FDUSD (First Digital USD) vs Ripple USD (RLUSD) Ripple USD (RLUSD) leads by 13 points.
Ripple USD (RLUSD) scores 13 points above FDUSD (First Digital USD), led by counterparty and insolvency rank, redemption right exercised, and reserve and assurance scope. FDUSD (First Digital USD) ranks #4 and Ripple USD (RLUSD) #3 of 11 published stablecoins. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
FDFDUSD (First Digital USD)62
vs
Ripple USD (RLUSD)75
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #4 and #3 of 11
Ripple USD (RLUSD) scores 13 points above FDUSD (First Digital USD), led by counterparty and insolvency rank, redemption right exercised, and reserve and assurance scope.
FDFDUSD (First Digital USD) #4 of 1162
Ripple USD (RLUSD) #3 of 1175
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termRipple USD (RLUSD) leads on 4 of 4 published criteria; FDUSD (First Digital USD) on 0. The terms sum to the gap.
TermRipple USD (RLUSD)FDUSD (First Digital USD)WeightPoints
Counterparty and insolvency rank5/102/107.2+5.6for Ripple USD (RLUSD)+2.9 of 32
Redemption right exercised5/103/106.7+3.5for Ripple USD (RLUSD)+1.8 of 32
Reserve and assurance scope8/106/105.8+3.0for Ripple USD (RLUSD)+1.5 of 32
Seizure and upgrade authority5/104/104.3+1.1for Ripple USD (RLUSD)+0.6 of 32
Net of the terms+13.2
Reproduced gap+13.3
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below7562+13.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
Ripple USD (RLUSD)Score 75The best-evidenced reserve in the pool sitting behind a much weaker holder claim: Deloitte examines CUSIP-level T-bills at a named custodian monthly, while the binding terms tell the holder they have no property interest in any of it, no fiduciary is owed to them, and they cannot redeem unless they become an institutional Customer under a contract Ripple does not publish.Strength: Reserve and assurance scope — 8/10Watch-out: The regulatory scaffolding around RLUSD is genuinely better than most of this pool, and the reserve disclosure is the best in it — CUSIP-level, Deloitte-examined, monthly, with a named custodian. None of that is the same thing as a claim you can enforce, and the gap between the two is this record's whole point. The binding RLUSD User Terms say the reserve is “segregated from SCTC's other assets” and then say, in the same subsection, “RLUSD does not convey any direct or indirect property interest in or right to withdraw any assets held in the Reserve”, and later that “Ripple does not provide any trust or fiduciary services to any User under these Terms.” Meanwhile the whitepaper says deposits are “held specifically for the benefit of RLUSD holders”, the attestation criteria say the Reserve holds assets “on behalf of RLUSD holders”, and the OCC letter describes “collateral trustee services for the benefit of RLUSD holders on a fiduciary basis” — for a bank that does not yet exist, under an approval the OCC expressly labels preliminary. The contract governs, and it gives the holder a segregation covenant with no stated insolvency rank, no property interest and no fiduciary duty. Second caveat, on comparability: the 2026-09-29 re-read raised criterion 2 from 4 to 5, the bottom of the band the methodology names for RLUSD, and level with USDC. The terms grant every holder a redemption right and then condition it on becoming a Customer, and the 2026 whitepaper's gate is the same shape as Circle Mint's closure to individuals, which the ladder already weighs for USDC in that band: “Ripple will not conduct B2C transactions.” Third: the terms are stale in a way that matters. They are stamped “Last updated: October 3, 2024” — and still so on 2026-09-29, almost two years on — and in the interim the OCC preliminarily approved a Ripple national trust bank intended to hold the reserve as collateral trustee. If that bank opens, the custody architecture behind this coin changes and the binding document describing it will not have moved. Finally, one number that is not a defect but should not be misread: the LEI on the current whitepaper resolves to the right company with entity status ACTIVE, but its GLEIF REGISTRATION status is LAPSED. Those are different fields; a lapsed identifier registration is not a lapsed charter, and it is scored as nothing more. Two things changed when every document was read again. First, the NYDFS redeemability question is settled, in Ripple's favour on the gate itself: the June 8, 2022 guidance, retrieved this session as bytes from the Internet Archive's raw replay of the dfs.ny.gov URL, confers a par redemption right on “any lawful holder” but expressly subjects it to “reasonable, non-burdensome conditions … such as the ability of the stablecoin holder to onboard successfully with the Issuer before redeeming.” The regulator permits the onboarding gate. What the regulator also requires — “clear, conspicuous redemption policies, approved in advance by DFS in writing”, with a default of T+2 where the issuer does not state its own — Ripple does not publish, which is why criterion 2 goes no higher than 5, the bottom of its band. Second, criterion 4 scores 5, not 6: the chain has twenty role grants; the MINTER and BURNER roles are held not only behind the multisig but also by a Wormhole NttManager proxy that appears in no Ripple document; and because MultiSign weights signatures, replacing the code takes three signatures, not seven. The freeze power had been exercised 192 times by August 2026; the 2026-09-29 re-read counts 214 against 214 distinct addresses since August 2024, 22 of them new and most on 2026-08-25, with not a single reversal and no published record of any of it. Nothing in the reserve or the attestation changed; the CUSIP schedule was re-read position by position and every figure reproduced.FDUSD (First Digital USD)Score 62A BVI-incorporated fintech issues FDUSD against a genuinely well-documented US T-bill reserve it tells you, in the binding terms, that you have no trust or contractual claim on.Strength: Reserve and assurance scope — 6/10Watch-out: 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).
Quick facts
At a glance
2 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactFDUSD (First Digital USD)Ripple USD (RLUSD)
PricingSnapshotNO 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.”NO FEE SCHEDULE AND NO MINIMUM IS PUBLISHED ANYWHERE — a silence finding, re-established on 29 September 2026. (1) THE BINDING TERMS, https://ripple.com/legal/stablecoin/ (still stamped "Last updated: October 3, 2024", fetched 29 September 2026): the string "Fee" appears exactly once, in §11.10: "Although a Customer can always redeem one (1) RLUSD for 1 U.S. dollar ($1) with Ripple, less Fees, Ripple cannot control how third parties quote or value RLUSD, and Ripple is not responsible for any losses or other issues that may result from fluctuations in the value of RLUSD." "Fees" is capitalised as a defined term and defined nowhere in this document; the definition belongs to the RLUSD Customer Agreement. "minimum" also occurs once, about the Reserve's market value, not about redemption. (2) THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT IS UNREACHABLE: https://ripple.com/legal/ returns HTTP 404; the legal navigation on the terms page still lists eleven documents and the RLUSD Customer Agreement is not among them; https://ripple.com/legal/rlusd-customer-agreement/ and https://ripple.com/legal/stablecoin-customer-agreement/ both returned HTTP 404 on 29 September 2026. (3) THE OTHER ISSUER SURFACES ARE SILENT: the whitepaper (https://ripple.com/reports/rlusd-whitepaper.pdf, "Version date — June 4, 2026") describes the issuance and redemption flows and states no fee, no minimum ticket and no settlement deadline; the transparency page (https://ripple.com/products/stablecoin/transparency/) says "redemptions with strict SLAs" and publishes no SLA, fee or minimum. (4) WHAT IS PUBLISHED INSTEAD, AND IT IS NOT A PRICE: the whitepaper's eligibility rule, "RLUSD is distributed to enterprise partners only. Ripple will not conduct B2C transactions", and its reserve buffer, "to ensure the total value of RLUSD reserve assets always equals at least 103% of the total RLUSD in circulation". An undisclosed price is not the same as a low one; this record scores it as an absence, not a benefit — no list price is published, so cost cannot be compared before a sales conversation.
Asset coverageEditorial——
Region fitSnapshotglobalglobal
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
FD
FDUSD (First Digital USD)
62#4 of 11
Pick it when
FDUSD (First Digital USD) leads Ripple USD (RLUSD) on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
Strength
Reserve and assurance scope — 6/10
Tradeoff
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).
Ripple USD (RLUSD)
75#3 of 11
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Ripple USD (RLUSD) if counterparty and insolvency rank matters most — it scores 5/10 to FDUSD (First Digital USD)'s 2/10 there (weight 30).
Strength
Reserve and assurance scope — 8/10
Tradeoff
The regulatory scaffolding around RLUSD is genuinely better than most of this pool, and the reserve disclosure is the best in it — CUSIP-level, Deloitte-examined, monthly, with a named custodian. None of that is the same thing as a claim you can enforce, and the gap between the two is this record's whole point. The binding RLUSD User Terms say the reserve is “segregated from SCTC's other assets” and then say, in the same subsection, “RLUSD does not convey any direct or indirect property interest in or right to withdraw any assets held in the Reserve”, and later that “Ripple does not provide any trust or fiduciary services to any User under these Terms.” Meanwhile the whitepaper says deposits are “held specifically for the benefit of RLUSD holders”, the attestation criteria say the Reserve holds assets “on behalf of RLUSD holders”, and the OCC letter describes “collateral trustee services for the benefit of RLUSD holders on a fiduciary basis” — for a bank that does not yet exist, under an approval the OCC expressly labels preliminary. The contract governs, and it gives the holder a segregation covenant with no stated insolvency rank, no property interest and no fiduciary duty. Second caveat, on comparability: the 2026-09-29 re-read raised criterion 2 from 4 to 5, the bottom of the band the methodology names for RLUSD, and level with USDC. The terms grant every holder a redemption right and then condition it on becoming a Customer, and the 2026 whitepaper's gate is the same shape as Circle Mint's closure to individuals, which the ladder already weighs for USDC in that band: “Ripple will not conduct B2C transactions.” Third: the terms are stale in a way that matters. They are stamped “Last updated: October 3, 2024” — and still so on 2026-09-29, almost two years on — and in the interim the OCC preliminarily approved a Ripple national trust bank intended to hold the reserve as collateral trustee. If that bank opens, the custody architecture behind this coin changes and the binding document describing it will not have moved. Finally, one number that is not a defect but should not be misread: the LEI on the current whitepaper resolves to the right company with entity status ACTIVE, but its GLEIF REGISTRATION status is LAPSED. Those are different fields; a lapsed identifier registration is not a lapsed charter, and it is scored as nothing more. Two things changed when every document was read again. First, the NYDFS redeemability question is settled, in Ripple's favour on the gate itself: the June 8, 2022 guidance, retrieved this session as bytes from the Internet Archive's raw replay of the dfs.ny.gov URL, confers a par redemption right on “any lawful holder” but expressly subjects it to “reasonable, non-burdensome conditions … such as the ability of the stablecoin holder to onboard successfully with the Issuer before redeeming.” The regulator permits the onboarding gate. What the regulator also requires — “clear, conspicuous redemption policies, approved in advance by DFS in writing”, with a default of T+2 where the issuer does not state its own — Ripple does not publish, which is why criterion 2 goes no higher than 5, the bottom of its band. Second, criterion 4 scores 5, not 6: the chain has twenty role grants; the MINTER and BURNER roles are held not only behind the multisig but also by a Wormhole NttManager proxy that appears in no Ripple document; and because MultiSign weights signatures, replacing the code takes three signatures, not seven. The freeze power had been exercised 192 times by August 2026; the 2026-09-29 re-read counts 214 against 214 distinct addresses since August 2024, 22 of them new and most on 2026-08-25, with not a single reversal and no published record of any of it. Nothing in the reserve or the attestation changed; the CUSIP schedule was re-read position by position and every figure reproduced.
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
FDFDUSD (First Digital USD)
FDUSD (First Digital USD) leads Ripple USD (RLUSD) on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
FDUSD (First Digital USD)Score 62A BVI-incorporated fintech issues FDUSD against a genuinely well-documented US T-bill reserve it tells you, in the binding terms, that you have no trust or contractual claim on.Strength: Reserve and assurance scope — 6/10Watch-out: 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).
Ripple USD (RLUSD)Leads
Choose Ripple USD (RLUSD) if counterparty and insolvency rank matters most
Counterparty and insolvency rank: 5/10 against 2/10 for FDUSD (First Digital USD) (weight 30)
Redemption right exercised: 5/10 against 3/10 for FDUSD (First Digital USD) (weight 28)
Reserve and assurance scope: 8/10 against 6/10 for FDUSD (First Digital USD) (weight 24)
Ripple USD (RLUSD)Score 75The best-evidenced reserve in the pool sitting behind a much weaker holder claim: Deloitte examines CUSIP-level T-bills at a named custodian monthly, while the binding terms tell the holder they have no property interest in any of it, no fiduciary is owed to them, and they cannot redeem unless they become an institutional Customer under a contract Ripple does not publish.Strength: Reserve and assurance scope — 8/10Watch-out: The regulatory scaffolding around RLUSD is genuinely better than most of this pool, and the reserve disclosure is the best in it — CUSIP-level, Deloitte-examined, monthly, with a named custodian. None of that is the same thing as a claim you can enforce, and the gap between the two is this record's whole point. The binding RLUSD User Terms say the reserve is “segregated from SCTC's other assets” and then say, in the same subsection, “RLUSD does not convey any direct or indirect property interest in or right to withdraw any assets held in the Reserve”, and later that “Ripple does not provide any trust or fiduciary services to any User under these Terms.” Meanwhile the whitepaper says deposits are “held specifically for the benefit of RLUSD holders”, the attestation criteria say the Reserve holds assets “on behalf of RLUSD holders”, and the OCC letter describes “collateral trustee services for the benefit of RLUSD holders on a fiduciary basis” — for a bank that does not yet exist, under an approval the OCC expressly labels preliminary. The contract governs, and it gives the holder a segregation covenant with no stated insolvency rank, no property interest and no fiduciary duty. Second caveat, on comparability: the 2026-09-29 re-read raised criterion 2 from 4 to 5, the bottom of the band the methodology names for RLUSD, and level with USDC. The terms grant every holder a redemption right and then condition it on becoming a Customer, and the 2026 whitepaper's gate is the same shape as Circle Mint's closure to individuals, which the ladder already weighs for USDC in that band: “Ripple will not conduct B2C transactions.” Third: the terms are stale in a way that matters. They are stamped “Last updated: October 3, 2024” — and still so on 2026-09-29, almost two years on — and in the interim the OCC preliminarily approved a Ripple national trust bank intended to hold the reserve as collateral trustee. If that bank opens, the custody architecture behind this coin changes and the binding document describing it will not have moved. Finally, one number that is not a defect but should not be misread: the LEI on the current whitepaper resolves to the right company with entity status ACTIVE, but its GLEIF REGISTRATION status is LAPSED. Those are different fields; a lapsed identifier registration is not a lapsed charter, and it is scored as nothing more. Two things changed when every document was read again. First, the NYDFS redeemability question is settled, in Ripple's favour on the gate itself: the June 8, 2022 guidance, retrieved this session as bytes from the Internet Archive's raw replay of the dfs.ny.gov URL, confers a par redemption right on “any lawful holder” but expressly subjects it to “reasonable, non-burdensome conditions … such as the ability of the stablecoin holder to onboard successfully with the Issuer before redeeming.” The regulator permits the onboarding gate. What the regulator also requires — “clear, conspicuous redemption policies, approved in advance by DFS in writing”, with a default of T+2 where the issuer does not state its own — Ripple does not publish, which is why criterion 2 goes no higher than 5, the bottom of its band. Second, criterion 4 scores 5, not 6: the chain has twenty role grants; the MINTER and BURNER roles are held not only behind the multisig but also by a Wormhole NttManager proxy that appears in no Ripple document; and because MultiSign weights signatures, replacing the code takes three signatures, not seven. The freeze power had been exercised 192 times by August 2026; the 2026-09-29 re-read counts 214 against 214 distinct addresses since August 2024, 22 of them new and most on 2026-08-25, with not a single reversal and no published record of any of it. Nothing in the reserve or the attestation changed; the CUSIP schedule was re-read position by position and every figure reproduced.
Criterion by criterion
Scorecard
Published criteria · weight in points of 868 of 8 cells scored. Strength is read from the evidence file; the weight is the published one. Methodology
Counterparty and insolvency rank
by 3 of 10weight 7.2 of 86Ripple USD (RLUSD) leads
FDUSD (First Digital USD)2/10 out of 10
Ripple USD (RLUSD)5/10 out of 10
Redemption right exercised
by 2 of 10weight 6.7 of 86Ripple USD (RLUSD) leads
FDUSD (First Digital USD)3/10 out of 10
Ripple USD (RLUSD)5/10 out of 10
Reserve and assurance scope
by 2 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Ripple USD (RLUSD) leads
FDUSD (First Digital USD)6/10 out of 10
Ripple USD (RLUSD)8/10 out of 10
Seizure and upgrade authority
by 1 of 10weight 4.3 of 86Ripple USD (RLUSD) leads
FDUSD (First Digital USD)4/10 out of 10
Ripple USD (RLUSD)5/10 out of 10
Score dimensions
weights sum to 86
The published score is five dimensions, each weighted for the category. "Published criteria" is the criteria block above; the other four are the engine's own terms — availability, friction, trust record, measured data. Each bar is one side's points out of that dimension's maximum; the weight beside the name is its points of the 86-point weighted total. The published criteria above can fill 24 of the block’s 30. A weight marked “constant here” belongs to a dimension every ranked product in the category holds at the same value: it still counts in the total, and it orders nothing here.
Availabilityweight 20 of 86 · constant here
FDUSD (First Digital USD)14/20Ripple USD (RLUSD)14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
FDUSD (First Digital USD)8.6/30Ripple USD (RLUSD)13.7/30
Ripple USD (RLUSD) leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
FDUSD (First Digital USD)2.7/10Ripple USD (RLUSD)2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
FDUSD (First Digital USD)3.2/8Ripple USD (RLUSD)3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
FDUSD (First Digital USD)8.3/18Ripple USD (RLUSD)8.3/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Ripple USD (RLUSD) unless the term FDUSD (First Digital USD) leads on is the one you are buying.
FDUSD (First Digital USD) leads Ripple USD (RLUSD) on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
The published order weighs every criterion the same way for everyone. To weigh them your way, run .
From the published order
Next best action
If this isn't your case
Other matchups worth comparing
How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
Control failure: a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.
Scored by Who can freeze, burn or replace your balance — and have they? · 18% (FDUSD (First Digital USD) 4/10, Ripple USD (RLUSD) 5/10)
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, Ripple USD (RLUSD) 5/10)
Scored by What is really behind it, and what did the third party actually opine on? · 24% (FDUSD (First Digital USD) 6/10, Ripple USD (RLUSD) 8/10)
Exit failure: 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% (FDUSD (First Digital USD) 3/10, Ripple USD (RLUSD) 5/10)
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.
Questions
Frequently asked questions
Ripple USD (RLUSD) scores 13 points above FDUSD (First Digital USD), led by counterparty and insolvency rank, redemption right exercised, and reserve and assurance scope. Published scores, out of 100: FDUSD (First Digital USD) 62 (rank 4 of 11 stablecoins), Ripple USD (RLUSD) 75 (rank 3 of 11).
Reviewed means both products compared here 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.
Answer a few quick questions and get one clear recommendation based on how you actually plan to use crypto — with rationale, tradeoffs, and a path to monitor the decision.
No signup·Free first pass · Private·No spam · No account
Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research
