Why are there so many chains for stablecoins? Differences, Costs, and Boundaries of USDT and USDC on Different Chains

Explains the reasons for multi-chain versions of stablecoins, compares costs, speeds, and risks across different chains, and provides a selection guide.

{{{##anchor=preface}}} Preface Any beginner using stablecoins quickly encounters a confusing question: If it's all USDT, why are there different versions like TRC20, ERC20, BEP20, Arbitrum, Solana, and OP? What are the differences? Why does a single transfer fee range from 'pennies' to 'tens of dollars'? On the surface, it seems chaotic, but underlying logic reveals it as the natural evolution of an open system: different public chains have different focuses and technical structures. Stablecoin issuers launch on multiple chains to meet diverse needs. This article clarifies the existence, cost structures, and boundaries of the USDT/USDC multi-chain system so you know exactly which one to choose. {{{##anchor=part-1.2}}} 1. Why Do Stablecoins Need to Exist on Multiple Chains? Stablecoins must attach to a public chain. Therefore, the experience depends on: Usage cost. Network congestion. Wallet compatibility. Ecosystem activity. Cross-chain convenience. Think of it as a bank opening branches in different countries: Tron is cheap and accessible, Ethereum is for institutional use, Arbitrum/OP offer scalability, and Solana/BSC focus on high speed and low cost. {{{##anchor=part-1.3}}} 2. W