Stablecoins and Tokenization (stablecoin issuers, tokenized assets)

Where this market publishes its structure

• ESMA interim MiCA register EMTWP.csv (e-money token issuers) machine-readable, 50 white-paper rows; 4 issuers linked (circle, paxos, bridge, fiat-republic)
• ESMA interim MiCA register ARTZZ.csv (asset-referenced token issuers) machine-readable, header only on 2026-10-21: no ART issuer authorised
• ESMA interim MiCA register OTHER.csv (other crypto-asset white papers) machine-readable, 1,049 rows, no website column (wp_url host); 1 in-market link (re); ~90 white papers hosted on kraken.com held
• ESMA interim MiCA register CASPS.csv machine-readable, crypto market's source (sweep-crypto.py); edges already on repos, not re-written
• HKMA Register of Licensed Stablecoin Issuers (Cap. 656) machine-readable, 2 licensees (Anchorpoint Financial, HSBC HK); 0 linked
• DefiLlama stablecoins (stablecoins.llama.fi/stablecoins + /stablecoin/{id}) machine-readable, 424 stablecoins, all with url; 33 in-market issuers linked
• NYDFS virtual currency businesses / trust charters (dfs.ny.gov) not machine-readable: Cloudflare bot challenge; crypto reads a Wayback capture via a hand-verified legal-name table
• rwa.xyz not machine-readable: client-rendered dashboard; API keyed; recorded, not read

Own = declares at least one integration itself; covered = visible only because an aggregator, standards body, regulator or partner contract names it; distribution-only = listed only on cloud marketplaces it sells through, a channel reported beside, never counted as its own declared integrations; undeclared = nothing we can read, so no number; declares_compatibility = providers with a `compatible` shape vote, report only (kin, 2026-10-13): never counted as own, never in depth or position.

Taxonomy how this market maps onto apis.io

Derived 2026-10-21 from the 196 providers in this market we could resolve in the catalog. The percentage is the share of those providers carrying each one; it describes the market, not the tag or industry. Tag groups have no page of their own yet, so they are listed unlinked.

share of resolved cohort carrying it; tags >=0.20 & >=3 members (max 12, junk dropped), tag_groups >=0.20 (cooccurrence, non-cross-cutting; max 8), industries >=0.20 (max 6), areas >=0.10 (max 6; areas are keyword-matched and sparse), capabilities L1 >=0.20 (max 8); derive-market-taxonomy.py

Leaders by position (provisional)

Provisional: grouped by position, depth compared within a position only. Distribution (cloud marketplaces) and iPaaS bridges are counted beside position, never inside it. Unknown-builder listings are left out of position shares and counted here.

builds-on 3 · publishes apps on other platforms' stores

coverage 1 · reaches banks, carriers, systems or channels (an aggregator)

covered 33 · reached mainly through aggregators

regulated 20 · named in a regulator's register or partners' contracts

standard 20 · listed by a voluntary standard's own directory

mixed 1 · no single mode dominates

distribution 20 · only sells through cloud marketplaces

undeclared 98 · declares nothing we can read: no number

Top workflows by market votes

Workflows (Arazzo) and their phrasing are generated by API Evangelist, ranked by market votes (integration edges in the graph, weighted by channel).

In-market workflows only: a step on the market provider's side maps to this market's business capabilities (), and the partner is not a generic export/notify app. Other workflows are counted as bridges (including any whose steps do not resolve to a capability yet). Methodology. In-market: 2; bridges: 0.