In the current section, we shift our focus to the distribution of transferred USDC into different sectors on each chain. Here are the notable observations:

On Avalanche, CEXs exhibit dominance in terms of transferred volume, accounting for approximately 27% of the total transferred volume and 24% to dexs. This suggests a significant amount of USDC being routed through centralized exchanges on Avalanche.

Unlike Avalanche, DEXs on the other assessed chains demonstrate the most significant received volume of USDC transfers, accounting for more than 50% of the total transferred volume. This indicates a strong preference for decentralized exchange platforms in these ecosystems.

The analysis highlights that transfers to DEXs and transferrers utilizing Layer 2 bridging solutions are popular destinations on these chains.

In this analysis, we aim to construct a comprehensive narrative comparing the usage of USDC on Avalanche and Layer 2 solutions (Optimism, Arbitrum, and Polygon). Our investigation delves into several key aspects, including the amount of USDC minted and burned on each chain, the number of holders, the velocity of USDC transfers, the average transfer amounts, and other pertinent statistics that shed light on the utilization of USDC on Avalanche compared to L2s Optimism, Arbitrum, and Polygon.

To ensure an organized and effective analysis, we have categorized our findings into four sections. Firstly, we will explore the circulating supply of USDC on each chain, calculated by tracking transfers into and out of holders' wallets. Next, we will delve into the patterns of swaps, transfers, mints, and burns involving USDC, as well as the sectors or protocols where USDC is being actively utilized on each chain.

This dashboard provides an overview of the supply and usages of USDC on different blockchains. For Avalanche and Arbitrum, the analysis includes both native Circle-issued USDC and bridged USDC (USDC.e) from Ethereum. In contrast, the analysis focuses only on Ethereum-bridged USDC (USDC.e) for Polygon and Optimism, as there are no native USDC tokens issued on these blockchains.

Let's start by discussing the number of holders, circulating supply, and the balance of the top 100 holders on each chain. Based on our findings, we observe the following trends:

Number of Holders:

• Avalanche: Despite having the lowest number of holders than Arbitrum and Polygon, Avalanche shows a substantial circulating supply of USDC.
• Polygon: Polygon boasts the highest number of holders among the chains, indicating significant adoption and user participation.
• Optimism: Optimism exhibits a comparatively lower number of holders, suggesting a relatively smaller user base for USDC on this chain.
• Arbitrum: In contrast to Optimism, Arbitrum stands out with a larger number of holders, indicating higher engagement with USDC.

Circulating Supply:

• Avalanche and Polygon: The total circulating supply of USDC on Avalanche has settled in second place after Arbitrum that followed by Polygon in third place, suggesting comparable levels of usage and demand.
• Optimism: Optimism exhibits the lowest circulating supply of USDC among the analyzed chains, implying lower overall usage or concentration in specific sectors.
• Arbitrum: In contrast, Arbitrum displays the highest circulating supply of USDC, indicating a robust presence and utilization of USDC on this chain.

Top 100 Holder Balances:

• While specific details of the top 100 holder balances would require further analysis, it is worth noting that the distribution of USDC and USDC.e among the top holders may vary across these chains. Further examination is necessary to understand any concentration or dispersion patterns.

In the second phase of our research, we analyzed the metrics of Swap vs. Transfer and Mint vs. Burn, as these are two crucial activities associated with stablecoins. Here are our key findings:

Swap vs. Transfer:

Across all assessed chains (Avalanche, Arbitrum, Optimism, and Polygon), the volume of transfers is significantly higher than the volume of swaps.

• Avalanche: The transferred volume is approximately 7 times higher than the swapped volume.
• Arbitrum: The transferred volume is approximately 7 times higher than the swapped volume.
• Optimism: The transferred volume is approximately 4 times higher than the swapped volume.
• Polygon: The transferred volume is approximately 2 times higher than the swapped volume.

Mint vs. Burn:

The total volume of minting and burning is roughly the same across all chains analyzed.

• Avalanche: In Avalanche, the total volume of minting is around 3 times higher than the volume of burning.
• Polygon: In Polygon, the total volume of minting is approximately the same as the volume of burning (1x).
• Optimism and Arbitrum: In both Optimism and Arbitrum, the average volume of minting is less than one-third of the average volume of burning.