A working paper from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has found that estimates of value transferred on the Bitcoin network can differ by as much as a factor of six, depending on the methodology used to account for change outputs. The paper, "Hidden by complexity? Measuring stablecoins, crypto and decentralised finance ecosystems", also documents why token tickers are unreliable indicators of who issued a token and how USDT serves materially different functions on Ethereum and Tron. For readers comparing onchain statistics, the findings show that the definition behind a metric can be as important as the number itself.

The researchers analyzed data collected through Mercurius, covering activity across the three networks under review. The dataset's total includes transactions and reference data such as addresses, with some information stored at multiple stages of the processing pipeline. It therefore does not represent 100 billion distinct transactions or blockchain events.

Bitcoin change can inflate measured transfer value

Bitcoin does not operate like a bank account from which a user simply subtracts an amount. Instead, a wallet spends discrete pieces of bitcoin known as unspent transaction outputs, or UTXOs.

Consider a wallet that controls one UTXO worth 1 BTC and sends 0.2 BTC to another person. The transaction spends the full input, sends 0.2 BTC to the recipient and returns slightly less than 0.8 BTC to a new address controlled by the sender. The difference is paid as a network fee.

The blockchain does not mark which output is change. Analysts must infer it from transaction structure and address patterns, and different methods can classify the same activity differently. According to the BIS paper, Bitcoin transfer-value estimates varied by as much as a factor of six depending on the methodology.

An unadjusted calculation can still measure value moving through Bitcoin outputs. It should not, however, be presented as the amount paid between different users unless the methodology accounts for likely change.

The USDT ticker does not prove Tether issued a token

The researchers identified 6,867 Ethereum token contracts using the symbol "USDT." Because a developer can choose a familiar name or ticker when deploying a token, the label displayed in a wallet does not establish who issued it.

The finding does not mean every contract reusing the symbol is fraudulent or worthless. It does show why assets cannot be classified reliably by ticker alone. Users should compare a token's contract address and network against information published by the issuer or another trusted registry before treating it as genuine USDT.

The same distinction matters in accounting. As a related Coindoo analysis of the proposed accounting treatment of stablecoins explains, the issuer, reserve structure and holder's redemption rights provide information that a ticker and wallet balance cannot.

USDT activity does not mean the same thing on every network

The paper also found that USDT serves different functions on Ethereum and Tron. Smart contracts at times more than 20% of the USDT on Ethereum, compared with around 1% on Tron. The gap points to heavier use of Ethereum-based USDT in decentralized finance, including liquidity pools and collateral arrangements.

On Tron, more USDT was held in regular addresses and exchange-related wallets, indicating a stronger role in transfers, trading and balance storage. Adding activity from both networks into a single figure can therefore combine economically different uses of the same stablecoin.

Why analytics platforms can publish different numbers

Blockchain data providers may begin with the same public ledger but make different decisions when turning its records into a metric. Bitcoin analysis requires rules for identifying change. Token analysis requires verified contract lists, while cross-chain comparisons must account for how the same asset is used on each network.

Total value locked, or TVL, creates another measurement problem. Providers may include different contracts, use different token prices or count assets again when they move through several layers of a protocol. Two TVL figures can therefore differ without either being a simple arithmetic error.

What to check before citing an onchain metric

Public blockchains expose the records behind onchain metrics, but they do not define what those records represent. Bitcoin change, reused token symbols, cross-chain differences and TVL calculations all require analytical choices. A figure may be accurate under one definition while answering a different question from the one a reader has in mind. The method is not a technical footnote; it determines the meaning of the metric.

When citing an onchain figure, readers should therefore check what is being counted, how entities or assets are classified, which networks are included and whether the methodology has changed. Those details determine whether two apparently similar figures can be meaningfully compared.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment or legal advice.