USDD (USDD)
Best for collateralised issuance at scale
How it rates
- $1,507m circulating, recorded independently
- Collateralised model (crypto-backed)
- Issued across 4 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
$1,507m circulating at this check.
stablecoins.llama.fi/stablecoins - Met
- MetPrice tracked and at peg in the public dataset
Recorded price 0.9993.
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 0.9993; deviation 0.07%.
stablecoins.llama.fi/stablecoins
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
A crypto-backed stablecoin on TRON with $1.51bn circulating across four chains, redesigned as overcollateralised after an earlier algorithmic model.
Our assessment
USDD has $1.51bn circulating across four chains and traded 0.07% below parity at this check. It launched with an algorithmic design and has since been reworked toward overcollateralisation, which is the essential context for evaluating it.
Algorithmic stablecoins have a specific failure mode
The 2022 collapse of a large algorithmic stablecoin destroyed tens of billions of dollars in days. The mechanism fails the same way each time: the peg holds while confidence holds, and unwinds catastrophically when it does not, because the backing was reflexive rather than real. Moving to overcollateralisation is a recognition that the original model does not work.
Verify the collateral, not the label
Overcollateralised means backed by assets worth more than the tokens issued. What matters is which assets, held where, and how the ratio is verified — collateral consisting largely of the issuing ecosystem's own tokens is reflexive in the same way the algorithmic design was. Read the current composition rather than the description.
Ecosystem concentration
USDD is closely tied to the TRON ecosystem, whose governance and major protocols are concentrated among a small group of associated entities. For a stablecoin, that concentration reaches the assets backing it and the governance setting its parameters.
Who it suits
USDD fits TRON users who need a stablecoin within that ecosystem and have read the current collateral composition. Users wanting established backing should hold USDT, which also circulates heavily on TRON.
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.