Uniswap v3 and v4 handled nearly half of tracked decentralized exchange stablecoin trading over the latest 30-day period, reinforcing the protocol family’s role in on-chain dollar markets. The two versions processed approximately $76.2 billion of $161.4 billion in stablecoin DEX volume across 35 tracked venues, equivalent to a combined 47.2% share. PancakeSwap ranked a distant second with 8.7%.
The breakdown shows that Uniswap v4 accounted for about 25.7% of the market and v3 another 21.5%. Token Terminal’s methodology measures the value of trades involving tracked assets at individual DEX venues, meaning the figures describe executed trading volume rather than the amount of stablecoin liquidity deposited in Uniswap pools. High turnover can result from the same capital being exchanged repeatedly.
Stablecoins generated $161.4B in DEX trading volume over the past 30 days across 35 venues
Uniswap v4 & v3 together accounted for 47.2%, or ~$76.2B pic.twitter.com/PmaFfAhtGn
— Token Terminal 📊 (@tokenterminal) October 10, 2026
Uniswap v4 Gains Ground in Stablecoin Trading
The distribution also reflects growing specialization inside Uniswap itself. V4’s architecture allows hooks to customize pool behavior, fees and execution logic, creating new designs specifically aimed at tightly correlated assets. Recent deployments include a StablePair Hook for USDG on Arbitrum, while earlier changes to the Uniswap v4 fee structure altered activity between v3 and v4 pools. Stablecoin order flow is therefore increasingly sensitive to fee design and execution efficiency rather than simply protocol brand.
USDC was involved in 52.1% of the tracked asset volume in the underlying dataset. That percentage reflects USDC’s participation in DEX trades, not a 52.1% share of global stablecoin supply, TVL or unique users. The metric nevertheless underscores how frequently USDC appears as one side of decentralized trading routes as stablecoins become settlement assets across multiple networks.
Uniswap’s broader activity extends well beyond stablecoins. Token Terminal currently records roughly $75.7 billion in total Uniswap trading volume over 30 days across v2, v3 and v4, with deployments spanning more than 25 networks. Stablecoin-specific activity and total protocol volume are separate datasets, even when the same underlying pools contribute to both.
Tokenized Stocks Add Another Source of DEX Activity
The rise in stablecoin turnover coincides with growing decentralized trading of tokenized equities, but the two metrics should remain separate. Coinbase-issued tokenized stocks recently crossed $2 billion in cumulative trading volume on Aerodrome, Base’s major liquidity venue. The figure represents gross turnover since launch, not $2 billion in tokenized-stock market capitalization or capital deposited into Aerodrome.
That market has expanded rapidly on Base. Earlier Token Terminal data showed more than $562 million in 30-day tokenized-stock DEX volume, with Aerodrome responsible for most of the activity, while Uniswap has separately surpassed $300 million in cumulative tokenized-equity volume on Base. Those figures demonstrate growing turnover across on-chain equities without proving an equivalent increase in new capital or investors.
For Uniswap, the stablecoin data provide a clearer conclusion. V3 and v4 currently dominate the measured execution layer for decentralized stablecoin trading, processing almost five times the share attributed to second-place PancakeSwap. Whether that concentration persists will depend on rolling trading activity, fee economics and liquidity distribution across competing DEX architectures rather than a single 30-day snapshot.
Emma Lawson writes about the pressure points where crypto meets the outside world: regulation, exchanges, macro policy, tokenized assets and geopolitical risk. From the US, she follows the decisions and events that can change how capital moves, how platforms operate and how digital assets are treated by institutions.
Her work is direct and evidence-led. Emma is less interested in legal theatre than in practical consequences: what changed, who is affected, which risks are real and where the market may be overreacting. She brings a steady voice to complex stories, especially when regulation, infrastructure and global markets start pulling in the same direction.