---|
| Core thesis | Invest DAO treasury capital for equity in a non-USD stablecoin issuer, linked to a commercial deployment commitment on Arbitrum. Revenue begins from reserve yield on day one and compounds as deployment deepens. |
| Priority target | Transfero (BRZ). Estimated annual reserve yield revenue: $64.3M. At 10% equity: $6.4M/year from day one, independent of Arbitrum deployment. Feasibility is uncertain - Transfero has not publicly raised external capital. Direct outreach is the necessary first step. |
| Secondary targets | Monerium (EURe): a feasible, private company; Visa investment in 2022 established a clear precedent. PayTrie/Loon (CADC): possible, raised CA$3M in 2025. StraitsX (XSGD): possible, raised $10M in 2025. |
| Revenue potential | $6.4M/year from Transfero equity alone at 10% stake, plus approximately $1.28M from BRZ sequencer fees at base case adoption when deployed on Arbitrum. |
Research Limitations
On the Sequencer Fee Attribution Analysis
- Token coverage: 24 stablecoins were analyzed on Arbitrum. Excluded tokens make the 44.4% fee share a conservative estimate - actual stablecoin contribution is likely higher.
- ETH price effect: USD-denominated results are influenced by ETH price movements. ETH-denominated correlations (r = 0.71) are the cleaner measure of the underlying activity relationship.
- Regression explanatory power: The regression models explain only 3-11% of total fee variation, which is expected given how many non-stablecoin factors influence sequencer fees. The fee-share stress test was used for scenario analysis because it is grounded in observed data.
- Historical basis: All findings reflect data through April 19, 2026. Future structural changes to Arbitrum’s fee model or competitive landscape may alter these relationships.
On the Non-USD Stablecoin Benchmarking
- Projection rate reliability: The non-USD fee-per-supply-dollar rate of 0.0000795 is influenced by VEUR’s outlier reading (only 3 weeks of data with a very high rate). Projections are potential scenarios, not guaranteed outcomes.
- Velocity assumptions: Both projection models use velocity observed on other chains as a proxy for expected Arbitrum behavior. Actual velocity will depend on DeFi integrations built on Arbitrum, which cannot be fully modeled in advance.
- Solana excluded: Removed from chain-level analysis due to Dune execution constraints. Global supply figures from DefiLlama still capture Solana supply, so projection inputs are not affected.
- Interest rate sensitivity: Transfero’s equity income estimate is highly sensitive to Brazil’s SELIC rate (14.50%). Any future rate changes by Brazil’s central bank would proportionally affect projected income.
Conclusion
Stablecoins are deeply embedded in Arbitrum’s revenue - 44.4% of all sequencer fees on a trailing 12-week basis, with the long-term share trending toward 50% since 2021. That is a genuine strength. But 98.5% of that revenue flows from USDC and USDT. A disruption to either would be the largest single revenue shock Arbitrum has faced.
The answer is not defensive positioning. It is the non-USD stablecoin opportunity sitting on other chains. EUR supply grew 172% YoY because MiCA permanently reshaped European on-chain finance. BRL grew 218% in a single quarter, driven by Brazil’s 14.5% interest rates. JPY user adoption grew 7,003% as institutional capital accumulated ahead of DeFi infrastructure. These are structural forces - and they are building on Ethereum, Polygon, and Base, not on Arbitrum.
Capturing this opportunity is simultaneously the answer to the concentration risk and the path to Arbitrum’s next revenue growth phase. The supply-based model projects $5.54M in additional annual sequencer fees at base case adoption. The equity-in-issuer path through Transfero adds $6.4M annually from reserve yield - independent of adoption timelines, from day one. Under every combined scenario in this analysis, the total stablecoin revenue opportunity is a meaningful multiple of today’s baseline.
Supporting Research and Resources
This report synthesizes findings from prior phases of the DAO Stablecoin Revenue Research. The full underlying research, raw data, and interactive dashboards are publicly available for anyone in the Arbitrum community to review, verify, and build upon.
Phase 1 - Raw Data Dashboard
The baseline dataset mapping stablecoin activity across Arbitrum from June 2021 onwards. Contains all raw on-chain data used as the foundation for Phase 2 analysis.
Dune Dashboard: [Dashboard Link]
Phase 2 - Sequencer Fee Attribution Model Dashboard
Dune dashboard covering all Phase 2 analysis: weekly stablecoin fee share, revenue by token, correlation results, stress test scenarios, and individual stablecoin exit models. All SQL queries are public, and forking is enabled.
Dune Dashboard: [Dashboard Link]
Phase 2 - Sequencer Fee Attribution Research Report
The full methodology and findings report covering 243 weeks of on-chain data, three correlation methods, regression analysis, and the complete stress test framework.
Research Report: [Report Link]
Phase 3 - Non-USD Stablecoin Benchmarking Research Report
The full benchmarking report covering 16 non-USD stablecoins across 8 blockchains, revenue projections across three adoption scenarios, YoY and QoQ growth analysis, cross-token comparison, and the equity-in-issuer model.
Research Report: [Report Link]
GitHub Repository - Full Research Codebase
The complete codebase for all phases of this research, including analysis notebooks, dataset construction pipelines, and verification code. All work is open-source and available for the Arbitrum community to review, reproduce, and build upon.
GitHub Repository: [Repository Link]
Prepared by LamprosDAO | Published: May 2026 | Funded through the Firestarters Grant Program - ArbitrumDAO