Ripple USD (RLUSD)
Best for collateralised issuance at scale
How it rates
- $1,584m circulating, recorded independently
- Collateralised model (fiat-backed)
- Issued across 2 chains
- Reserve attestations are not scored in this category
Each indicator scores 2, 1 or 0. A pillar is the points earned over the points available; the overall score is the weighted sum. Every source below is public — check any of them yourself.
- MetPeg mechanism disclosed in the public dataset
Mechanism recorded as fiat-backed.
stablecoins.llama.fi/stablecoins - MetBacking model is collateralised rather than algorithmic
Recorded as fiat-backed.
stablecoins.llama.fi/stablecoins - MetCirculating supply published independently
$1,584m circulating at this check.
stablecoins.llama.fi/stablecoins - Met
- MetPrice tracked and at peg in the public dataset
Recorded price 1.0002.
stablecoins.llama.fi/stablecoins
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Not met
- Not met
- Not met
- Not met
- MetTraded within 0.5% of peg at this check
Recorded price 1.0002; deviation 0.02%.
stablecoins.llama.fi/stablecoins
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
A fiat-backed stablecoin issued under a New York trust charter, with $1.58bn circulating across two chains and a cross-border payments focus.
Our assessment
RLUSD has $1.58bn circulating across two chains and traded 0.02% above parity at this check. It is issued under a New York trust charter and aimed squarely at cross-border payment settlement rather than at DeFi.
Built for the corridor business
Cross-border payments are where a stablecoin's advantages are clearest: settlement in seconds instead of days, at a fraction of correspondent banking cost. RLUSD exists to serve institutional payment flows through an issuer with existing banking relationships in that business — a narrower target than a general-purpose dollar, and a more concrete one.
Regulatory standing is deliberate
A New York trust charter brings reserve requirements, examinations and reporting obligations. For an issuer whose customers are banks and payment companies, that supervision is a prerequisite rather than a nice-to-have: those institutions cannot use an asset their own regulators would question.
Two chains, and what that implies
Deployment on two chains is narrow compared with USDC's 154 or USDT's 130, reflecting an institutional settlement focus rather than broad retail circulation. If your use case is DeFi across many networks, this is the wrong instrument regardless of its quality.
Who it suits
RLUSD fits institutions settling cross-border payments and users within its ecosystem. Users wanting broad DeFi and exchange support should hold USDC or USDT.
How rivals compare
Frequently asked
Does this score assess the quality of reserves?
No. Reserve attestations vary too much between issuers to compare from one public source. The score covers backing model, scale and distribution; read the issuer's own reserve reporting separately.
Where does the data come from?
A public stablecoin dataset queried at the verification date. Anyone can re-run the same query.
Why are algorithmic stablecoins scored lower?
The rubric credits collateralised backing explicitly. Algorithmic designs have the weakest track record and the indicator reflects that.