稳定币交易的剖析

The anatomy of stablecointransactions by Fabian Schär, Anneke Kosse, Tara Rice, TakeshiShirakami and Jirapat Siridhasanakul Monetary and Economic Department June 2026 JEL classification: E42, O33, G28, C81, G23 Keywords: blockchain, payments, policy and regulation,stablecoins, transaction complexity BISWorking Papers are written by members of the Monetary and EconomicDepartment of the Bank for International Settlements, and from time to time by othereconomists, and are published by the Bank. The papers are on subjects of topicalinterest and are technical in character. The views expressed in this publication arethose of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the BIS or its membercentral banks. This publication is available on the BIS website (www.bis.org). The Anatomy of StablecoinTransactions Fabian Schär1,2, Anneke Kosse3, Tara Rice3, TakeshiShirakami3, and Jirapat Siridhasanakul4 1Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Basel2Swiss Finance Institute3Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures, Bank for International Settlements4Formerly Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures, Bank for International Settlements Working Paper Version: June 10, 2026 Abstract:Stablecoin transfers are often interpreted as payments.On pro-grammable blockchains, however, they are frequently embedded in atomicallyexecuted transaction bundles that combine trading, lending, arbitrage, liquid-ity provision, and settlement.We show that ignoring this structure materi-ally distorts the interpretation of stablecoin activity. Using 593 million eventlogs from 141 million Ethereum transactions involving three major U.S. dollarstablecoins, we develop a replicable framework to measure transaction com-plexity from archive node data, public contract labels, and event signatures.The analysis combines measures of token and contract co-usage, action type,computational complexity, urgency, and timing.Two results emerge.First,complexity is a first-order feature of stablecoin activity: nearly 60 percent oftransfer events occur within complex transactions.Second, the three stable-coins are not used interchangeably: their use differs systematically across trans-action structures, urgency, and timing, consistent with distinct institutionaldesigns and economic functions. Analyses that treat transfers as standalonepayments therefore risk misclassifying a large share of on-chain stablecoin use,with implications for empirical measurement, market monitoring, and policy. JEL Codes:E42, O33, G28, C81, G23.Keywords:Blockchain, Payments, Policy and Regulation, Stablecoins, Trans-action Complexity. 1Introduction Stablecoins have emerged as a core component of blockchain-based fi-nancial systems.Beyond facilitating peer-to-peer payments, they serveas settlement assets for often complex financial transactions, as well assources of on-chain liquidity within smart contract-based financial mar-kets.As their economic footprint expands, a precise understanding ofhow stablecoins are used in practice becomes central to assessing theirimplications for financial intermediation, market structure, and financialstability. A growing literature examines stablecoins in the context of cross-borderpayments, monetary policy transmission, and systemic risk, often inter-preting stablecoin transfers of value as economically analogous to simplepayment transactions such as consumer payments, remittances, and sim-ple settlement flows.While such uses are economically important, thisperspective overlooks a defining feature of blockchain-based financial sys-tems: the ability to compose multiple financial operations into a single,atomically executed transaction. Smart contracts allow payments, assetswaps, collateral adjustments, risk transfers, and other financial opera-tions to be bundled into inseparable sequences that either execute jointlyor fail together. In this setting, a stablecoin transfer often represents onlyone element of a broader economic interaction.Interpreting stablecointransfers in isolation can therefore provide a misleading picture of theireconomic role, overstating payment activity and obscuring the functionof stablecoins as inputs into more complex financial operations. A central contribution of this paper is to formalize the distinction be-tween stablecoin transfers and the transactions in which they are embed-ded.A transaction specifies the bundled sequence of operations to beexecuted; transfers, by contrast, are event logs emitted by the stablecoincontract itself, each recording an individual change in token ownership.Transactions thereby provide the economic context that links discrete on-chain steps into a coherent financial operation, while transfers captureonly the granular asset flows that occur within it. This distinction is not merely taxonomic. A given transfer may reflect very different economiccontent:it can constitute a payment between independent parties, anintermediate leg of a multi-step settlem