Venezuela and Iran cases highlight the "dual nature" of stablecoins, with USDT serving as both a livelihood tool and a means to circumvent sanctions.

On January 12, recent turmoil in Venezuela and Iran once again brought the dual roles of stablecoins into the spotlight. USD-pegged stablecoins, especially Tether (USDT), serve as an important store of value and payment tool for ordinary people in countries with high inflation and restricted financial systems; at the same time, they are also used by some sanctioned entities for cross-border fund transfers and sanctions evasion. In Iran, the long-term devaluation of the rial combined with sanctions and social unrest has made crypto assets an essential means for the public to hedge against inflation and systemic risks. The 2025 hacking attack on Iran’s largest exchange and multiple blacklisting of Tether addresses temporarily hindered stablecoin adoption. Meanwhile, the Iranian government set an annual cap on stablecoin holdings last September, limiting individuals to a maximum of $10,000 and monthly purchases to $5,000. However, the other side of stablecoins has also attracted regulatory attention. Blockchain analytics firm TRM Labs reported that since 2023, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has been accused of transferring over $1 billion in stablecoin assets through two “front companies” in the UK to build cross-border, cross-jurisdictional fund channels. In Venezuela, the penetration of USDT is similarly significant. Due to the continuous devaluation of the bolivar and public distrust in the banking system, stablecoins are widely used for daily payments, from everyday services to small transactions. The report also pointed out that Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA has been extensively using USDT for oil settlements since 2020, with an estimated 80% of its oil revenue processed via Tether to evade sanctions-related settlement restrictions. Analysts note that the cases of Iran and Venezuela once again demonstrate that stablecoins are playing a dual role in the global financial system—serving as “basic infrastructure for livelihoods” and as a “source of compliance challenges.” This contradictory nature is likely to remain a focal point of regulatory and market battles into 2026.