Provider at a glance
- Category
- Private Credit
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- kasu.finance
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 78 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Kasu Finance
Tranched USDC lending against receivables
Private Credit
#1 Overall
Ranked #1 of 7 private credit in the published ranking
78
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Kasu Finance right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Named underwriter and first-loss capital8/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Depositor's legal claim7/10 here; Maple Finance scores 9
- Redemption terms and gating5/10 here; Pareto scores 8
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global. Restricted: Australia.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best private credit protocol shows where it lands for you.
What will Kasu Finance cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your balance
- $10k
How safe is Kasu Finance?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Kasu Finance
Compare all 4- 2Maple Finance1 point below · stronger on depositor legal claim (9 against 7)77
- 3Pareto9 points below · stronger on redemption terms and gating (8 against 5)69
- 4Clearpool12 points below · weaker on underwriter identity and skin (4 against 8)66
For your setup
Find out if Kasu Finance fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Kasu Finance 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 private credit protocolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why it leads
Why Kasu Finance ranks #1
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (19.0 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 1 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
304+3.843.05#2/7Loading evidence…
258+6.405.08#1/7Loading evidence…
257+5.604.09#2/7Loading evidence…
205+3.205.08#3/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin+1over Maple Finance, #2
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 77–78 and ranks #1–#2
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 Kasu Finance’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.
Published default and loss history 4 → 3 on its ladder · Maple Finance passes it−177#1 → #2
Named underwriter and first-loss capital 8 → 7 on its ladder · Maple Finance passes it−177#1 → #2
Depositor's legal claim 7 → 6 on its ladder · Maple Finance passes it−177#1 → #2
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Named underwriter and first-loss capital — 8/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Depositor's legal claim — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Redemption terms and gating — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- In a liquidity squeeze the people who get their money out first are the people holding the most $KASU. The loyalty page states that Loyalty Level 3 is reached where locked rKASU "equals 5% or greater" of your combined USDC lending, and Level 3 confers "First order priority for Withdrawal Requests". A depositor holding no token is structurally behind token holders in the queue, and one who chose a fixed-rate strategy cannot join the queue at all. Note also that the APY shown in the app is gross: the docs state the quoted figure "refers to Gross APY (before fees)" and that 10% of interest earned is deducted, so a 10% gross quote is 9% net. DefiLlama put Kasu's TVL at $11,771,166 on 2026-08-07, so this is a small book concentrated on a single originator, Apxium, whose eight-year zero-loss record is self-reported and is the load-bearing fact in the entire proposition.
Competitive position
Where Kasu Finance 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 / 714.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#1 / 714.3 of 30 · pool best
Friction#1 / 72.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 73.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 76.9 of 18 · constant here
Where Kasu Finance leads
- Published default and loss history#2 / 7
- Named underwriter and first-loss capital#1 / 7
- Depositor's legal claim#2 / 7
- Redemption terms and gating#3 / 7
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.
Maple Finance#2 of 7 · score 77 · 1.0 point behind
Kasu Finance leads on
- Published default and loss history4 vs 3
- Named underwriter and first-loss capital8 vs 5
Maple Finance leads on
- Depositor's legal claim9 vs 7
- Redemption terms and gating7 vs 5
Largest single reason Kasu Finance is ahead: published criteria (+1.0 display points).Scenario cost: Maple Finance has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Pareto#3 of 7 · score 69 · 9.0 points behind
Kasu Finance leads on
- Published default and loss history4 vs 2
- Named underwriter and first-loss capital8 vs 5
- Depositor's legal claim7 vs 4
Pareto leads on
- Redemption terms and gating8 vs 5
Largest single reason Kasu Finance is ahead: published criteria (+9.4 display points).Scenario cost: Pareto has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Clearpool#4 of 7 · score 66 · 12.0 points behind
Kasu Finance leads on
- Named underwriter and first-loss capital8 vs 4
- Depositor's legal claim7 vs 4
- Redemption terms and gating5 vs 4
Clearpool leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Kasu Finance is ahead: published criteria (+12.2 display points).Scenario cost: Clearpool has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against #2
78 vs 77 · gap 1.0Why Kasu Finance ranks above Maple Finance
DimensionThisMaple FinanceGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight14.313.9+1.0, better
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here6.96.9same
Published criterionThisMaple FinancePoints
Published default and loss history · w3043+0.96, better
Named underwriter and first-loss capital · w2585+2.40, better
Depositor's legal claim · w2579−1.60, worse
Redemption terms and gating · w2057−1.28, worse
Net7877+1.0
Your scenario
Kasu Finance is not priced for this scenario
The annual management fee on your balance. Excludes performance fees, spreads and any redemption charge. 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 balance · your input$10k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 27 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 medianNot priced0 of 7 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
7 of 7 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 27 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 #1 to #2 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 27 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Published default and loss historystrength 4 · weight 30Report an error—27 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.Named underwriter and first-loss capitalstrength 8 · weight 25Report an error—27 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.Depositor's legal claimstrength 7 · weight 25Report an error—27 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.Redemption terms and gatingstrength 5 · weight 20Report an error—27 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
- Insolvency failure: the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by Published default and loss history · 30% (Kasu Finance 4/10)Scored by Named underwriter and first-loss capital · 25% (Kasu Finance 8/10)Scored by Depositor's legal claim · 25% (Kasu Finance 7/10)
- Exit failure (Kasu Finance 5/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Redemption terms and gating · 20%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Regulatory failure, Execution failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- "You pay no platform fee. All platform fees are paid by the Credit Originator, and the Effective Interest Rate shown is the rate you receive." — Kasu user docs page "How fees are charged" (kasu.finance/docs/user/risk-warnings/how-fees-are-charged, marked "Last updated Sep 24, 2026", fetched 27 September 2026). The only lender-paid charge on that page is the bank on- and off-ramp: "Converting between your bank's currency and stablecoins costs 0.5% of the amount sent, in both directions: 0.1% charged by Wayex and 0.4% charged by Bridge." The page's own worked example: "Adding funds, 1,000 US dollars less the 5 dollar fee arrives as 995 USDC"; stablecoins transferred in from another wallet "involve no conversion and no fee". No lending rate is published on this page; rates are set per Lending Strategy and Lending Option and shown in the app. Changed since the 7 August 2026 read: the fee model the pool quoted (a deduction from lender interest, with the dApp rate described as gross) is replaced in the new user docs by a zero lender platform fee paid by the Credit Originator. The older GitBook page docs.kasu.finance/lending-with-kasu/earning-interest.md still served HTTP 200 on 27 September 2026 with the old deduction wording, so two Kasu-hosted pages now disagree; the site navigation links the new user docs.Kasu Finance — official page at kasu.finance ↗ · 27 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDKasu Finance — official page at kasu.finance ↗ · 27 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- minimal
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Plume Mainnet, Base, XDC
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Australia
- 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 Kasu Finance: 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.
9 methodology entries
- 27 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 78, #1 of 7. 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
2026.10.7Forty-one more products are offered only where their own quoted terms serve- fixed 141 country exclusions on 31 rows, each the name of a country the row's own quoted terms exclude: for example Mercuryo Hungary, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Chile, Colombia and Morocco; Gemini Custody the United Kingdom, Australia and the EU after its wind-down; Backed xStocks the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, Nigeria, the Philippines and Venezuela.
- changed Thirteen rows list the only countries their terms serve: Coins.ph the Philippines, Spritz bill pay, Brex, Unchained, WisdomTree, Franklin BENJI and AnchorWatch the United States (with its territories for AnchorWatch), PRYPCO Mint the UAE, N26 crypto seven EU countries, Gemini Tokenized Stocks the EU, XNET the US, Canada and the UK, Coldbit Steel and MetaMask Card the countries they list.
- changed Published (no-country) orders do not move. Country results change: in India six categories each lose one row (bill pay, cards, off-ramps, P2P, seed backup, tokenised real estate), and bill pay there has no row confirmed available, so it shows the published order marked as such; country pages list 23 fewer rows (24,357 to 24,334). The grounding test now matches full country names in any case, which shows seven earlier exclusions were quoted all along: the named debt of unquoted exclusions falls from 40 to 33 pairs.
- 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.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt private_credit:kasu_finance:2026.10.18:dcb38a0554a5
Are you Kasu Finance? 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.