Provider review

Stablecoins are reviewed on who exactly owes you the dollar and where you rank when they fail (30%), whether the person holding it can get a dollar back at par and whether anyone has at size (28%), what is really behind it and what the third party actually opined on (24%), and who can freeze, burn or replace your balance and whether they have (18%). The counterparty leads because the entity named on the binding terms and the holder's rank in its insolvency are fixed the moment the issuer fails, while a reserve can be restructured overnight and a redemption desk reopened. A licence claim that does not resolve on a public register is an unverified claim, never a licence.

Seizure and upgrade authority — 5/10

Verified 19 August 2026 against the provider's own published sources; read again 29 September 2026.

Tradeoff: That there is no such thing as "your" dollar at Tether — and, for almost everyone reading this, no such thing as your redemption right either. The buyer's mental model is a segregated dollar held for them, redeemable on demand. The binding terms say the opposite twice over. Balances are "not segregated assets held in your name or for your benefit but reflected only in the books and records of Tether"; the reserve is defined as every asset the company owns rather than a ring-fence carved out for holders; the claim is booked as an IFRS 9 "refund liability", an unsecured payable. And the exit is not a property of the token: "The right to purchase Tether Tokens or have Tether Tokens redeemed is a contractual right personal to you" — unlike USDC's terms, which assign the right onward to "any subsequent Holder", Tether's right belongs to the verified customer who contracted for it and does not travel with the coin you bought on an exchange. Four things compound it. (1) Even for that customer the exit is gated: 100,000 USD minimum to redeem and a fee of "The greater of $1,000 or 0.1%", which is 1.0% at that minimum, not the advertised 0.1%. (2) A quarter of the reserve — US$47.1bn of gold, bitcoin, equities, corporate bonds, an unnamed US$13.45bn secured-loan book and a US$5.24bn "Other Investments" bucket defined only as whatever fits no other row — sits behind an equity buffer of US$4.11bn that just shrank 35% on a US$3.17bn half-year loss, with no custodian named anywhere and an unprovisioned New York class action disclosed on the same page. (3) The contract is construed as a British Virgin Islands contract even though the issuer redomiciled to El Salvador, so the register entry and the governing law point at different jurisdictions. (4) If you are a US Person you are contractually prohibited from holding it at all. The deepest market in crypto is not the same thing as a claim you can enforce.

When should I use stablecoins instead of other crypto assets?

Stablecoins make the most sense when you want more stable dollar-like value for payments, transfers, savings posture, or onchain use without the same volatility as broader crypto assets.

Are all stablecoins basically the same?

No. They differ on who owes you the dollar and where you rank if that entity fails, on whether redemption at par is a right holders have actually exercised, on what backs them and what the examiner looked at, and on who can freeze or replace your balance.

What matters most when choosing a stablecoin?

Who exactly owes you the dollar and where you rank if they fail, whether a holder can actually redeem at par and whether anyone has at size, what is really behind it and what the third party actually opined on, and who can freeze, burn or replace your balance. The name and the ticker are not on that list.

USDC vs USDT

Choose between a cleaner trust-led mainstream stablecoin and the most ubiquitous liquidity-led stablecoin.