TUSD (TrueUSD) vs Ripple USD (RLUSD) Ripple USD (RLUSD) leads by 22 points.
Ripple USD (RLUSD) scores 22 points above TUSD (TrueUSD), led by counterparty and insolvency rank, redemption right exercised, and reserve and assurance scope. TUSD (TrueUSD) ranks #11 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.
TUTUSD (TrueUSD)53
vs
Ripple USD (RLUSD)75
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #11 and #3 of 11
Ripple USD (RLUSD) scores 22 points above TUSD (TrueUSD), led by counterparty and insolvency rank, redemption right exercised, and reserve and assurance scope.
TUTUSD (TrueUSD) #11 of 1153
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; TUSD (TrueUSD) on 0. The terms sum to the gap.
TermRipple USD (RLUSD)TUSD (TrueUSD)WeightPoints
Counterparty and insolvency rank5/101/107.2+7.5for Ripple USD (RLUSD)+3.8 of 32
Redemption right exercised5/103/106.7+3.5for Ripple USD (RLUSD)+1.8 of 32
Reserve and assurance scope8/102/105.8+9.0for Ripple USD (RLUSD)+4.6 of 32
Seizure and upgrade authority5/103/104.3+2.2for Ripple USD (RLUSD)+1.2 of 32
Net of the terms+22.2
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−0.1
Reproduced gap+22.1
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below7553+22.0
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.TUSD (TrueUSD)Score 53A live stablecoin whose binding Terms of Use name no legal entity and expressly do not guarantee redemption, and whose own same-day assurance report — reasonable assurance under ISAE 3000 (Revised), signed by Moore CPA Limited — shows US Treasury Bills of $0 and 99.98% of the reserve sitting as a single at-cost balance at First Digital Trust Limited that the report says 'cannot be readily convertible to cash' and is subject to ongoing legal proceedings.Strength: Redemption right exercised — 3/10Watch-out: That the reserve backing it holds zero US Treasury Bills. TUSD's own assurance report, dated 19 August 2026 and signed by Moore CPA Limited, lists 'US Treasury Bills $0', '$78,900.88' of cash, and $501,850,000 — 99.98% — as a single balance at First Digital Trust Limited, which the same report says 'has invested all or substantially all of the collateral in other instruments to generate yield, which cannot be readily convertible to cash, and are subject to ongoing legal proceedings.' Techteryx has a worldwide freezing order from the DIFC Courts over up to US$456 million and says it has arranged separate 'alternative liquidity' so that tokens 'in public circulation' can still be redeemed — while the same report discloses that 412,585,497.92 of the 494,515,082.75 tokens issued are held by Techteryx itself. A close second: the Terms of Use you agree to name no company at all — 'Company' is defined as 'us', and a search of the full Terms for 'Ltd', 'Limited', 'LLC', 'Inc.' and 'Techteryx' returns zero hits — and those same Terms state that 'the Company does not guarantee any right of redemption or exchange of TrueUSD tokens for US Dollars.'
Quick facts
At a glance
2 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactTUSD (TrueUSD)Ripple USD (RLUSD)
PricingSnapshotMINT/REDEEM FEES — TrueUSD Terms of Use, https://app.tusd.io/terms-of-use (a JavaScript app; the Terms text is served from https://app-cdn.tusd.io/static/js/4464.9b870b98.chunk.js, the same build as in August, fetched 29 September 2026): "You are responsible for all on-chain transaction costs associated with on-chain transfers of any TrueUSD. The Company does not charge any Fees for minting or redeeming any TrueUSD and does not charge any on-chain transaction fees in addition to the blockchain-specific transaction fees associated with such transfers." HOMEPAGE ECHO — https://tusd.io (fetched 29 September 2026): "Additionally, TUSD does not charge any fees for its minting and redemption." MINIMUM — Terms of Use: "We reserve the right to prohibit wire submissions of fiat currency or redemption requests of TrueUSD if the total amount submitted or requested is less than US$1,000." — a discretionary floor, not a stated hard minimum: the issuer reserves the right to REFUSE below US$1,000 rather than promising to accept at or above it. ROUNDING — Terms of Use: "All TrueUSD tokens will be rounded down to the nearest amount of the lowest circulating denomination of the underlying fiat currency, upon redemption." WHAT THE FREE FEE BUYS — the same Terms: "The Platform is only intended to facilitate such mints and redemptions and the Company does not guarantee any right of redemption or exchange of TrueUSD tokens for US Dollars." and "In order to cause TrueUSD tokens to be issued or redeemed by the Company, you must be a verified customer of the Company." SILENT ON: no page loaded on 29 September 2026 states a redemption SLA, a settlement window, a banking-partner wire fee, or any maximum; no separate fee-schedule page exists. TYPED RATE (label, not a quote): spreadPct = 0 — the issuer charges no mint or redemption fee; only network gas applies.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?
TU
TUSD (TrueUSD)
53#11 of 11
Pick it when
TUSD (TrueUSD) 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
Redemption right exercised — 3/10
Tradeoff
That the reserve backing it holds zero US Treasury Bills. TUSD's own assurance report, dated 19 August 2026 and signed by Moore CPA Limited, lists 'US Treasury Bills $0', '$78,900.88' of cash, and $501,850,000 — 99.98% — as a single balance at First Digital Trust Limited, which the same report says 'has invested all or substantially all of the collateral in other instruments to generate yield, which cannot be readily convertible to cash, and are subject to ongoing legal proceedings.' Techteryx has a worldwide freezing order from the DIFC Courts over up to US$456 million and says it has arranged separate 'alternative liquidity' so that tokens 'in public circulation' can still be redeemed — while the same report discloses that 412,585,497.92 of the 494,515,082.75 tokens issued are held by Techteryx itself. A close second: the Terms of Use you agree to name no company at all — 'Company' is defined as 'us', and a search of the full Terms for 'Ltd', 'Limited', 'LLC', 'Inc.' and 'Techteryx' returns zero hits — and those same Terms state that 'the Company does not guarantee any right of redemption or exchange of TrueUSD tokens for US Dollars.'
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 TUSD (TrueUSD)'s 1/10 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?
TUTUSD (TrueUSD)
TUSD (TrueUSD) 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.
TUSD (TrueUSD)Score 53A live stablecoin whose binding Terms of Use name no legal entity and expressly do not guarantee redemption, and whose own same-day assurance report — reasonable assurance under ISAE 3000 (Revised), signed by Moore CPA Limited — shows US Treasury Bills of $0 and 99.98% of the reserve sitting as a single at-cost balance at First Digital Trust Limited that the report says 'cannot be readily convertible to cash' and is subject to ongoing legal proceedings.Strength: Redemption right exercised — 3/10Watch-out: That the reserve backing it holds zero US Treasury Bills. TUSD's own assurance report, dated 19 August 2026 and signed by Moore CPA Limited, lists 'US Treasury Bills $0', '$78,900.88' of cash, and $501,850,000 — 99.98% — as a single balance at First Digital Trust Limited, which the same report says 'has invested all or substantially all of the collateral in other instruments to generate yield, which cannot be readily convertible to cash, and are subject to ongoing legal proceedings.' Techteryx has a worldwide freezing order from the DIFC Courts over up to US$456 million and says it has arranged separate 'alternative liquidity' so that tokens 'in public circulation' can still be redeemed — while the same report discloses that 412,585,497.92 of the 494,515,082.75 tokens issued are held by Techteryx itself. A close second: the Terms of Use you agree to name no company at all — 'Company' is defined as 'us', and a search of the full Terms for 'Ltd', 'Limited', 'LLC', 'Inc.' and 'Techteryx' returns zero hits — and those same Terms state that 'the Company does not guarantee any right of redemption or exchange of TrueUSD tokens for US Dollars.'
Ripple USD (RLUSD)Leads
Choose Ripple USD (RLUSD) if counterparty and insolvency rank matters most
Counterparty and insolvency rank: 5/10 against 1/10 for TUSD (TrueUSD) (weight 30)
Redemption right exercised: 5/10 against 3/10 for TUSD (TrueUSD) (weight 28)
Reserve and assurance scope: 8/10 against 2/10 for TUSD (TrueUSD) (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 4 of 10weight 7.2 of 86Ripple USD (RLUSD) leads
TUSD (TrueUSD)1/10 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
TUSD (TrueUSD)3/10 out of 10
Ripple USD (RLUSD)5/10 out of 10
Reserve and assurance scope
by 6 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Ripple USD (RLUSD) leads
TUSD (TrueUSD)2/10 out of 10
Ripple USD (RLUSD)8/10 out of 10
Seizure and upgrade authority
by 2 of 10weight 4.3 of 86Ripple USD (RLUSD) leads
TUSD (TrueUSD)3/10 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
TUSD (TrueUSD)14/20Ripple USD (RLUSD)14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
TUSD (TrueUSD)5.2/30Ripple USD (RLUSD)13.7/30
Ripple USD (RLUSD) leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
TUSD (TrueUSD)2.7/10Ripple USD (RLUSD)2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
TUSD (TrueUSD)3.2/8Ripple USD (RLUSD)3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
TUSD (TrueUSD)8.3/18Ripple USD (RLUSD)8.3/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Ripple USD (RLUSD) unless the term TUSD (TrueUSD) leads on is the one you are buying.
TUSD (TrueUSD) 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% (TUSD (TrueUSD) 3/10, 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% (TUSD (TrueUSD) 1/10, Ripple USD (RLUSD) 5/10)
Scored by What is really behind it, and what did the third party actually opine on? · 24% (TUSD (TrueUSD) 2/10, 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% (TUSD (TrueUSD) 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 22 points above TUSD (TrueUSD), led by counterparty and insolvency rank, redemption right exercised, and reserve and assurance scope. Published scores, out of 100: TUSD (TrueUSD) 53 (rank 11 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
