ChainChoice verdict

Liquity V2 (BOLD)

CDP StablecoinsEntity Liquity · 2 productsCountry not set

#1 overall across 7 scored cdp stablecoins. 4 points ahead of #2 Liquity V1 (LUSD). Scored 80 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 V2 (BOLD) 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 (23.7 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

8+8.966.09#2/7Loading evidence…

8+6.404.08#1/7Loading evidence…

9+5.766.010#2/7Loading evidence…

4+2.564.07#3/7Loading evidence…

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

Margin+4over Liquity V1 (LUSD), #2

RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 80–81 and stays #1

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 V2 (BOLD)’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 8 → 6 on its ladder · Liquity V1 (LUSD) passes it−279#1 → #2

What actually backs the coin 8 → 5 on its ladder · Liquity V1 (LUSD) passes it−379#1 → #2

Cost of the loan and who controls it 9 → 6 on its ladder · Liquity V1 (LUSD) passes it−380#1 → #2

Strengths

Where it leads

3 from the score data

Record says best for

Cost of the loan and who controls it — 9/10
Liquidation mechanics you actually bear — 8/10
What actually backs the coin — 8/10

Tradeoffs

Where it trails

1 from the score data

Record watch-outs

The user-set rate is not the free lunch it appears. BOLD redemptions are routed to the lowest-interest-rate Troves first, so choosing a cheap rate directly buys you redemption exposure — your collateral gets swapped for debt repayment at exactly the moment BOLD trades below peg. Setting a competitive rate means continuously monitoring where everyone else set theirs, which is an active management burden Liquity v1 did not impose.

Competitive position

Where Liquity V2 (BOLD) 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#1 / 717.8 of 30 · pool best

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 V2 (BOLD) leads

Liquidation mechanics you actually bear#2 / 7
What actually backs the coin#1 / 7
Cost of the loan and who controls it#2 / 7
Observed peg behaviour under stress#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.

Browse all 7

Liquity V1 (LUSD)#2 of 7 · score 76 · 4.0 points behind

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

Liquity V1 (LUSD) leads on

Cost of the loan and who controls it10 vs 9

Largest single reason Liquity V2 (BOLD) is ahead: published criteria (+3.9 display points).Scenario cost: Liquity V1 (LUSD) has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Curve crvUSD#3 of 7 · score 73 · 7.0 points behind

Liquity V2 (BOLD) leads on

What actually backs the coin8 vs 4
Cost of the loan and who controls it9 vs 7

Curve crvUSD leads on

Liquidation mechanics you actually bear9 vs 8

Largest single reason Liquity V2 (BOLD) is ahead: published criteria (+6.8 display points).Scenario cost: Curve crvUSD has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Aave GHO#4 of 7 · score 67 · 13.0 points behind

Liquity V2 (BOLD) leads on

Liquidation mechanics you actually bear8 vs 6
What actually backs the coin8 vs 4
Cost of the loan and who controls it9 vs 6

Aave GHO leads on

Observed peg behaviour under stress5 vs 4

Largest single reason Liquity V2 (BOLD) is ahead: published criteria (+13.3 display points).Scenario cost: Aave GHO has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Against #2

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

80 vs 76 · gap 4.0

DimensionThisLiquity V1 (LUSD)Gap share

Availability · 23% weight14.014.00

Published criteria · 35% weight17.816.3+3.9

Friction · 12% weight2.72.70

Trust record · 9% weight3.23.20

Measured data · 21% weight8.38.30

Published criterionThisLiquity V1 (LUSD)Points

Liquidation mechanics you actually bear · w3587+1.12

What actually backs the coin · w2587+0.80

Cost of the loan and who controls it · w20910−0.64

Observed peg behaviour under stress · w2043+0.64

Net8076+4.0

For your setup

Find out if Liquity V2 (BOLD) 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 V2 (BOLD) 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 V2 (BOLD) 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 8 · weight 35Report an errorno source page——UnknownNo receipt

What actually backs the coinstrength 8 · weight 25Report an errorno source page——UnknownNo receipt

Cost of the loan and who controls itstrength 9 · weight 20Report an errorno source page——UnknownNo receipt

Observed peg behaviour under stressstrength 4 · 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: Liquity docs: interest is 'determined by the rate you set yourself.' There is no protocol-set rate. An upfront borrowing fee is charged equal to seven days' worth of the average interest rate, and adjusting your rate within seven days incurs an additional premature adjustment fee.Liquity V2 (BOLD) — official pricing page ↗ · 15 Sept 2026
Prices published in: USDLiquity V2 (BOLD) — 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: Permissionless, immutable contracts; Liquity AG 'does not operate a central frontend' — users choose from integrations and community-run instances — and docs.liquity.org names no restricted jurisdiction (v2-faq/general and v2-faq/borrowing-and-liquidations 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 80, #1 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_bold: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.