Token Terminal: less than 10% of stablecoins deposited in DeFi, per CryptoBriefing

Opening — what was reported

CryptoBriefing published a report on November 4, 2026 that attributes a dataset snapshot to analytics firm Token Terminal, stating that less than 10% of the combined stablecoin and tokenized asset market is deposited in decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols.

The article reproduces Token Terminal’s headline numbers: a combined market estimate of roughly $333 billion for stablecoins and tokenized assets, with about $24 billion held in DeFi — about 8% deposited as of the dataset snapshot cited.

CryptoBriefing frames this as Token Terminal’s finding and notes growth and concentration patterns in the deposits; the primary Token Terminal dataset and detailed methodology were not provided in the materials supplied to us.

Essential confirmed facts from the report

Dataset and timing: CryptoBriefing attributes the snapshot to Token Terminal and timestamps the article November 4, 2026; Token Terminal’s dataset as reported covers a snapshot that includes figures through late October 2026 (CryptoBriefing reproduction).

Overall sizes: The reproduced figures put the combined market for stablecoins and tokenized assets at about $333 billion, with roughly $24 billion deposited in DeFi, equating to approximately 8% deposited.

Token and chain concentration: The reproduced Token Terminal breakdown shows USDC as the largest share of DeFi stablecoin deposits (~38.2%, about $9.2 billion), followed by USDT (~20.3%, about $4.9 billion) and Ethena USDe (~9.0%, about $2.2 billion). By chain, Ethereum is reported to hold 55.2% of stablecoin deposits, Base 13.6% and Solana 6.5%.

What is confirmed and what remains unconfirmed

Confirmed: The on‑record CryptoBriefing article attributes the dataset numbers and reproduces Token Terminal’s snapshot figures and chain/token shares; those reproduced figures are recorded here as reported.

Unconfirmed: The original Token Terminal raw exports, the exact aggregation and classification rules (for example how wrapped tokens, custodial balances, or off‑chain pegged assets were handled), and any underlying reconciliation spreadsheets were not supplied with the materials.

Practical implication: Readers should treat the reported percentages and totals as accurately reflecting what CryptoBriefing published from Token Terminal’s snapshot, while recognizing independent verification of the dataset’s construction is not available in the supplied materials.

Context: growth trajectory and concentration noted

CryptoBriefing reports Token Terminal observed sizeable growth in DeFi stablecoin deposits over three years — a figure summarized as roughly 560.8% growth — while still remaining a minority share (<10%) of the total stablecoin and tokenized‑asset market in the snapshot.

The reportage highlights concentration risk: two‑thirds of reported DeFi stablecoin deposits are attributed to the top three tokens (USDC, USDT, Ethena USDe) in the dataset reproduced by CryptoBriefing, and USDC alone is shown as providing a plurality share of deposits.

Why analysts and readers should care

If the reproduced numbers are representative, they suggest a large portion of stablecoin and tokenized‑asset supply sits outside on‑chain DeFi deposits — an observation CryptoBriefing frames as potential idle capital that DeFi protocols could aim to attract.

The concentration of deposits by token issuer and chain raises points about counterparty and network concentration risk in on‑chain liquidity profiles, an issue Token Terminal flags according to the CryptoBriefing article.

Analysis and key questions for readers

Interpretation: The report signals room for growth in DeFi deposit capture if retail and institutional holders choose to move more stablecoins on‑chain or into protocols. However, reported share‑of‑market metrics depend on how the dataset defines total supply and what is counted as a deposit.

Unanswered questions: What definitions and exclusions did Token Terminal apply (custodial wallets, exchange hot/cold balances, wrapped or bridged tokens)? What snapshot timestamp alignment was used for supply versus deposits? How might accounting for off‑chain reserves or custodial holdings change the share calculation?

Recommended reader caution: Treat the reproduced percentages as accurate representations of CryptoBriefing’s reporting of Token Terminal’s snapshot, but recognize methodological transparency was not provided in the supplied materials.

Current status and next steps

Useful reader actions

Status: The information here is a summary of CryptoBriefing’s on‑record article attributing the figures to Token Terminal (Nov 4, 2026). That article reproduces Token Terminal’s snapshot claims but the primary dataset and methodology were not supplied.

What to watch for: publication or release of Token Terminal’s underlying dataset or methodology notes, and any confirmatory reporting from Token Terminal or other analytics providers that publish raw exports or reconciliation details.

Check for a direct Token Terminal publication or dataset export to verify aggregation rules.
Look for corroboration from other on‑chain analytics providers if methodological transparency is needed.
Monitor whether DeFi protocols or custodians respond with data clarifying where stablecoin supply is held.

Sources

CryptoBriefing article (on‑record reporting attributed to Token Terminal) — published Nov 4, 2026 and reproduced Token Terminal’s snapshot figures as cited in this summary.