A recent analysis from AMLBot sheds light on the contrasting approaches adopted by Tether and Circle in handling stablecoin freezing activities between 2023 and 2025. This period saw a stark contrast in both the monetary value and the number of addresses affected by the actions of these two giants. Notably, Tether blacklisted around 7,268 addresses, freezing roughly $3.29 billion, while Circle’s actions involved 372 addresses with assets worth $109 million. The disparity in scale and methodology underscores the different operational strategies of USDT and USDC networks, as highlighted in the report.
What Drives USDT’s Extensive Freezing Actions?
Tether has been aggressive in its measures, freezing $3.29 billion across its ERC-20 and TRC-20 networks. The Tron network, in particular, accounts for over 53% of these frozen assets. By late 2023, Tether’s list of blacklisted addresses surged, with a further rise expected in the following years. Their consistent enforcement strategy contrasts sharply with more intermittent approaches, marking a notable difference in handling non-compliance.
How Does Circle Handle Its Freezing Operations?
Contrastingly, Circle’s freezing approach hinges on strict regulatory and legal directives, with emphasize on “access restriction” models. The period under review saw 372 addresses subjected to freezes worth $109 million, characterized by occasional peaks. Importantly, Circle abstains from “burn and reissue” strategies, waiting instead for legal determinations before unfreezing assets.
A standout feature of Tether’s model is its integrated “freeze, burn, and reissue” approach, transitioning into a mechanism for refunds and compensations. Instances in 2024 highlighted the strategic “burning” of significant sums, such as the $29.6 million associated with Cambodia’s Huione Group, emphasizing Tether’s robust operational framework.
Tether partners with over 275 law enforcement agencies across numerous jurisdictions, covering 2,800+ addresses in collaboration with U.S. authorities.
“This extensive network raises concerns about privacy and censorship,” the report discusses.
An incident in April 2025 involving the Bulgarian police acknowledged freezing of 44.7 million USDT, revealing the swift yet legally challenging nature of such interventions.
Critical insights from the report reveal:
- Tether’s aggressive freezing pace results in substantial totals across multiple networks.
- Circle’s adherence to legal rulings limits its freezing scope but ensures compliance.
- Significant sums are tied in legal processes, affecting the liquidity of both ecosystems.
- Privacy and censorship remain pressing concerns amidst extensive law enforcement partnerships.
The dynamic interplay between different freezing approaches adopted by Tether and Circle not only reflects their organizational strategies but also impacts the wider stablecoin ecosystem, necessitating a delicate balance between regulatory compliance and operational continuity. As the market evolves, the landscape of stablecoin regulation and the associated risks will continue to unfold, holding significant implications for stakeholders.
