Provider at a glance
- Category
- Stablecoins
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- firstdigitallabs.webflow.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 62 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
FDUSD (First Digital USD)
Dollar stablecoin from First Digital
Stablecoins
#4 Overall
Ranked #4 of 11 stablecoins in the published ranking
62
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is FDUSD (First Digital USD) right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Who owes you the dollar2/10 here; the category best is 7
- Redemption at par3/10 here; DAI scores 4
- Reserves and assurance6/10 here; the category best is 8
- Freeze and burn powers4/10 here; DAI scores 5
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global. Restricted: United States.
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 FDUSD (First Digital USD) cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is FDUSD (First Digital USD)?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to FDUSD (First Digital USD)
Compare all 4- 5DAI4 points below · stronger on redemption at par (4 against 3)58$0.00
- 6USDT (Tether)5 points below · stronger on freeze and burn powers (5 against 4)57
- 7frxUSD (Frax USD)6 points below · weaker on reserves and assurance (3 against 6)56
For your setup
Find out if FDUSD (First Digital USD) fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where FDUSD (First Digital USD) 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 FDUSD (First Digital USD) ranks #4
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (11.5 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…
283+2.693.08#6/11Loading evidence…
246+4.613.08#3/11Loading evidence…
184+2.305.07#8/11Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−13behind Ripple USD (RLUSD), #3
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 60–64 and stays #4
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 FDUSD (First Digital USD)’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 → 10 on its ladder · passes Ripple USD (RLUSD)+877#4 → #3
Who exactly owes you the dollar, and where do you rank when they fail? 2 → 0 on its ladder · DAI passes it−258#4 → #5
Can the person actually holding it get a dollar back at par — and has anyone, at size? 3 → 1 on its ladder · DAI passes it−258#4 → #5
What is really behind it, and what did the third party actually opine on? 6 → 3 on its ladder · DAI passes it−357#4 → #5
Smallest climb: “Who exactly owes you the dollar, and where do you rank when they fail?” 2 → 10 passes Ripple USD (RLUSD), #3.
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? — 3/10 against a category best of 8/10
- What is really behind it, and what did the third party actually opine on? — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Who can freeze, burn or replace your balance — and have they? — 4/10 against a category best of 7/10
Record watch-outs
- The marketing says the reserve sits in a “bankruptcy-remote trust structure” and the contract says you own none of it. https://firstdigitallabs.webflow.io/fdusd (read 2026-08-19) states: “FDUSD is fully backed on a one-to-one basis by cash and cash equivalents only, held in a secure, bankruptcy-remote trust structure.” The transparency page adds that reserve assets are “fully segregated from the Trust company’s assets to isolate the Trust company’s bankruptcy” — the CUSTODIAN's bankruptcy, not the issuer's. The FDD Terms (https://firstdigitallabs.webflow.io/legal/fdd-terms, read 2026-08-19) then say of the issuer: “FDD Reserves are owned beneficially by FD121.” and, in the next sentence, “you acknowledge that you are not entitled, whether by way of contract, trust or otherwise, to such assets or any interest or other returns whatsoever earned by FD121 or its custodian on FDD Reserves.” The footer of that same Terms page settles it: “FD121 (BVI) Limited, which is not a trust company, is a financial technology company, not a bank.” A buyer who reads only the product page will believe a trust stands between them and FD121 (BVI) Limited's insolvency. No document says it does, the Terms say the opposite, the issuer's own footer says it is not a trust company, and FD121 (BVI) Limited holds no stablecoin authorisation on any register — the HKMA Register of Licensees under the Stablecoins Ordinance, re-loaded 2026-08-19, names only Anchorpoint Financial Limited (FRS01) and The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (FRS02).
Competitive position
Where FDUSD (First Digital USD) 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#4 / 118.6 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 FDUSD (First Digital USD) leads
- Who exactly owes you the dollar, and where do you rank when they fail?#4 / 11
- What is really behind it, and what did the third party actually opine on?#3 / 11
Where it trails
- Who can freeze, burn or replace your balance — and have they?#8 / 11
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.
DAI#5 of 11 · score 58 · 4.0 points behind
FDUSD (First Digital USD) leads on
- What is really behind it, and what did the third party actually opine on?6 vs 2
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 4
Largest single reason FDUSD (First Digital USD) is ahead: published criteria (+3.1 display points).Scenario cost: FDUSD (First Digital USD) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
USDT (Tether)#6 of 11 · score 57 · 5.0 points behind
FDUSD (First Digital USD) leads on
- What is really behind it, and what did the third party actually opine on?6 vs 2
USDT (Tether) leads on
- Who can freeze, burn or replace your balance — and have they?5 vs 4
Largest single reason FDUSD (First Digital USD) is ahead: published criteria (+4.7 display points).Scenario cost: USDT (Tether) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
frxUSD (Frax USD)#7 of 11 · score 56 · 6.0 points behind
FDUSD (First Digital USD) leads on
- What is really behind it, and what did the third party actually opine on?6 vs 3
- Who can freeze, burn or replace your balance — and have they?4 vs 3
frxUSD (Frax USD) leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason FDUSD (First Digital USD) is ahead: published criteria (+5.5 display points).Scenario cost: frxUSD (Frax USD) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
79 vs 62 · gap 17.0Why PayPal USD (PYUSD) ranks above FDUSD (First Digital USD)
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 17.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisPayPal USD (PYUSD)Gap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight8.615.3−17.4, 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? · w2838−4.48, worse
What is really behind it, and what did the third party actually opine on? · w2464+1.54, better
Who can freeze, burn or replace your balance — and have they? · w1846−1.15, worse
Net6279−17.0
Your scenario
FDUSD (First Digital USD) is not priced for this 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
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
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.
Not priced on this basis
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.RobustnessHoldsrank #4 across every one-point re-run
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 3 · 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 6 · 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 4 · 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 (FDUSD (First Digital USD) 4/10): 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% (FDUSD (First Digital USD) 2/10)Scored by What is really behind it, and what did the third party actually opine on? · 24% (FDUSD (First Digital USD) 6/10)
- Exit failure (FDUSD (First Digital USD) 3/10): 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
- NO FEE SCHEDULE IS PUBLISHED ANYWHERE REACHABLE, AND NO MINIMUM IS PUBLISHED AT ALL. Re-verified 29 September 2026. (a) The binding FDD Terms (https://
firstdigitallabs .webflow .io /legal /fdd-terms, fetched 29 September 2026) are SILENT on mint and redeem fees and on minimums: the document’s only fee sentence concerns currency conversion — “If you transmit your wire in a currency other than in the currency which the FDD is denominated in, we will deduct an amount of FDD that results following a currency conversion of any fees charged for such currency conversion.” (b) The FD121 Account User Agreement (https:// firstdigitallabs .webflow .io /legal /fd121 -account-user-agreement, fetched 29 September 2026) defers to a schedule it does not link: “FD121 may charge fees in connection with the Services. You agree to pay the fees shown to you, if any, or as separately agreed between you and FD121 without set off or deduction. Fees are generally disclosed in the fee schedule which we publicize from time to time; we may change any of the fees that FD121 charges at any time, with or without notice.” No such schedule was found at any URL on 29 September 2026. A full-text search of both documents for “minimum” returns only the severability boilerplate “the minimum extent necessary” — there is no minimum ticket published anywhere. (c) The only price claim is on the product marketing page (https:// firstdigitallabs .webflow .io /fdusd, fetched 29 September 2026), under the heading “Mint and Redeem at Near-Zero Cost”: “We offer zero fee minting and redemption, as long as you mint more than you redeem.” The condition matters — zero-fee redemption holds only while the client mints more than it redeems, and what is charged otherwise is published nowhere; this marketing claim is in no binding document. (d) Access, quoted from the issuer’s transparency page (fetched 29 September 2026): “Please note that First Digital Labs does not sell tokens directly to retail customers.”FDUSD (First Digital USD) — official pricing page ↗ · 29 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDFDUSD (First Digital USD) — official pricing page ↗ · 29 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- CONTRACTING ENTITY — ESTABLISHED, CONSISTENT, RE-READ THIS PASS.
- Supported chains
- Ethereum
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- United States
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with FDUSD (First Digital USD): 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 62, #4 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:fdusd:2026.10.18:1e2308e3f28a
Are you FDUSD (First Digital USD)? 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.