The Stellar Development Foundation published its Q2 2026 report on August 3. These are the network's own numbers, and they are strong ones. Three of the four most-quoted also come with caveat
The Stellar Development Foundation published its Q2 2026 report on August 3. These are the network's own numbers, and they are strong ones. Three of the four most-quoted also come with caveats worth understanding before you repeat them.
SDF puts tokenized real-world assets on Stellar past $3 billion, hitting $1 billion in January, $2 billion in April and $3 billion in June. It reports stablecoin transfer volume of $11.4 billion for the quarter, up 72% on Q1, at a velocity of roughly 33x. Active accounts reached 10.7 million. The report claims 2,968 monthly active developers, citing Electric Capital, and says that puts Stellar second globally, ahead of Solana and Bitcoin.
Alongside those: DTCC selected Stellar for tokenization work, MoneyGram launched MGUSD as a regulated digital dollar it says reaches more than 60 million customers, and SDF reports 99.99%+ uptime with zero core protocol security incidents, against 207 exploits across the industry in the first half of the year per TRM Labs.
That last pairing is the least discussed and among the most useful. Reliability is boring right up until the quarter when it isn't.
Assets-under-management totals are concentration-prone, and that is true of every chain, not just Stellar. The category next door shows the shape of the problem. RWA.xyz, the data provider most of this reporting runs on, puts all tokenized non-US government debt at $1.26 billion across 24 assets, and a single product, Spiko's EU T-Bills money market fund, accounts for $910.5 million of it. One fund is about 72% of a global category. That same category fell roughly 9.5% over thirty days.
A number that one redemption decision can move by a fifth is a lagging indicator, not a scoreboard. The practical consequence is that an allocator cannot take a chain's AUM headline at face value. The questions that matter sit underneath it: which fund, which issuer, which share class, and how concentrated the whole thing is. Two chains showing $3 billion can be holding completely different risk.
This is the number in the report I trust least, and not because I think it is wrong.
SDF's 2,968 monthly active developers comes with a named source, Electric Capital, and a claimed 125% year-over-year increase during a period when other ecosystems contracted.
Set that against the other public dataset. Artemis figures reported in March put industry-wide active developers at around 4,600, with Ethereum at 2,811 weekly active developers, Solana at 942 and Base at 378, after weekly commits across crypto fell about 75% from early 2025. Those two pictures cannot both describe the same population. One counts monthly, the other weekly, from different providers with different definitions of an active developer.
I could not pull Stellar's figure from Electric Capital's public ecosystem page to check it, so I cannot tell you whether the second-place ranking holds. Treat it as SDF's claim with a named source behind it, and be careful about setting it beside numbers built on a different ruler. The direction still looks defensible: developer attention across crypto has been draining toward AI for a year, and a chain growing through that would be doing something unusual.
SDF's report describes DTCC as overseeing more than $114 trillion across US capital markets. That is accurate about DTCC. It says nothing about volume on Stellar, and coverage of this partnership has a habit of sliding the two together until readers come away thinking $114 trillion is heading onchain.
The DTCC selection stands on its own without the number attached. A clearing house choosing a public chain for tokenization work is the story. Borrowing its balance sheet scale as a headline weakens a strong fact.
Which leaves the figure almost nobody quotes. $11.4 billion moved at roughly 33x velocity.
Divide one by the other and you get an implied average stablecoin float of about $345 million. That figure is mine, not SDF's, and it holds only if velocity here means quarterly volume over average supply, which is the standard reading but not one the report spells out. If SDF is annualizing instead, the float is larger and the turnover slower.
Read the standard way, it is the most informative line in the report. A large float turning twice is a parking lot. A small float turning 33 times is a payments network doing the thing payments networks do. You can grow an AUM number by persuading one large fund to issue on your chain. Manufacturing settlement volume against a float that size takes real users moving real money, repeatedly.
That is also why MGUSD matters more than its launch coverage suggested. Sixty million remittance customers is distribution attached to a regulated dollar, and distribution is what converts a float into velocity.
Whether the float can grow without velocity collapsing. Those two normally trade off, and holding both is the real test of whether this scales past its current size.
Whether Electric Capital's public data corroborates the second-place ranking when the next report lands.
And whether any of the local-currency sovereign bond products, the tokenized Mexican and Brazilian paper, ever reach the top five of that non-US government debt category. Right now the European T-bill fund is carrying it.
Meridian is in Lisbon on October 28 and 29. That is where the next set of these numbers gets framed.
