In 2025, Tether's USDT stablecoin has overtaken Circle's USDC in transactions on the BitPay payment platform. In 2024, USDC accounted for a significant majority of transactions at 85%, while USDT only had 13%. However, by May 2025, USDC’s share fell to 56%, and USDT rose to 43%. This shift occurred despite expectations surrounding Circle’s public launch and its regulatory advantages in the European Union.

Tether's USDT not only closed the gap in transaction counts but also led in payment volume. By March 2025, it processed over 70% of stablecoin transaction volume on BitPay. The change is attributed to an increase in overall stablecoin transactions and a preference among merchants for using USDT.

Despite losing ground on BitPay, USDC has experienced growth in market capitalization over the past year, rising from about $33 billion to $61.7 billion—an increase of approximately 88%. Meanwhile, Tether's market value grew by about 40%, reaching $158.3 billion.

Tether has expressed its intention not to comply with certain aspects of European regulations and has no plans for an initial public offering like Circle did after raising substantial funds through public trading.

Original article

This article provides limited value to an average individual. In terms of actionability, the article does not offer concrete steps or guidance that readers can take. It simply reports on market trends and statistics, without providing any actionable advice or recommendations.

From an educational depth perspective, the article lacks substance and fails to provide meaningful explanations of causes, consequences, or technical knowledge. It primarily presents surface-level facts and figures without exploring the underlying logic or science behind them.

The article's personal relevance is also limited. While it discusses stablecoin transactions and market capitalization, these topics are unlikely to have a direct impact on most readers' daily lives. The content may be of interest to investors or those involved in cryptocurrency markets, but it does not provide information that would influence a reader's decisions or behavior in a significant way.

In terms of public service utility, the article does not provide access to official statements, safety protocols, emergency contacts, or resources that readers can use. Instead, it appears to exist primarily for entertainment purposes.

The article's practicality of recommendations is also questionable. The content suggests that USDT has become more popular than USDC on BitPay, but it does not offer any practical advice on how readers can take advantage of this trend.

The potential for long-term impact and sustainability is also limited. The article discusses short-term market trends and fluctuations in market capitalization, without exploring any long-term implications or strategies for sustainable growth.

In terms of constructive emotional or psychological impact, the article does not appear to support positive emotional responses such as resilience, hope, critical thinking, or empowerment. Instead, it presents a neutral report on market trends without offering any inspiring or motivational content.

Finally, the article appears to be designed primarily to generate clicks rather than serve advertisements. The sensational headline about Tether's USDT overtaking Circle's USDC may grab attention initially but ultimately leads to an empty report with little substance.

Overall, this article provides little value beyond reporting on surface-level facts and figures related to cryptocurrency markets. It lacks actionable advice, educational depth, personal relevance, public service utility practicality of recommendations long-term impact sustainability constructive emotional impact and instead appears designed primarily for entertainment purposes rather than informing educating helping its readers

The shift in preference towards Tether's USDT stablecoin on the BitPay payment platform may seem like a mere market trend, but it has implications for local communities and family structures. The increased reliance on digital currencies and online transactions can erode traditional community bonds and local economies. As people become more dependent on globalized financial systems, they may lose touch with their neighbors and local merchants, undermining the trust and responsibility that are essential to community survival.

The growth of stablecoin transactions, led by USDT, may also contribute to the decline of face-to-face interactions and the erosion of social skills, particularly among children and young adults. As people spend more time engaging with digital currencies and online marketplaces, they may have fewer opportunities to develop essential social skills, such as communication, empathy, and conflict resolution.

Furthermore, the concentration of financial power in the hands of a few large players, such as Tether and Circle, can create systemic risks that threaten the stability of local economies. If these companies were to experience financial difficulties or make decisions that prioritize their own interests over those of their users, it could have devastating consequences for families and communities who rely on these systems.

The fact that Tether has expressed its intention not to comply with certain European regulations raises concerns about accountability and transparency. If companies are allowed to operate outside of regulatory frameworks, it can create an environment of distrust and uncertainty, which can be detrimental to community cohesion and social responsibility.

In conclusion, the rise of USDT on BitPay may seem like a harmless market trend, but it has significant implications for local communities and family structures. If this trend continues unchecked, it could lead to the erosion of traditional community bonds, the decline of face-to-face interactions, and the concentration of financial power in the hands of a few large players. This could have devastating consequences for families, children, and communities, including increased social isolation, decreased social skills, and reduced economic stability. Ultimately, it is essential to prioritize local accountability, transparency, and social responsibility to ensure that our communities remain strong and resilient.

The text presents a clear narrative bias in favor of Tether's USDT stablecoin, framing its rise to prominence as a success story despite Circle's regulatory advantages and public launch. The language used to describe USDT's growth is positive and celebratory, with phrases such as "overtaken Circle's USDC" and "led in payment volume." In contrast, the decline of USDC is portrayed as a loss, with no equivalent celebratory language used to describe its growth in market capitalization. This selective framing creates a narrative that favors USDT and implies that its success is more significant than USDC's.

The text also employs virtue signaling by implying that Tether's non-compliance with certain aspects of European regulations is a virtue. The phrase "has expressed its intention not to comply with certain aspects of European regulations" creates a positive connotation around Tether's stance, suggesting that it is standing up against oppressive or burdensome regulations. This framing ignores the potential risks and consequences of non-compliance and presents Tether as a champion of freedom and autonomy.

Gaslighting is also present in the text through the use of euphemisms such as "no plans for an initial public offering like Circle did." The phrase "like Circle did" implies that Circle's decision to go public was somehow problematic or regrettable, while Tether's decision not to do so is presented as a rational choice. This language manipulation creates a false narrative that suggests Tether made an informed decision to avoid the pitfalls of going public.

Structural bias is evident in the text through its omission of relevant perspectives on Tether's regulatory stance. The article fails to provide any critical analysis or counterpoint to Tether's decision not to comply with European regulations, presenting only one side of the issue. This selective inclusion or exclusion of viewpoints creates an unbalanced narrative that favors Tether.

Linguistic bias is present through emotionally charged language such as "overtaken" and "led," which create a sense of excitement and competition around USDT's rise to prominence. The use of passive voice in phrases such as "processed over 70% of stablecoin transaction volume on BitPay" hides agency and makes it difficult for readers to understand who was responsible for this outcome.

Selection bias is evident through the inclusion only positive data points about USDT while ignoring potential negative consequences or limitations. For example, there is no mention of any potential risks associated with non-compliance with European regulations or any criticisms from industry experts.

Confirmation bias is also present through the selective inclusion only one side of complex issues surrounding stablecoins. The article presents only one perspective on regulatory compliance without providing any counterpoint or critical analysis.

Temporal bias is evident through the article's focus on recent events without providing sufficient historical context about stablecoins' development over time. The article assumes readers are familiar with recent events but fails to provide background information about how stablecoins evolved into their current state.

Framing bias can be seen in how technical data points are presented selectively favoring specific narratives about stability coins' performance without considering other factors influencing these metrics

The input text is a factual report about the shift in market share between Tether's USDT and Circle's USDC stablecoins on the BitPay payment platform. However, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that the text is not entirely neutral. The writer has carefully woven emotions into the narrative to guide the reader's reaction and shape their opinion.

One of the most prominent emotions expressed in the text is pride. This emotion is evident in Tether's decision not to comply with certain aspects of European regulations, which is described as a deliberate choice rather than a necessity. The phrase "Tether has expressed its intention not to comply" (emphasis added) suggests a sense of confidence and determination, implying that Tether is proud of its independence. This pride serves to build trust with readers who may appreciate Tether's willingness to stand by its principles.

Another emotion present in the text is excitement or optimism, particularly when describing Tether's growth in market capitalization and transaction volume. Phrases like "overtaken Circle's USDC" and "processed over 70% of stablecoin transaction volume" create a sense of momentum and achievement, conveying that Tether is on an upward trajectory. This excitement helps to inspire action from readers who may be invested in or interested in stablecoins.

Fear or anxiety are also subtly present in the text, particularly when discussing Circle's public launch and regulatory advantages. The phrase "despite expectations surrounding Circle’s public launch" creates a sense of uncertainty or unease, implying that there may be risks associated with investing in USDC. This fear serves to caution readers against putting all their eggs in one basket and encourages them to consider alternative options like USDT.

The writer also employs a sense of contrast or surprise when describing the shift from 2024 to 2025 market share data for both USDT and USDC. Phrases like "USDC’s share fell to 56%" create a sense of unexpected change, highlighting how quickly circumstances can shift in favor of one competitor over another. This contrast helps to keep readers engaged and interested in following developments.

To increase emotional impact, the writer uses various special writing tools throughout the text. For example, they repeat key statistics (e.g., "$61.7 billion") multiple times for emphasis, making it easier for readers to grasp complex financial data. They also use comparisons (e.g., "an increase of approximately 88%") instead of absolute values alone, making numbers more relatable.

The writer also uses rhetorical devices like hyperbole ("processed over 70%") for added emphasis but avoids overstating facts excessively; this approach maintains credibility while still conveying enthusiasm for Tether's success story.

Finally, knowing where emotions are used makes it easier for readers to distinguish between facts and feelings within this report-style article – helping them stay informed without being swayed by emotional manipulation techniques designed by writers seeking specific outcomes from their audience