ChainChoice verdict

Liquity V1 (LUSD)

CDP StablecoinsEntity Liquity · 2 productsCountry not set

#2 overall across 7 scored cdp stablecoins. 4 points behind #1 Liquity V2 (BOLD). Scored 76 on the published 41–99 scale under methodology 2026.09.15, from the evidence read on file.

Find my best

Availability not verified. Tell the explorer where you are and this verdict tests the record’s published market tags against it. An untested record is shown as not verified — never as available. Supported markets on record: Global. Set your country in the explorer

Why this rank

Why Liquity V1 (LUSD) ranks #2

Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (21.8 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in the pool on 1 of 4.

4 published criteria · Σ weight 100

CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence

7+7.846.09#3/7Loading evidence…

7+5.604.08#2/7Loading evidence…

10+6.406.010#1/7Loading evidence…

3+1.924.07#6/7Loading evidence…

Hairline = pool best · tick = pool median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero

Margin−4behind Liquity V2 (BOLD), #1

RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 74–78 and stays #2

Evidence4 of 4 scoredno receipt file for this category

What would move the rank

Each line is the ranking run again with one of Liquity V1 (LUSD)’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.

Liquidation mechanics you actually bear 7 → 9 on its ladder · passes Liquity V2 (BOLD)+280#2 → #1

What actually backs the coin 7 → 10 on its ladder · passes Liquity V2 (BOLD)+380#2 → #1

Observed peg behaviour under stress 3 → 6 on its ladder · passes Liquity V2 (BOLD)+380#2 → #1

Liquidation mechanics you actually bear 7 → 5 on its ladder · Curve crvUSD passes it−272#2 → #3

What actually backs the coin 7 → 5 on its ladder · Curve crvUSD passes it−273#2 → #3

Cost of the loan and who controls it 10 → 7 on its ladder · Curve crvUSD passes it−372#2 → #3

Smallest climb: liquidation mechanics you actually bear 7 → 9 passes Liquity V2 (BOLD), #1.

Strengths

Where it leads

2 from the score data

Record says best for

Cost of the loan and who controls it — 10/10
Liquidation mechanics you actually bear — 7/10

Tradeoffs

Where it trails

2 from the score data

Record watch-outs

You are borrowing from a frozen protocol. Liquity's engineering and Stability Pool incentives have moved to v2/BOLD, and v1 is immutable by design — meaning nothing can be fixed, retuned or rescued if the Stability Pool empties. The persistent premium is the tell: with only $26.2M of LUSD outstanding (TroveManager, 15 September 2026) and LUSD at $1.0051, acquiring LUSD to close your position costs you about 0.5% above par, and over the past year that premium reached 2.7% (27 March 2026).

Competitive position

Where Liquity V1 (LUSD) 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 · pool best

Published criteria#2 / 716.3 of 30 · best 17.8

Friction#1 / 72.7 of 10 · pool best

Trust record#1 / 73.2 of 8 · pool best

Measured data#1 / 78.3 of 18 · pool best

Where Liquity V1 (LUSD) leads

Liquidation mechanics you actually bear#3 / 7
What actually backs the coin#2 / 7
Cost of the loan and who controls it#1 / 7

Where it trails

Observed peg behaviour under stress#6 / 7

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.

Browse all 7

Curve crvUSD#3 of 7 · score 73 · 3.0 points behind

Liquity V1 (LUSD) leads on

What actually backs the coin7 vs 4
Cost of the loan and who controls it10 vs 7

Curve crvUSD leads on

Liquidation mechanics you actually bear9 vs 7
Observed peg behaviour under stress4 vs 3

Largest single reason Liquity V1 (LUSD) is ahead: published criteria (+2.9 display points).Scenario cost: Curve crvUSD has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Liquity V2 (BOLD)#1 of 7 · score 80 · 4.0 points ahead

Liquity V1 (LUSD) leads on

Cost of the loan and who controls it10 vs 9

Liquity V2 (BOLD) leads on

Liquidation mechanics you actually bear8 vs 7
What actually backs the coin8 vs 7
Observed peg behaviour under stress4 vs 3

Largest single reason Liquity V2 (BOLD) is ahead: published criteria (+3.9 display points).Scenario cost: Liquity V2 (BOLD) has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Aave GHO#4 of 7 · score 67 · 9.0 points behind

Liquity V1 (LUSD) leads on

Liquidation mechanics you actually bear7 vs 6
What actually backs the coin7 vs 4
Cost of the loan and who controls it10 vs 6

Aave GHO leads on

Observed peg behaviour under stress5 vs 3

Largest single reason Liquity V1 (LUSD) is ahead: published criteria (+9.4 display points).Scenario cost: Aave GHO has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Against the leader

Why Liquity V2 (BOLD) ranks above Liquity V1 (LUSD)

80 vs 76 · gap 4.0

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 4.0 to within rounding.

DimensionThisLiquity V2 (BOLD)Gap share

Availability · 23% weight14.014.00

Published criteria · 35% weight16.317.8−3.9

Friction · 12% weight2.72.70

Trust record · 9% weight3.23.20

Measured data · 21% weight8.38.30

Published criterionThisLiquity V2 (BOLD)Points

Liquidation mechanics you actually bear · w3578−1.12

What actually backs the coin · w2578−0.80

Cost of the loan and who controls it · w20109+0.64

Observed peg behaviour under stress · w2034−0.64

Net7680−4.0

Compare with #1 Liquity V2 (BOLD)

For your setup

Find out if Liquity V1 (LUSD) fits you

The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Liquity V1 (LUSD) 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.

3–5 questions
No account required
Ranking-blind: no commercial input
Personalised in under 60 seconds

Find my best cdp stablecoinNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.

Your scenario

Liquity V1 (LUSD) is not priced for this scenario

Interest on what you borrow at the published rate. Variable rates move; excludes origination and liquidation penalties. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.

interest/yr · default scenario — set your own

Amount borrowed

Amount borrowed · your input$10k

Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 15 Sept 2026.

interest/yr

Pricing not verified

Under the default inputs · USD

Category medianNot priced0 of 7 rows priced

Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter

Cost is stated as interest/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.

7 of 7 rows in the pool have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.

Evidence

No evidence reading date recorded

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 evidenceUnknownno observation on file

Public receiptsNo receipt filecategory publishes no receipt file

Evidence confidenceNot countedcoverage and corroboration, never freshness

Rank stabilityHoldsone point moves 2.2 display points

No structured observation is on file for this provider in this category; the strengths are the catalog’s published values.

7 listed rows in this category still await an evidence read and sit outside the scored pool.

No receipt file. This category publishes no receipt file, because no structured research payload exists for it yet. The ledger below shows the published strengths without their receipts; the scores on this page are unchanged.

CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt

Liquidation mechanics you actually bearstrength 7 · weight 35Report an errorno source page——UnknownNo receipt

What actually backs the coinstrength 7 · weight 25Report an errorno source page——UnknownNo receipt

Cost of the loan and who controls itstrength 10 · weight 20Report an errorno source page——UnknownNo receipt

Observed peg behaviour under stressstrength 3 · weight 20Report an errorno source page——UnknownNo receipt

* category-wide reading date; the cell carries none of its own.

Facts

What the record publishes

facts, not scores

Pricing: Read on-chain 2026-09-15 (Ethereum block 25983562) from TroveManager 0xA39739EF8b0231DbFA0DcdA07d7e29faAbCf4bb2: getBorrowingRate() = 0.005063 (0.506% one-time — the 0.50% floor plus a base rate of 0.0063% that rises with redemptions and decays back toward the floor; getBorrowingRateWithDecay() = 0.005004), getRedemptionRate() = 0.005063. Liquity docs: 'The fees cannot become smaller than 0.5% (except in Recovery Mode )' and 'The borrowing fee is capped at 5%'. There is no recurring interest rate function because the protocol charges none. MCR() = 1.1 (110%), CCR() = 1.5 (150%).Liquity V1 (LUSD) — official pricing page ↗ · 15 Sept 2026
Prices published in: USDLiquity V1 (LUSD) — official pricing page ↗ · 15 Sept 2026
Licences held: Not published
Compliance level: partial
Regulatory note: Not published
Supported chains: Multi-chain
Markets served: global
Primary markets: Not published
Restricted markets: Not published
Operating limits: Not published
Availability note: Immutable, governance-free contracts with no official front end ('The core team building the protocol will not operate a frontend' — Liquity V1 is accessed through third-party frontend operators); docs.liquity.org names no restricted jurisdiction (liquity-v1/faq/general checked 2026-09-15; www.liquity.org/terms returns HTTP 404). Bucket: global.

Legal entity on file: Liquity, placed in 2 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.

History

What the record carries

Changes to published ranks and scores are recorded in a ledger, but this page does not chart that record yet, so no score line is drawn: history begins with the current verified snapshot. Below it, the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.

7 methodology entries

currentCurrent verified snapshot · methodology 2026.09.15Score 76, #2 of 7. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
16 Sept 2026
2026.09.15
Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources · platform-wide
- changed Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
- fixed 66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
- changed Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.
- added availabilitySource (O-04g): for a reader who states a country, a row whose availability in that country rests on a region tag its record gives no source for sorts below every sourced row. It is inert in every order published here, which states no country.
14 Sept 2026
2026.09.12
A tie is decided by the published criteria first
- changed Tie key: criteriaAverage (unrounded weighted average of the published criterion scores) now comes directly after the weighted total and before the generic factors, in the engine, in formula.tieBreakChain and in the note that describes it.
- changed Published order: 130 positions move in 46 categories and no score changes. Five published #1s change: wallet (MetaMask → Rabby Wallet), stablecoin_issuance (Anchorage Digital → Brale), options_vaults (SOFA.org → Typus Finance), flash_loans (Dai Flash Mint → Morpho) and tokenised_commodities (Kinesis Gold → Matrixdock Gold).
- fixed Personalised weights are no longer rounded to one decimal. Rounding each dimension weight separately changed the ratio between dimensions the reader had not touched (a trust priority turned objectiveFit and quantitative 30:18 into 27.4:16.5), so a stated priority could reorder rows on criteria nobody re-weighted. Published weights are whole numbers, so no published order or score changes from this.
- changed Personalised orders: replaying the golden answer suite against the fixtures committed with 2026.09.11, 1,002 of 2,217 cases change their order and 181 their #1 (21 of them country briefs), mostly where answers leave rows tied on whole points and the criteria now decide; 45 change their confidence label. The tie key changes no score; the unrounded weights can move a reader’s weighted total, and with it their Fit for you number, by a small amount.
10 Sept 2026
2026.09.5
The published review cadence is now one the work actually keeps · platform-wide
- changed reviewCadenceDays 30 → 45 across all 119 category specs, and the two prose sites that quoted "the 30-day review cadence" in tokenised_bonds.
- changed check-review-cadence-is-kept ceiling 7 → 3, negative-tested: restoring a single 30-day promise over 49-day evidence takes it to 4 and fails the build.
- fixed Measured by regenerating rankings.json: no category changed order and no score moved, and the golden suite confirms it independently — across all 119 fixtures and 2,217 cases the only fields that differ are methodologyVersion and contentHash. A cadence is a claim about freshness, not an input to any ranking.

Full methodology changelog

Methodology

How this verdict was produced

Methodology version: 2026.09.15 · last platform-wide change 16 Sept 2026
Data snapshot: No reading date recorded
Last recalculated: At page build from the published inputs — the same run every visitor sees.
Published run: runWizardEngine(cdp_stablecoins, defaults) · no visitor answers
Receipt id: cdp_stablecoins:liquity_lusd:2026.09.15:ef23937abbc6

What changed in this methodology version?

2026.09.15 · Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources

Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.

How cdp stablecoins are weighted Changelog

Rankings, scores and Fit read no affiliate, payout, conversion or sponsorship data. This page's commercial note appears once, beside the outbound action, and is written by no component that scores.