New data shared by AMLBOT highlights a sharp contrast between how Tether (USDT) and Circle (USDC) have enforced address freezes between 2023 and 2025, revealing a gap that reaches nearly 30x in frozen value.
According to the figures shown, Tether froze approximately $3.3 billion in crypto assets during this period, while Circle froze about $109 million. The disparity underscores fundamentally different compliance and enforcement strategies between the two largest stablecoin issuers.
Tether’s Aggressive Enforcement Model
The data indicates that Tether blacklisted 7,268 addresses between 2023 and 2025. More than 2,800 of those actions were carried out in coordination with U.S. law enforcement, targeting funds linked to scams and other criminal activity.
AMLBot reported that between 2023 and 2025, Tether and Circle froze approximately $3.3 billion and $109 million in crypto assets via their freezing mechanisms—a roughly 30x gap. The report said Tether blacklisted 7,268 addresses during the period, with over 2,800 handled in… pic.twitter.com/5ro5R81Ueg
— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) December 25, 2025
A significant share of frozen USDT was located on the Tron network, accounting for over 53% of all frozen USDTshown in the charts. Tether’s approach goes beyond simple freezing, using a “freeze + burn + reissue” mechanism that allows recovered funds to be invalidated and reissued under controlled conditions.
The visual data shows $1.54 billion in USDT (ERC-20) currently held in banned wallets, reflecting the scale of enforcement tied to Ethereum-based USDT alone.
Circle’s More Conservative Policy
In contrast, Circle froze just 372 addresses, totaling $109 million in USDC, according to the same dataset. The charts emphasize that Circle only freezes funds under explicit court orders or regulatory directives and does not burn or reissue tokens after freezing.
The ERC-20 data shows $109.25 million in USDC sitting in banned wallets, closely matching Circle’s reported enforcement totals and reinforcing the issuer’s narrower scope of intervention.
What the Data Signals for Stablecoin Users
The side-by-side numbers illustrate how stablecoins, despite appearing similar on the surface, can operate under very different governance philosophies. Tether’s model prioritizes rapid intervention and asset recovery at scale, while Circle’s approach emphasizes legal formality and restraint.
For users, the takeaway is clear: stablecoins are not neutral infrastructure. Issuer policies, jurisdictional cooperation, and enforcement mechanisms materially affect how assets behave in edge cases involving compliance, investigations, or sanctions.
As stablecoins become more integrated into global payments and regulation, these differences are likely to matter more, not less.
