Nigeria’s stablecoin market is often associated with individuals receiving payments from overseas clients, saving in dollar-pegged tokens or transferring funds between crypto platforms. But new on-chain data from AfriFlux suggests that businesses account for a much larger share of the activity visible across the venues it monitors.

AfriFlux, which tracks Nigerian exchanges, offramps, neobanks and payment companies, reported that business-class accounts moved $2.26 billion in stablecoins between July and September 2026. Retail deposit addresses recorded another $493 million during the same period.

The figures cover 22 Nigerian venues across 12 blockchain networks. AfriFlux says fewer than 0.5% of the accounts in its observed activity accounted for 81% of the value.

The findings do not represent Nigeria’s entire stablecoin market. They describe activity visible to AfriFlux through its tracked venues and on-chain addresses. Even with that limitation, the data points to a significant distinction: individual users and businesses may rely on the same digital-dollar infrastructure, but they use it at very different scales.

Business-Class Stablecoin Flows Outpaced Retail Activity

AfriFlux’s third-quarter figures show a wide gap between the typical deposit sizes of the two groups.

The typical retail deposit was $19, compared with $7,151 for a business-class deposit — approximately 376 times larger. Retail addresses made around nine deposits during the quarter on average, while business-class accounts made around 60.

The difference is not simply about transaction size. It also reflects how the two groups use stablecoins. Retail activity is spread across many addresses making relatively small deposits, while business-class activity involves fewer accounts moving substantially larger sums more frequently.

AfriFlux reported growth in both categories between the second and third quarters of 2026:

  • Business-class flow: increased from $1.62 billion to $2.26 billion, a rise of approximately 40%.

  • Retail deposits: increased from $402 million to $493 million, a rise of approximately 23%.

  • Retail participation: about 59,000 additional deposit addresses began depositing compared with the previous quarter.

The analysis suggests that retail growth came largely from more addresses participating, even as the typical retail deposit fell from $22 to $19. Business activity, meanwhile, expanded more quickly in dollar terms.

AfriFlux also identified $35.6 million in activity at venues serving both individual and business customers through shared accounts. It kept this activity separate rather than forcing it into either category.

A Few Large Accounts Drive Much of the Business Activity

The business-class figures are concentrated among a relatively small number of accounts and venues.

According to AfriFlux, Obiex recorded $1.77 billion in business-class flow during Q3, up from $1.46 billion in Q2. Flutterwave’s business-account flow increased from $62 million to $305 million, while Quidax’s business-class flow rose from $103 million to $190 million.

The concentration can be even more pronounced within individual platforms. AfriFlux counted 186 business-class accounts at Flutterwave during the quarter, but one account represented 76% of the observed value. Five accounts accounted for almost all of it.

Across the wider business-class dataset, the largest 1% of accounts moved about one-third of the value in Q3, compared with less than one-quarter in Q2.

This concentration helps explain why a handful of large accounts can have a disproportionate effect on quarterly stablecoin figures. A major change in one account’s payment activity could shift the overall numbers even if the behaviour of smaller businesses remains steady.

However, the data does not establish the identities or commercial purposes of every account. AfriFlux classifies business-class activity using on-chain behaviour, including deposit sizes and observable company-to-company settlements. It cautions that this classification does not mean the legal entity behind every account has been identified.

The Hidden Network of Companies Paying Each Other

One of the report’s most notable findings is the evidence of recurring stablecoin transfers between Nigerian fintechs and exchanges.

Rather than naming counterparties based on transaction patterns alone, AfriFlux says it attributes relationships when transfers from wallets associated with one company repeatedly reach wallets or deposit addresses associated with another.

Its analysis identified five relationships that met its criteria during Q3:

  • Spenda to Quidax: $40.9 million in Q3, including transfers between master wallets and payments into a Quidax deposit address funded exclusively by Spenda in the observed data.

  • Quidax to Obiex: $22.3 million, with recurring payments into Obiex business accounts.

  • Jeroid to Obiex: $4.3 million in weekly payments, with a typical payment of approximately $51,000.

  • Grey to Quidax: $2.8 million in recurring transfers, primarily on Solana.

  • Azza to Daya Pro: ₦460 million in cNGN transfers since August 24, with AfriFlux tracing part of Azza’s funding to solvers on the HyperFX exchange protocol.

These are relationships inferred from observed wallet flows, not a complete picture of the companies’ commercial agreements or internal accounting. On-chain transfers alone cannot establish why every payment was made.

The pattern nevertheless suggests that stablecoins are being used not only to serve individual customers but also as part of the infrastructure through which financial platforms move funds between one another.

AfriFlux identified Obiex and Quidax as hubs in the observed network. Obiex received business-class flows from nine of the tracked venues, while Quidax received flows from six.

The five named relationships total approximately $70 million, or around 3% of observed business-class flow. AfriFlux leaves the remaining activity unattributed where it cannot establish a relationship confidently, rather than guessing at counterparties.

Retail Activity Is Broader, but Still Concentrated

Retail stablecoin activity follows a different pattern, although it is not evenly distributed among users.

AfriFlux reported that the typical retail address deposited $49 over the quarter. Yet the largest 1% of retail addresses accounted for 73% of retail value — a higher concentration than the 33% attributed to the largest 1% of business-class accounts.

That means the retail category contains a large number of relatively small depositors alongside a much smaller group responsible for a substantial share of its value.

The number of retail deposit addresses increased by about 59,000 from Q2 to Q3, while the typical deposit fell from $22 to $19. In AfriFlux’s interpretation, retail growth was therefore driven more by the arrival of additional depositors than by larger deposits from existing participants.

These figures also require care in interpretation. A blockchain address is not necessarily a unique person: one individual may use several addresses, and a business account can serve many customers. The data measures observable address activity, not a verified count of unique Nigerians using stablecoins.

Why Businesses Are Using Stablecoins

Stablecoins are digital tokens designed to maintain a relatively stable value, commonly by tracking a currency such as the US dollar. Tokens such as USDT and USDC can be transferred across supported blockchain networks without relying on the same processes used for a conventional bank transfer.

For businesses, these characteristics can make stablecoins useful for cross-border payments, trading-related settlements and moving funds between digital financial platforms. They can also offer an alternative route when traditional payment channels are costly, slow or difficult to access.

The International Monetary Fund has previously highlighted the growing role of stablecoins in Nigeria’s cross-border financial activity, including their use by households and small firms for transfers and by businesses for some supplier payments. Its analysis also raises concerns around financial oversight, illicit flows and the implications of greater dollar-linked activity outside conventional banking channels. <Cite refs={["turn947561search1","turn947561search3"]}/>

AfriFlux’s data adds a more granular view of activity across the specific platforms it tracks. Rather than measuring the entire market, it examines deposit behaviour, transaction frequency and recurring links between identifiable wallets.

The distinction matters because headline stablecoin volumes can combine very different economic activities. A freelancer receiving a small payment, an individual saving in USDT and a fintech settling with another platform may all use the same token, but their needs and the risks they face are not identical.

What the Data Cannot Tell Us

Public blockchains make it possible to inspect transactions, amounts, timing and wallet-to-wallet transfers. But they do not reveal every part of a financial transaction.

Internal platform ledgers, customer identities, fiat settlements and some off-chain transfers are not necessarily visible. AfriFlux also notes that certain deposits may represent payments into US-dollar virtual accounts rather than users topping up their wallets.

Consequently, the observed figures should not be treated as a complete measure of Nigerian stablecoin adoption, total payment activity or the number of people using digital dollars.

The report also does not independently establish the purpose of every business-class transaction. Its classifications and named relationships depend on the methodology and wallet attribution used by AfriFlux.

AfriFlux’s findings challenge the idea that Nigeria’s stablecoin economy is mainly about individuals buying dollars or receiving freelance income. Within its tracked venues, business-class flows are substantially larger than retail deposits, and recurring transfers between financial platforms point to a growing role for stablecoins as settlement infrastructure.

The concentration is just as important as the total value. When a small number of accounts account for a large share of activity, a change in the behaviour of a major participant can influence the wider network.

For fintech operators, regulators and investors, the next question is not only how much stablecoin activity is taking place, but who depends on the infrastructure, how concentrated those dependencies are and what happens when a major counterparty changes its behaviour.