India’s domestic crypto exchanges received only 0.7% of exchange value during the reporting period, according to Chainalysis’s regional analysis. The figure contrasts sharply with Brazil, where local platforms account for 12.5% of inflows. The report, published in Chainalysis’s Latin America chapter on September 23 and India chapter on September 30, highlights how adoption metrics can obscure two distinct dynamics: overall user activity tied to a country and the share captured by domestic platforms.

India-based users contributed $88.4 billion in centralized exchange inflows over the annual window from July 2025 through June 2026, making India the largest market in Central and Southeast Asia and Oceania. Yet only a fraction of that value flows through exchanges physically located within India. The data shows domestic platforms’ share declined from approximately 7% to 0.7% in mid-2022, while Brazil’s domestic share rose from 1.5% to 12.5% over a similar timeframe. These percentages reflect received exchange value, not total trading volume, revenue, or user counts.

The distinction between funds entering an exchange and activity occurring within it matters. One deposit can support multiple trades, so inflows and internal operations measure different aspects of platform function. Chainalysis’s methodology attributes user activity to countries based on website traffic, adjusting for income disparities using the square root of GDP per capita. This approach allows exchange activity based abroad to count toward India’s reported market size, even as domestic platforms capture a minimal share.

Brazil’s broader crypto economy recorded $252.5 billion in activity for the year ending June 30, despite a 1.6% contraction. This total encompasses more than exchange inflows and uses a different scope. The report notes that matching annual domestic-exchange estimates across countries would require aligned dates, samples, and denominators — conditions not confirmed in the published data.

Regulatory factors may influence platform behavior. India’s Section 393 imposes a 1% withholding tax on virtual digital asset transfers paid to residents, with exemptions for small transactions under ₹50,000 for eligible individuals or Hindu undivided families. The withholding occurs at the time of payment, limiting immediate cash availability for reinvestment. Similar tax friction could affect user preferences, particularly when foreign platforms may not apply the same deductions.

Chainalysis suggests regulatory clarity, improved local offerings, and institutional use of stablecoins for liquidity and cross-border transfers may explain Brazil’s growing domestic share. Interviews cited in the report describe corporate stablecoin activity but do not establish direct causality. The findings remain descriptive, with the authors noting that synchronized market-share comparisons would require more rigorous alignment of methodology and timing.

The data underscores how geographic attribution and tax policy interact with platform choice, but does not confirm a definitive shift in user behavior or market structure. Uncertainty persists around the full impact of withholding rules, VPN and bot traffic adjustments, and the representativeness of the exchange samples used in the analysis.