Alright, let's dissect this MetaMask "surge" everyone's talking about. A 75% jump in trading volume [Metamask Trading Volume Surges 75%: What’s Fueling Crypto’s Renewed Momentum in 2025?](https://azat.tv/en/metamask-trading-volume-surges-75-crypto-momentum-2025/) as of November 16, 2025? Sounds impressive, I'll give them that. But let's pull back the curtain and see what's really driving those numbers. It's my job to look beyond the press releases and get into the data.
Stablecoins: The Illusion of Safety?
The article mentions a "heightened interest in decentralized finance and stablecoins like MUSD-USD" [Metamask Trading Volume Surges 75%: What’s Fueling Crypto’s Renewed Momentum in 2025?](https://azat.tv/en/metamask-trading-volume-surges-75-crypto-momentum-2025/). Okay, stablecoins are indeed gaining traction. But is it because people are suddenly bullish on crypto, or because they're running scared from volatility? I'd bet on the latter. An increase in stablecoin usage isn't necessarily a sign of a healthy, growing market; it can just as easily be a symptom of fear (and a flight to perceived safety). Are people actually using DeFi more, or are they just parking their money in something that doesn't swing wildly every five minutes?
And this MUSD-USD... a quick search shows another article claiming "MetaMask Just Went Multichain" [MetaMask Just Went Multichain, But Best Wallet Was Built for It from Day One! ICO Is About To Close With $17M Raised](https://99bitcoins.com/news/pr-news/metamask-just-went-multichain-but-best-wallet-was-built-for-it-from-day-one-ico-is-about-to-close-with-17m-raised/). So, are we seeing organic growth, or is MetaMask just becoming a convenient place to hold your dollars while you wait out the storm? It's a crucial distinction.
Multichain: Catching Up or Leading the Pack?
Speaking of multichain, let’s address this "finally taken a major step toward true interoperability" narrative [MetaMask Just Went Multichain, But Best Wallet Was Built for It from Day One! ICO Is About To Close With $17M Raised](https://99bitcoins.com/news/pr-news/metamask-just-went-multichain-but-best-wallet-was-built-for-it-from-day-one-ico-is-about-to-close-with-17m-raised/). MetaMask is now letting users manage both EVM and non-EVM addresses. Sure, it's progress. But they're playing catch-up. The article even admits that Best Wallet (never heard of them before today) has been "engineered for it since launch." And armed with $17 million in presale funding, Best Wallet is now preparing to launch its native token, BEST, which is way ahead of MetaMask’s own.
MetaMask's move to multichain is being painted as some revolutionary leap, but it's more like a long-overdue upgrade. It's like celebrating a flip phone finally getting a color screen in 2025. The market has already moved on.
What does this mean for MetaMask's long-term viability? Will users stick around once they realize there are wallets out there that were built for this from the start?
The Token Mirage
And then there's the promise of a MetaMask token. Consensys CEO Joseph Lubin hinted at it "sooner than expected" [MetaMask Just Went Multichain, But Best Wallet Was Built for It from Day One! ICO Is About To Close With $17M Raised](https://99bitcoins.com/news/pr-news/metamask-just-went-multichain-but-best-wallet-was-built-for-it-from-day-one-ico-is-about-to-close-with-17m-raised/). Okay, but when is "sooner"? Back in September 2025. It's all vague promises and no concrete timeline. Best Wallet, meanwhile, already has a token – BEST – and it’s supposedly powering their ecosystem. BEST unlocks lower transaction costs, which will become even more relevant when the platform launches its upcoming derivatives trading feature, complementing its in-app decentralized exchange (DEX).
I've seen this play out a hundred times. Companies dangle the carrot of a future token to keep users engaged, hoping they won't notice the lack of actual innovation. Is MetaMask genuinely committed to decentralization, or is the token just a marketing ploy to maintain market share? (And I'm being generous calling it a "ploy.")
And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling. If MetaMask's user base is so large, why hasn't a token been launched already? Is there an internal disagreement about its utility? Are regulatory hurdles proving more difficult than anticipated? The silence is deafening.
A Paper Tiger?
So, what's the real story? Is MetaMask experiencing genuine, sustainable growth, or are these "surges" just temporary blips fueled by market uncertainty and clever marketing? The data, as I see it, paints a more nuanced picture. Yes, transaction volume is up. But the reasons behind that increase are far from celebratory. Until MetaMask can translate these fleeting surges into tangible innovation and a clear long-term strategy (and maybe, just maybe, actually launch that token), I'm not buying the hype.