Circle USYC (USYC)
Best for collateralised issuance at scale
How it rates
- $3,005m circulating, recorded independently
- Collateralised model (fiat-backed)
- Issued across 2 chains
- Recorded price 1.1334 sits 13.3% from the peg at this check
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
$3,005m circulating at this check.
stablecoins.llama.fi/stablecoins - Met
- Not metPrice tracked and at peg in the public dataset
Recorded price 1.1334.
stablecoins.llama.fi/stablecoins
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Not met
- Not met
- Not met
- Not metTraded within 0.5% of peg at this check
Recorded price 1.1334; deviation 13.34%.
stablecoins.llama.fi/stablecoins
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
A tokenised yield-bearing treasury instrument holding $3.01bn, whose price rises with accrued yield rather than tracking one dollar.
Our assessment
USYC has $3.01bn circulating and traded at 1.1334 at this check — 13.34% above a dollar. That is not a broken peg. It is a yield-accruing instrument whose value rises as interest accumulates, and reading it as a failed stablecoin is a misunderstanding worth correcting.
Accruing tokens versus rebasing tokens
There are two ways to pay yield on-chain: increase the number of tokens held, or increase the value of each token. USYC does the second, so one token is worth progressively more than a dollar. Our dataset classifies it among stablecoins and records a large deviation from parity — the classification is what is off, not the instrument.
What it actually is
A tokenised short-duration treasury instrument, aimed at institutional cash management rather than at payments. It is a place to hold dollars that earn, not a token to trade with. Anyone using it as a settlement asset would be exposed to a price that moves — by design, upward — which is not what a payment needs.
Read the mechanism before the price
This is the general lesson: a token trading meaningfully away from a dollar is either broken or not trying to be a dollar, and the difference is entirely in the mechanism. Falcon USD at 0.37% below parity and USYC at 13% above are opposite situations, and only one of them is a warning.
Who it suits
USYC fits institutions wanting on-chain treasury yield with a regulated issuer. Users needing a stable settlement asset should hold USDC — from the same issuer, and designed for that purpose.
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.