Published verdictRanking snapshot 3 November 2026
USDC leads by 2 points
USDC scores 2 points above Ripple USD (RLUSD), led by counterparty and insolvency rank.
USDC #2 of 1177
Ripple USD (RLUSD) #3 of 1175Why, term by termUSDC leads on 1 of 4 published criteria; Ripple USD (RLUSD) on 1. The terms sum to the gap.
TermUSDCRipple USD (RLUSD)WeightPoints
Counterparty and insolvency rank7/105/107.2+3.7for USDC+1.9 of 32
Seizure and upgrade authority4/105/104.3−1.1for Ripple USD (RLUSD)−0.6 of 32
Net of the terms+2.6
Reproduced gap+2.6
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below7775+2.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
USDCScore 77The best-documented dollar token in the pool — CUSIP-level reserve detail, a Deloitte-signed monthly examination, named repo counterparties on an SEC fund filing and a published blocklist aggregate — sold under a headline ("Always.") that Circle’s own SEC filing contradicts: outside the EEA, Circle does not redeem from anyone who is not a Circle Mint customer, and Mint is closed to individuals.Strength: Reserve and assurance scope — 8/10Watch-out: The buyer will read "USDC is always redeemable 1:1 for US dollars, and EURC is always redeemable 1:1 for euros. Always." on circle.com/transparency, directly above a panel dated "As of Sep 24, 2026" (read 2026-09-29), and reasonably conclude the word applies to them. It does not. Circle’s own Form 10-Q filed 2026-08-05 states "the Company does not redeem Circle stablecoins from stablecoin holders who are not Circle Mint customers" outside the EU carve-out, and circle.com/circle-mint states "Circle Mint is not available to individuals". Outside the EEA a private holder has no redemption right at all — only an exit at whatever the secondary market pays, which is exactly what broke in March 2023. The second sting is one the first pass did not reach: even inside a Mint account, the binding agreement lets Circle suspend the account "as determined in our sole and absolute discretion" and then says that on closure or suspension you "forfeit all proprietary rights and claims against Circle in relation to any U.S. Dollar or euro funds otherwise eligible for redemption". The third: the protection most buyers assume the new OCC charter already delivers is not in place — the 10-K says Circle National Trust "will hold a first-priority perfected security interest in the USDC reserve as collateral trustee for the benefit of USDC holders" in the future tense, and circle.com/circle-national-trust still says it is only "expected to manage the USDC reserves" over time.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.