A Bitquery investigation has questioned how A7’s payment claims compare with activity in its associated ruble token, finding a steep decline in transfers while acknowledging that the new service’s own wallets remain unidentified.
The report, using data through October 19, says A7A5 transfers on Tron averaged 768 a day between September 15 and October 7, then fell to 21 a day from October 8 to 19. That is a decline of about 97%.
A7’s October 13 launch release described a service in which customers send USDT and recipients receive bank transfers. It also claimed approximately 15,000 clients and around 2,000 daily transactions across the A7 system. Those are company statements, rather than independently verified operating totals.
The visible token is only part of the payment picture
Bitquery counted A7A5 transfers and activity at addresses labelled as belonging to Grinex. Crucially, it says it has not identified A7 International’s own wallets and cannot measure USDT received by the new service.
That limitation prevents a direct comparison between a token-transfer count and every payment the company says it handles. One customer invoice might involve several blockchain transfers, while a bank settlement could occur without using the particular token or addresses being monitored.
A decline in the observed token’s use is therefore evidence about that token. It raises a question about the relationship between public activity and the advertised business, but does not establish how many bank payments the wider company completed.
Transaction counts and payment volume answer different questions
The distinction also matters when a small number of addresses repeatedly move large balances. A transfer total measures units changing addresses. It does not automatically identify a new customer, a new commercial invoice or a payment between unrelated parties.
Conversely, an analyst’s labelled address set may miss wallets that have not yet been connected to an operator. More complete labels can change the measured activity without any change in what actually happened on the blockchain.
For a service combining crypto receipts and conventional bank transfers, a useful reconciliation would connect customer instructions, receiving wallets and completed settlements. Without that connection, neither a promotional volume claim nor a narrow on-chain sample supplies a complete account of the business.
Disclosure would make the comparison more meaningful
The practical issue is what the published figures describe: a historical network, the newly launched service, a token ledger or completed customer payments. A clear measurement period and a definition of a transaction are necessary before those numbers can be compared fairly.
Stablecoin denomination does not resolve that problem. A dollar-linked token can make amounts easier to express while leaving the identities, purpose and final settlement of a transfer uncertain. Our guide to stablecoin pegs and their limits explains why the token’s value and the service using it are separate questions.
The investigation identifies a measurable contraction in the public activity it tracks. Establishing what that means for A7 International requires evidence linking those observations to the new service’s actual payment routes.