A working map of how the crypto industry is organized competitively: who the players are in each segment, how concentrated each segment is (measured by HHI, the standard antitrust metric), and where single firms combine functions that create self-preferencing and conflict-of-interest risk.
Antitrust analysis starts by defining each relevant product market (a distinct set of products or services offered by firms competing in that market) and then asks how concentrated each market is. Crypto is not a single market for antitrust analysis but rather is an identifiable industry that comprises multiple related market segments (e.g., exchanges, stablecoin issuers, custodians, miners and validators, wallets, and lending/DeFi) that compete on different terms and raise different risks. However, those segments are sufficiently interrelated and interdependent to be commonly considered as parts of the same industry. These segments all run on a handful of underlying blockchains, chiefly Ethereum, Bitcoin, Tron, and Solana, which are networks rather than companies, so they appear in this Study as the rails beneath each segment (for example in the DeFi data) rather than as firms within it.
For scale, the IMF's Crypto Assets Monitor (Q2 2026) estimated that the total global market capitalization of all crypto-assets was approximately $2.3 trillion in June 2026, a decline of almost 50% from its peak capitalization of $4.4 trillion in October 2025. The IMF also stated that the global crypto market's total capitalization was equal to roughly 4% of US equity markets and 8% of US debt markets. Stablecoins had a total market capitalization of around $311 billion in June 2026 (about 14% of the crypto market), with USDT and USDC representing about 84% of all outstanding stablecoins. Centralized exchanges remained the primary trading venues for stablecoins and other crypto-assets. The IMF notes that spillovers from equities into crypto have risen to levels not seen since 2023, which is why concentration here is a financial-stability question as much as a competition concern.
The standard concentration measure is the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI): the sum of each firm's squared percentage market share, from near 0 (perfectly competitive) to 10,000 (monopoly). For example, a market of four firms with 30, 30, 20, and 20 percent shares has an HHI of 2,600. Under the DOJ/FTC Merger Guidelines (§ 2.1, 2023), a market with an HHI below 1,000 is unconcentrated, one between 1,000 and 1,800 is moderately concentrated, and one above 1,800 is highly concentrated; a transaction that increases the HHI by more than 100 points in a highly concentrated market is presumed likely to enhance market power. On this page HHI is computed directly from the shares shown, so you can audit it by squaring and summing them yourself.
Horizontal concentration is not the whole story. The second question is vertical integration: whether one firm operates in several market segments at the same time, such as running an exchange while also market-making on it, issuing the token it lists, or acting as a custodian for others with regard to the assets it trades. Those vertically-integrated combinations provide the greatest potential for self-preferencing, conflicts of interest, foreclosure of competition, and financial-stability risks. That is what the integration matrix below maps.
Each card is a relevant market. Its badge is the HHI, computed live from the shares shown. Filter by concentration level, or click a card for the full player list, conflicts, and sources. Two segments, Centralized Exchanges and Stablecoin Issuers, are highly concentrated under federal Merger Guidelines.
Each segment's approximate size next to how concentrated it is. Size is measured differently by segment (spot volume, market cap, assets under custody, TVL, hashrate), so the bars are log-scaled, so they show orders of magnitude, not exact ratios.
The largest and most important crypto firms, ranked by their respective share of the market segment in which they compete. Each percentage is the firm's share of the relevant market segment (not the entire crypto market), so read rank and dominance rather than adding them up. Bar color shows how concentrated that segment is.
For each measurable market segment, the following graph shows the share of the relevant segment controlled by firms based outside the US, in the US, or run by decentralized protocols with no identifiable home. The graph confirms that highly significant segments of the crypto ecosystem, including centralized exchanges, stablecoins, and Bitcoin mining and validation, are dominated by foreign firms.
Each firm below performs functions in two or more market segments. Firms that operate in multiple market segments have a higher potential for self-preferencing and conflicts of interest. Firms listed in rows marked with red dots operate in all three major functional categories of "Trade," "Custody," and "Issue and Settle," creating a vertically-integrated conglomerate structure similar to FTX/Alameda.
Every firm in the following Venn Diagram is identified as engaged, or not engaged, in three major categories of crypto functions: Trade (e.g., running a centralized exchange or other trading venue), Custody (e.g., holding crypto-assets and keys), and Issue & Settle (e.g., issuing and redeeming stablecoins and other crypto tokens). The eight firms in the center of the Venn Diagram are the most vertically integrated firms because they operate in all three major categories of crypto functions: Binance, Bitget, Coinbase, Crypto.com, Gate, Kraken, OKX, and Tether (USDT). Thus, the center of the Venn Diagram includes large, vertically-integrated crypto conglomerates that resemble Sam Bankman-Fried's FTX/Alameda crypto empire, creating the greatest concerns about self-preferencing, conflicts of interest, and risks to financial stability.
The following discussion reviews the public record of government enforcement actions, settlements, and notable incidents occurring at the most vertically-integrated crypto firms, along with Circle (issuer of the USDC stablecoin) and Kraken (a leading US crypto exchange). Each entry links to a source.
Plain-language definitions for the terms used in the charts above. Hover the ⓘ beside a segment, or any dotted term, to see the same note inline.
The online version of this Market Structure Study is the interactive version of the same Study incorporated in the PDF Report to Congress. The online interactive version and the PDF version present the same data and the same findings.
The Study's methodology is based on standard competition analysis, including (i) defining relevant markets and market segments, (ii) measuring concentration levels for market segments based on HHI computations, and (iii) mapping the vertical integration of leading crypto firms. All numerical data and narrative descriptions presented in the Study are derived from publicly available sources, including CoinGecko, DefiLlama, mempool.space, the International Monetary Fund's Crypto Assets Monitor, and records of enforcement proceedings filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and state regulatory agencies.
In preparing the Market Study, members of the Cryptoskeptics Forum used Anthropic's Claude as a research and production assistant. Claude assisted in gathering and organizing publicly available market data, in computing market concentration levels for each market segment in accordance with the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), and in building the interactive graphs included in the online version of the Study. Members of the Forum (including two retired antitrust attorneys and a retired professor of banking and financial law) established the analytical framework for the Study, selected reliable public data sources, and made judgment calls about specific market segments that either (i) could be evaluated using HHI analysis based on reliable quantitative data, or (ii) could not be evaluated quantitatively, due to the lack of reliable data. Members of the Forum determined the methodology and analytical approach used in the Study, reviewed and approved the data used in the Study, and developed the textual analysis and specific findings presented in the Study. Claude did not have a role in defining the methodology or analytical approach for the Study or in developing the Study's textual analysis and specific findings.