United Stables (U)
Best for collateralised issuance at scale
How it rates
- $1,210m circulating, recorded independently
- Collateralised model (crypto-backed)
- Issued across 3 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 crypto-backed.
stablecoins.llama.fi/stablecoins - MetBacking model is collateralised rather than algorithmic
Recorded as crypto-backed.
stablecoins.llama.fi/stablecoins - MetCirculating supply published independently
$1,210m circulating at this check.
stablecoins.llama.fi/stablecoins - Met
- MetPrice tracked and at peg in the public dataset
Recorded price 0.9996.
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 0.9996; deviation 0.04%.
stablecoins.llama.fi/stablecoins
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
A crypto-backed stablecoin with $1.21bn circulating across three chains, holding its peg closely over a comparatively short history.
Our assessment
United Stables has $1.21bn circulating across three chains and traded 0.04% from parity at this check. It has achieved real scale quickly, which is the thing to examine rather than to take as reassurance.
Fast growth in stablecoins usually has a driver
A billion dollars does not accumulate through organic preference. It comes from incentives, from an ecosystem mandating its use, or from a yield that exceeds alternatives. Identifying which applies tells you whether the circulation persists when the driver stops — and stablecoin liquidity that leaves is exactly the liquidity you needed to exit.
Crypto-backed means the collateral is the product
For a crypto-backed dollar, everything depends on what secures it: overcollateralisation ratio, collateral composition, liquidation mechanics, and whether the collateral is correlated with the token's own ecosystem. These are readable on-chain, which is the advantage of the design over fiat backing — and it requires actually reading them.
A short history is a real limitation
Stablecoins are judged by behaviour in crises. Established tokens have been through exchange collapses, bank failures and coordinated attacks. A newer token has not, and no amount of current peg tightness substitutes for that. This is the one form of evidence that cannot be accelerated.
Who it suits
United Stables fits users within its ecosystem who have read the collateral composition. Users wanting a stablecoin proven through multiple crises should hold USDT, USDC or Dai.
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.