Provider at a glance
- Category
- Stablecoins
- Entity
- All 4 Sky products
- Official website
- sky.money
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 58 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
DAI
Protocol-issued dollar stablecoin
Stablecoins
#5 Overall
Ranked #5 of 11 stablecoins in the published ranking
58
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $0.00 your cost/yr
Is DAI right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Who owes you the dollar2/10 here; the category best is 7
- Redemption at par4/10 here; the category best is 8
- Reserves and assurance2/10 here; frxUSD (Frax USD) scores 3
- Freeze and burn powers5/10 here; GHO (Aave) scores 6
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best stablecoin shows where it lands for you.
What will DAI cost you?
$0.00 your cost/yr
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
- Conversion spread
- 0%
How safe is DAI?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to DAI
Compare all 4- 6USDT (Tether)1 point below · weaker on redemption at par (3 against 4)57
- 7frxUSD (Frax USD)2 points below · stronger on reserves and assurance (3 against 2)56
- 8GHO (Aave)2 points below · stronger on freeze and burn powers (6 against 5)56
For your setup
Find out if DAI fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where DAI lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best stablecoinNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why DAI ranks #5
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (9.9 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
302+1.922.07#4/11Loading evidence…
284+3.583.08#4/11Loading evidence…
242+1.543.08#7/11Loading evidence…
185+2.885.07#4/11Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−4behind FDUSD (First Digital USD), #4
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 57–61 and ranks #5–#6
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of DAI’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
Who exactly owes you the dollar, and where do you rank when they fail? 2 → 4 on its ladder · passes FDUSD (First Digital USD)+262#5 → #4
Can the person actually holding it get a dollar back at par — and has anyone, at size? 4 → 6 on its ladder · passes FDUSD (First Digital USD)+262#5 → #4
What is really behind it, and what did the third party actually opine on? 2 → 5 on its ladder · passes FDUSD (First Digital USD)+363#5 → #4
Who can freeze, burn or replace your balance — and have they? 5 → 8 on its ladder · passes FDUSD (First Digital USD)+362#5 → #4
Who exactly owes you the dollar, and where do you rank when they fail? 2 → 1 on its ladder · USDT (Tether) passes it−157#5 → #6
Can the person actually holding it get a dollar back at par — and has anyone, at size? 4 → 2 on its ladder · USDT (Tether) passes it−255#5 → #10
What is really behind it, and what did the third party actually opine on? 2 → 0 on its ladder · USDT (Tether) passes it−256#5 → #8
Smallest climb: “Who exactly owes you the dollar, and where do you rank when they fail?” 2 → 4 passes FDUSD (First Digital USD), #4.
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Who exactly owes you the dollar, and where do you rank when they fail? — 2/10 against a category best of 7/10
- Can the person actually holding it get a dollar back at par — and has anyone, at size? — 4/10 against a category best of 8/10
- What is really behind it, and what did the third party actually opine on? — 2/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Who can freeze, burn or replace your balance — and have they? — 5/10 against a category best of 7/10
Record watch-outs
- The thing that makes DAI feel dollar-redeemable — an instant, zero-fee, no-KYC, no-minimum 1:1 swap into USDC that works at billion-dollar size today — is a mutable governance parameter, not a promise, and it can be revoked faster than governance can normally act. This is now quoted from the source rather than inferred: DssLitePsmMom (0x467b32b0407Ad764f56304420Cddaa563bDab425, verified source, Sourcify exact_match) carries a section banner reading "Governance actions without delay" directly above "function halt(address psm, Flow what) external auth {". A second model run confirmed the mom is armed: PSM.wards(0x467b...b425) = 1 at block 25,789,445. The PSM's own source states "Setting `tin` or `tout` to `HALTED` effectively disables selling and buying gems respectively.", HALTED is "uint256 public constant HALTED = type(uint256).max;", and buyGem opens with "require(tout_ != HALTED, "DssLitePsm/buy-gem-halted");" — so the exit closes the same block it is decided, bypassing the 48-hour governance delay (MCD_PAUSE.delay() = 172800 seconds, re-read on-chain), while Sky's own documentation says only "Fees could change in the future." The chainlog also publishes a purpose-built emergency spell factory for this action, EMSP_LITE_PSM_HALT_FAB (0xB261b73698F6dBC03cB1E998A3176bdD81C3514A). Compounding it: the exit does not deliver dollars, it delivers USDC — "gem.transferFrom(pocket, usr, gemAmt);" — another issuer's token whose own retail redemption is gated, and the 4.13B USDC funding it sits at a single address Circle can blacklist (USDC.isBlacklisted(pocket) resolves and returned false at block 25,789,445 — the power is live, merely unused). And the holder has no unilateral fallback: the Emergency Shutdown Module that historically converted DAI into a direct pro-rata claim on collateral is disarmed — developers.skyeco.com/archive/shutdown/emergency-shutdown/ carries "The Emergency Shutdown Module ESM is currently deprecated" and MCD_ESM.min() returns 2^256-1 against a fire() guarded by "require(Sum >= min, "ESM/min-not-reached");", with ESM.Sum() standing at 0.0013058682050532. Sum can never reach min, so it can never be fired. Only Sky governance can now cage the system.
Competitive position
Where DAI leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 1114.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#5 / 117.4 of 30 · best 15.3
Friction#1 / 112.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 113.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 118.3 of 18 · constant here
Where DAI leads
- Who exactly owes you the dollar, and where do you rank when they fail?#4 / 11
- Can the person actually holding it get a dollar back at par — and has anyone, at size?#4 / 11
- Who can freeze, burn or replace your balance — and have they?#4 / 11
Where it trailsNo criterion in the bottom third of its pool.
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
USDT (Tether)#6 of 11 · score 57 · 1.0 point behind
DAI leads on
- Can the person actually holding it get a dollar back at par — and has anyone, at size?4 vs 3
USDT (Tether) leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason DAI is ahead: published criteria (+1.6 display points).Scenario cost: USDT (Tether) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
frxUSD (Frax USD)#7 of 11 · score 56 · 2.0 points behind
DAI leads on
- Can the person actually holding it get a dollar back at par — and has anyone, at size?4 vs 3
- Who can freeze, burn or replace your balance — and have they?5 vs 3
frxUSD (Frax USD) leads on
- What is really behind it, and what did the third party actually opine on?3 vs 2
Largest single reason DAI is ahead: published criteria (+2.3 display points).Scenario cost: frxUSD (Frax USD) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
GHO (Aave)#8 of 11 · score 56 · 2.0 points behind
DAI leads on
- Who exactly owes you the dollar, and where do you rank when they fail?2 vs 1
- Can the person actually holding it get a dollar back at par — and has anyone, at size?4 vs 3
GHO (Aave) leads on
- Who can freeze, burn or replace your balance — and have they?6 vs 5
Largest single reason DAI is ahead: published criteria (+2.3 display points).Scenario cost: GHO (Aave) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
79 vs 58 · gap 21.0Why PayPal USD (PYUSD) ranks above DAI
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 21.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisPayPal USD (PYUSD)Gap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight7.415.3−20.5, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisPayPal USD (PYUSD)Points
Who exactly owes you the dollar, and where do you rank when they fail? · w3027−4.80, worse
Can the person actually holding it get a dollar back at par — and has anyone, at size? · w2848−3.58, worse
What is really behind it, and what did the third party actually opine on? · w2424−1.54, worse
Who can freeze, burn or replace your balance — and have they? · w1856−0.58, worse
Net5879−21.0
Your scenario
What DAI costs on your scenario
Conversion spread on your volume for a year. Excludes network gas and any withdrawal fee. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
$1k a month × 12 months × 0% conversion spread = $0.00 / year
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
Conversion spread · published rate0%
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 29 September 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
$0.00
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median and cheapestNot statedOnly 2 of 11 rows publish a comparable price; a median and a cheapest row need at least 3.
8 of 11 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
1 of 11 quote a zero fee that leaves costs out, so they are absent from the median and the cheapest row, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 29 September 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #5 to #6 across one-point re-runs
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 29 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Who exactly owes you the dollar, and where do you rank when they fail?strength 2 · weight 30Report an error—29 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Can the person actually holding it get a dollar back at par — and has anyone, at size?strength 4 · weight 28Report an error—29 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.What is really behind it, and what did the third party actually opine on?strength 2 · weight 24Report an error—29 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Who can freeze, burn or replace your balance — and have they?strength 5 · weight 18Report an error—29 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Control failure (DAI 5/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Who can freeze, burn or replace your balance — and have they? · 18%
- Insolvency failure: the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by Who exactly owes you the dollar, and where do you rank when they fail? · 30% (DAI 2/10)Scored by What is really behind it, and what did the third party actually opine on? · 24% (DAI 2/10)
- Exit failure (DAI 4/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Can the person actually holding it get a dollar back at par — and has anyone, at size? · 28%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Custody failure, Regulatory failure, Information failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- MINT/REDEEM FEE — official Sky Protocol documentation, https://
developers .skyeco .com /protocol /liquidity /litepsm / (fetched 29 September 2026), under “LitePSM-DAI-USDC @ Ethereum” > Details: “Fees have not been activated for DAI → USDC and USDC → DAI.” and “Fees could change in the future.” CORROBORATED ON-CHAIN 2026-09-29: MCD_LITE_PSM_USDC_A (0xf6e72Db5454dd049d0788e411b06CfAF16853042) returned tin() = 0 and tout() = 0 at Ethereum block 26,080,880 — no fee in either direction. MINIMUM: none is imposed by the contract (verified source: the fee is applied only inside “if (tout_ > 0) {” and no require() bounds the amount). CAPACITY: the pocket 0x37305B1cD40574E4C5Ce33f8e8306Be057fD7341 held 4,128,078,640.19 USDC against a DAI totalSupply of 4,601,170,733.74 at that block, with the pocket’s USDC allowance to the PSM effectively unlimited. THE PAGE THAT IS SILENT: the only binding agreement, the Skybase International Terms of Use (docs.sky.money/legal/skybase-international/terms-of-use, “Version: 2.0 | Last Modified: 1 September 2026”, fetched 29 September 2026), contains 0 occurrences of “DAI”, “redeem” and “redemption”; it prices nothing because it promises nothing. Gas is the only unavoidable cost and is paid to Ethereum, not to any issuer. TYPED RATE (label, not a quote): spreadPct = 0 — the LitePSM DAI → USDC swap at par with tin = tout = 0.DAI — official pricing page ↗ · 29 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDDAI — official pricing page ↗ · 29 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- NOBODY OWES THE HOLDER A DOLLAR, AND THE ONLY BINDING DOCUMENT SAYS SO. Re-fetched by a second model run on 19 August 2026 in both rendered HTML and the canonical markdown (docs.sky.money/legal/skybase-international/terms-of-use.md, 79,865 chars); every quote below matched character-exact in both. "Last updated: 15 May 2025" confirmed. THE ENTITY CANNOT BE LOOKED UP.
- Supported chains
- Ethereum
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
Legal entity on file: Sky, placed in 4 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with DAI: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
10 methodology entries
- 29 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 58, #5 of 11. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
- 1 October 2026
2026.10.0Layer-2 chains are ranked on whether you can leave with your funds- added Four l2_chains criteria with published band ladders: proof system (18), withdrawals if the operator stops (18), rollup stage (14) and exit window before an upgrade (6). EVM equivalence moves 40 to 17, Ethereum data availability 25 to 15 and maturity 35 to 12. Every chain's emergency exit window reads None, so the exit-window ladder also reads L2BEAT's regular, non-emergency upgrade path (Arbitrum One 10 days, Starknet and Arbitrum Nova 7, zkSync Era 4 days 3 hours); data availability separates full transaction data (10) from state diffs only (9, L2BEAT: Onchain (SD)). A stage L2BEAT marks Under review keeps its last score for at most one 45-day cycle and is never interpolated.
- changed l2_chains ranks through scoreCriterionObjective on fitStrength, like the other criterion-ranked categories; the hand-written structural scorer is deleted. All 105 criterion scores across 15 rows carry a quote and source in research-pending/rereads/2026-10-01-l2_chains.json; 131 of 135 quotes re-fetched verbatim on the read date, and the four behind a bot wall or a JavaScript shell were read by the adversarial model run.
- fixed Four facts corrected on the read: Scroll, Mantle and Blast are EVM-compatible, not equivalent (their own documentation, and for Blast live RPC probes); Starknet's public mainnet opened to users in 2022, not 2021. Arbitrum Nova's data has gone to Ethereum as blobs since 31 August 2026, and the row now leads with the Arbitrum DAO's decision to minimise it.
- fixed The old scorer credited Ethereum data availability whenever the data-availability text contained the word "ethereum", so Arbitrum Nova's committee ("…Ethereum L1 rollup fallback") and Polygon zkEVM's off-chain data ("…Ethereum L1 before the sunset") both scored full marks. Data availability is now a quoted L2BEAT reading.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt stablecoins:dai:2026.10.18:1e2308e3f28a
Are you DAI? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.
Show this rank on your site
Editorial review of DAI , on file since April 2026 — the review is separate from the score.