World Liberty Financial USD (USD1)
Best for collateralised issuance at scale
How it rates
- $4,027m circulating, recorded independently
- Collateralised model (fiat-backed)
- Issued across 8 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
$4,027m circulating at this check.
stablecoins.llama.fi/stablecoins - MetIssuer identifiable from the public record
Issued as World Liberty Financial USD.
stablecoins.llama.fi/stablecoins - MetPrice tracked and at peg in the public dataset
Recorded price 0.9998.
stablecoins.llama.fi/stablecoins
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Not met
- Not met
- Not met
- MetTraded within 0.5% of peg at this check
Recorded price 0.9998; deviation 0.02%.
stablecoins.llama.fi/stablecoins
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
A fiat-backed stablecoin with $4.03bn circulating across eight chains, issued by a venture with prominent political associations.
Our assessment
USD1 has $4.03bn circulating across eight chains and traded 0.02% from parity at this check. It is issued by a venture with prominent political associations in the United States, which is the most consequential fact about it and one our rubric does not score.
What our score measures here
Our stablecoin criteria examine backing type, peg stability, chain coverage, circulating scale and published disclosure. USD1 performs well on those. It says nothing about the issuer's associations, because our rubric has no indicator for political risk — and pretending otherwise would be worse than stating the limit plainly.
Why the association matters anyway
A stablecoin whose issuer is closely tied to political figures faces risks other issuers do not: shifts in political fortune, conflict-of-interest scrutiny, and regulatory treatment that could change sharply with an administration. These are real risks to a holder and they are not measurable by the same yardstick as reserve composition.
Rapid growth deserves scrutiny
Reaching $4bn quickly is unusual. Where growth is driven by relationships and mandated usage rather than organic demand, it can reverse just as quickly — and a stablecoin's usefulness depends on liquidity persisting when you need to exit.
Who it suits
USD1 fits users with a specific reason to hold it who have formed their own view of the issuer. Users wanting a stablecoin whose risks are financial rather than political should hold USDC, USDT or PYUSD.
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.