Choosing a Network for USDT Transfers in 2025

USDT has become a basic settlement instrument in the crypto industry: it is used for transfers between exchanges, p2p trades, and on– and off–ramp operations via exchangers and bots. At the same time, USDT exists on several networks at once – ERC-20, TRC-20, BEP-20, Polygon, Ethereum L2, Solana, TON and others.

On an exchange the user simply sees a list of networks, but behind each of them are different fees, confirmation speed, security model and supported services. Depending on the chosen network, both the total fee and the operational logic will differ.

In 2025, several groups of networks are most commonly used for USDT transfers:

• base L1 networks: Ethereum (ERC-20), TRON (TRC-20), BNB Smart Chain (BEP-20);
• EVM-compatible L1s/sidechains (Polygon PoS and others);
• L2 solutions (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base) that inherit Ethereum’s security.

In this context, L1 (Layer 1) refers to the base blockchains themselves with their own consensus, validators and transaction history, where fees are paid in the native token of the network. L2 (Layer 2) operates on top of L1, moving the main workload to a separate layer, reducing cost and speeding up processing, while data and security ultimately rely on the underlying L1, primarily Ethereum.

For the user this means that USDT on L1 networks and USDT on L2 networks exist in different on-chain contours: these are separate representations of the same underlying asset. A direct transfer between them is not possible – you need either a bridge or conversion through an exchange or another custodial service. The choice of level affects the final profile of the transaction in terms of total cost, processing speed and available infrastructure.

Below we look at how these networks differ, which tasks they solve, and which of them are advantageous to use.

Key Criteria for Choosing a Network

When choosing a network for a USDT transfer, it makes sense to evaluate several basic parameters:

• Fee level and predictability of costs.
  Ethereum L1 remains an expensive solution for retail transfers. TRON, BNB Smart Chain, Polygon, L2 networks and Solana offer noticeably lower fees, but differ in fee models and fee stability.
• Finality speed.
  TRON, BNB Smart Chain, Polygon, Solana and most L2 networks confirm transactions within seconds. Ethereum L1 can show delays of tens of seconds to minutes.
• Infrastructure support.
  What matters is not only the blockchain itself, but also whether deposits/withdrawals are available on the required exchanges and whether the network is supported by wallets, exchangers and p2p sections.
• Security and decentralization model.
  Ethereum and major L2s provide a high degree of decentralization. TRON, BNB Smart Chain and certain alternative L1s are often more centralized but optimized for high throughput.

USDT ERC-20 (Ethereum)

USDT ERC-20 is the USDT issuance on the main Ethereum network following the ERC-20 standard. This is the most integrated variant with the DeFi ecosystem.

Advantages:

• high decentralization and mature infrastructure;
• compatibility with the maximum number of DeFi protocols and services;
• support from all major CEXs and professional custodial solutions.

Drawbacks:

• transaction fees in dollar terms, especially under high load;
• longer confirmation times compared with TRON, BSC, Polygon, Solana and L2 networks.

When using ERC-20 is justified:

• when transferring funds that will later be used in DeFi on Ethereum;
• in institutional scenarios where regulatory requirements and familiar Ethereum infrastructure are important;
• for large transfers where the fee is not critical.

USDT TRC-20 (TRON)

USDT TRC-20 is the USDT token on the TRON network implemented under the TRC-20 standard. The fee is formed through the resource model (bandwidth, energy) and TRX burning when resources are insufficient.

Advantages:

• low fees (around $2 per transaction);
• high speed – confirmations usually take seconds;
• broad support on CEXs, in exchangers and p2p sections;
• convenient for services with regular homogeneous transfers.

Drawbacks:

• higher degree of centralization compared with Ethereum;
• the need to understand TRON’s resource mechanics when working with a personal wallet;
• standard risks if the network or address is chosen incorrectly.

Optimizing TRC-20 Fees via Energy Rental (FeeSaver)

In TRON, fee expenses can be additionally optimized:

• the user can freeze TRX and obtain energy;
• or rent energy through specialized services.

FeeSaver allows you to:

• rent energy without long-term TRX freezing;
• receive resources to the required address almost instantly;
• reduce aggregate fee costs with a stable transaction flow in the TRON network.

For businesses, exchangers and infrastructure projects processing a large number of USDT TRC-20 transfers, this becomes a clear cost-management tool.

USDT BEP-20 (BNB Smart Chain)

USDT BEP-20 is the USDT issuance on the BNB Smart Chain network. Fees are paid in BNB, and addresses formally match Ethereum’s 0x format but belong to a separate network.

Advantages:

• lower fees compared with Ethereum L1;
• fast confirmations;
• tight integration with the Binance and BSC ecosystem.

Drawbacks:

• a more centralized validator model;
• TRC-20 tends to dominate in retail p2p;
• if the network is chosen incorrectly (BEP-20 sent to an address expecting ERC-20 only), recovery can be difficult or impossible.

Rational use cases:

• cheap transfers within the BSC ecosystem;
• work with DeFi/DEX on BSC;
• integration with Binance products where BSC is used by default.

Other Networks for USDT Transfers: Short Overview

To avoid limiting the article to three networks, let us briefly outline other popular options.

Polygon (USDT on Polygon)

An EVM-compatible network with low fees and fast confirmations. Choosing Polygon is reasonable when:

• the user works with DeFi and dApps in the Polygon ecosystem;
• cheap transfers are needed while keeping compatibility with Ethereum tools.

L2 over Ethereum (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base)

L2 solutions provide:

• lower fees and faster processing compared with Ethereum L1;
• linkage to Ethereum’s security;
• convenient DeFi interaction within a specific L2.

For mass p2p they are still less common than TRC-20, but for DeFi users they are often a more rational compromise than direct ERC-20.

Solana (USDT on the Solana network)

Solana offers high throughput and very low fees. This choice is appropriate if:

• the user is integrated into the Solana ecosystem (wallets, DEXs, applications);
• fast and frequent transfers are needed within this ecosystem.

TON (USDT on the TON network)

The TON network is strengthening its position thanks to integration with the Telegram and bot ecosystem.

Rational scenarios:

• payment solutions inside Telegram;
• services and bots that use TON as their base infrastructure.

At the same time, support for TON on exchanges and p2p platforms is still less universal than for TRC-20 and BEP-20, so before choosing the network you should verify the infrastructure for the specific use case.

Practical Scenarios: How to Choose a Network

Transfers between exchanges.
In most cases TRC-20 and BEP-20 are suitable for cheap and fast transfers. ERC-20 and L2 networks are used when further activity is planned in the corresponding DeFi ecosystem.

Transfers between an exchange and a wallet.
For long-term storage and DeFi on Ethereum, it makes sense to work directly with ERC-20 or the chosen L2. For an operational wallet that processes regular transfers and p2p operations, TRC-20, BEP-20 and in some cases Polygon or Solana are more rational.

p2p trades.
On most p2p platforms in 2025 TRC-20 dominates. BEP-20 is the second most common option, while Polygon, TON, L2 and Solana are developing in specific regions and platforms.

Summary Table for USDT Networks (2025)

The estimates for fees and speed are indicative; actual values depend on network load and the fee policy of the exchange.

Conclusion

In 2025, choosing a network for USDT transfers is not just a question of the fee size. It is important to take into account:

• infrastructure (support on CEXs, p2p platforms, in wallets);
• planned actions with the asset (DeFi, storage, payouts);
• specific risks and decentralization requirements.

Ethereum (ERC-20) and L2 solutions remain the foundation for complex DeFi scenarios. TRON (TRC-20) and BNB Smart Chain (BEP-20) underpin mass transfers and p2p settlements. Polygon, Solana, TON and other networks cover specialized tasks within their ecosystems.

If the task is regular transfers and payouts in TRC-20, the question of fee management is added to the choice of network. Here services such as FeeSaver, which provide TRON energy rental, make operations not only cheap but also predictable in terms of costs, which is critical for businesses and infrastructure projects.

FAQ