Disparity Between Tether and Circle
In a revealing analysis by AMLBOT, a clear disparity has emerged between Tether and Circle in their treatment of stablecoin addresses from 2023 to 2025. The data indicates that Tether has implemented a significantly more aggressive approach to freezing assets, with a staggering $3.3 billion frozen compared to Circle’s more conservative figure of $109 million. This represents nearly a thirtyfold difference in the value of frozen funds, underscoring the contrasting compliance strategies adopted by the two leading stablecoin companies.
Tether’s Aggressive Measures
From 2023 through 2025, Tether enacted measures against 7,268 addresses in a bid to combat potential scams and criminal activities. Notably, over 2,800 of these actions were conducted in collaboration with U.S. law enforcement agencies, emphasizing a proactive stance in asset recovery. More than half of the frozen tokens, specifically around 53%, were identified on the Tron network, indicative of Tether’s operational focus within this blockchain ecosystem.
Tether’s use of a “freeze, burn, and reissue” mechanism is central to its strategy; it allows for the invalidation of recovered funds, which can then be reissued in a controlled manner. The report highlights that, of the total frozen amount, $1.54 billion in Tether was found in banned wallets on the Ethereum network, pointing to a robust enforcement footprint in that sphere.
Circle’s Conservative Approach
In contrast, Circle limited its freezing actions to 372 addresses worth $109 million, adhering strictly to court orders and regulatory demands. Unlike Tether, Circle does not resort to the freezing, burning, and reissuing of its tokens. Their policy appears to be more restrained and legally oriented, focusing on following established legal frameworks rather than taking pre-emptive actions.
Currently, $109.25 million in Circle tokens resides in blacklisted wallets on Ethereum, closely correlating with their freezing totals. This data illuminates not just the number of assets frozen, but also the fundamental operational philosophies that different stablecoin issuers employ.
Conclusion
Tether’s model leans towards rapid interventions aimed at recovering assets effectively, while Circle’s strategy is defined by careful legal compliance and a more selective approach to freezing assets. The landscape of stablecoin enforcement highlights broader implications for compliance, jurisdictional cooperation, and regulatory adherence in an evolving financial ecosystem.
