FinWiki
日EN中

USD stablecoin issuer ten-way comparison matrix — USDT / USDC / PYUSD / RLUSD / USD1 / FDUSD / USDS / USDe / M / USDB

Confidence: Likely Updated 2026-05-25 Review by 2026-11-25 Sources 12 Machine-translated Original (JA)
#fintech#stablecoin#issuer#matrix#comparison#usdt
On this page

Wiki route

This entry sits underfintech indexas the cross-issuer side-by-side comparison matrix for the ten most-cited USD-denominated stablecoin products and issuers in the2026-Q2 dataset. It complements the per-issuer deep dives atTether USDT, Circle USDC, PayPal PYUSD, Ripple RLUSD, World Liberty USD1, First Digital FDUSD, Sky USDS, M^0 / M Network, andStripe USDB. For the regulatory context seeGENIUS Act §501, five-pole regulatory matrix, andU.S. / EU / Japan \"three major circles\" stablecoin global compliance architecture; for the broader consolidation arc see2025-2026 market consolidation.

[!info] TL;DR Ten USD stablecoin issuers anchor the2026-Q2 dataset: USDT (Tether, ~$145B, gray-circle dominant), USDC (Circle, ~$65B, white-circle dominant), USDS (Sky / ex-MakerDAO, ~$8.5B + DAI$4B legacy, decentralised RWA-backed), USDe (Ethena, ~$5.2B, synthetic delta-neutral), FDUSD (First Digital, ~$3B, Binance-pair), USD1 (WLFI, ~$2.1B, political-brand), PYUSD (PayPal, ~$1B+, payment-company-branded), USDB (Stripe Bridge, ~$800M, vertically-integrated), RLUSD (Ripple, ~$700M+, bank-grade compliance), M (M0 Foundation managed across8+ issuers, ~$300M aggregate, neutral infrastructure). Total ~$235B USD stablecoin supply, with USDT + USDC ~85%concentration despite challenger growth. Read across the matrix: reserves model bifurcates between UST + cash (compliant) and mixed-collateral / synthetic (Tether and Ethena); regulatory home bifurcates between GENIUS-compliant US issuers (Circle, Paxos, BitGo, Standard Custody) and offshore/non-US (Tether, First Digital, Sky); transfer mechanism bifurcates between mint/burn (centralised issuers) and swap (decentralised USDS); GENIUS §501 compliance status is now the binding regulatory variable that determines US institutional distribution access.

Why a ten-way comparison

Single-issuer narratives (“USDT dominates EM,” “USDC is the compliant standard”) capture different parts of the truth but conceal the structural bifurcation introduced by GENIUS Act §501. By placing all ten products side-by-side on supply / reserves model / regulatory home / custodian / audit firm / transfer mechanism / yield distribution / chain coverage / GENIUS §501 compliance, the post-§501 market structure becomes visible. The matrix also exposes the three categorical types that have crystallised: (a) payment stablecoins (USDT, USDC, PYUSD, RLUSD, USDB, FDUSD, USD1 — pegged1:1, redeemable), (b) synthetic/decentralised dollars (USDS, USDe — different reserves model, different regulatory home), and (c) neutral infrastructure (M^0 — not a brand but a white-label issuance layer). For the issuer × distributor incentive split see50-50 modelandstablecoin revenue split economics.

Matrix A · Supply, market cap, inception

Issuer / tokenSupply (2026-Q2)InceptionIssuer entity
Tether USDT~$145B2014Tether Limited (BVI / El Salvador)
Circle USDC~$65B2018-10Circle Internet Financial Inc. (Boston; NYSE: CRCL since2025-06)
Sky USDS + DAI legacy~$8.5B USDS + $4B DAI = $12.5B aggregateUSDS2024-09 (rebrand from DAI/MakerDAO)Sky / MakerDAO (DAO governance)
Ethena USDe + sUSDe~$5.2B2024-02Ethena Labs (BVI)
First Digital FDUSD~$3B2023-06First Digital Trust (Hong Kong)
WLFI USD1~$2.1B2025-Q1 deployment (2024-09 launch)World Liberty Financial; BitGo Trust Company (SD State Trust) issues
PayPal PYUSD~$1B+2023-08-07Paxos Trust Company (NY DFS Trust)
Stripe USDB~$800M+2024-Q1 (USDB)Bridge Inc. (Stripe wholly-owned subsidiary since2024-10)
Ripple RLUSD~$700M+2024-12-17Standard Custody (Ripple subsidiary; NY DFS Trust)
M0 Network M~$300M aggregate (across8+ white-label issuers)2024-10 mainnetM^0 Foundation; multiple front-end issuers

The double-oligopoly hardening is the headline pattern: USDT + USDC ~$210B = ~85%of total USD stablecoin supply; the eight challengers + M^0 collectively ~$30B = ~15%. This concentration has increased since2023 (then ~70%), not decreased, despite the challenger entry wave — the GENIUS Act and MiCA killed the weak tail (BUSD, TUSD, GUSD, USDP retail) and locked in a small but legitimate second tier.

Matrix B · Reserves model

IssuerReserves compositionReserves segregationYield source
USDTMixed: ~75%UST + secured loans + BTC + gold + other; quarterly attestation (BDO)Not narrow-reserve; mixed-asset commercial portfolioUST yield + non-Treasury earning assets
USDC100%short UST + cash in Circle Reserve Fund (SEC-registered MMF, BlackRock-managed)BNY Mellon custody; segregated MMF wrapperUST yield only
USDS / DAIRWA-backed: ~$1.5B RWA collateral including ~$300M BlackRock BUIDL (indirect via vault) + ETH-collateralised CDPs + other crypto + USDCSmart-contract collateralised vaultsUST yield (via BUIDL) + RWA yield + protocol fees
USDeETH delta-neutral basis trade (long ETH spot + short ETH perp) + tokenised USTOff-chain perp positions + on-chain USTETH perp funding rate + UST yield
FDUSD85%UST +12%cash +3%MMFFirst Digital Trust HK custodial; disputed reserve-custody question (2024-12 The Block investigation)UST yield
USD1100%UST + cash via BitGo TrustBitGo custodialUST yield (channelled to WLFI token holders, not USD1 holders)
PYUSD100%UST + cash via PaxosPaxos NY DFS Trust segregationUST yield (80-90%to PayPal as distribution incentive)
USDB100%short UST + overnight repo; partial via BUIDL holdingBridge / Stripe custodialUST yield (100%retained by Stripe)
RLUSD100%short UST1-3M + cash via Standard CustodyStandard Custody NY DFS TrustUST yield
MBUIDL + UST + cash (M^0 unified template); individual issuer flexibilityM^0 smart-contract template + Securitize-style segregation per issuerUST yield (via BUIDL); shared by white-label issuer

The reserves bifurcation is binary: narrow UST + cash (USDC, PYUSD, RLUSD, USDB, USD1, M^0) vs mixed-collateral or synthetic (USDT, USDS, USDe). FDUSD sits at the edge — narrow on paper but with disputed custody arrangements. The narrow-reserve cluster maps almost perfectly onto GENIUS §501 compliance status (see Matrix I below).

Matrix C · Regulatory home and licensure

IssuerIssuer-entity jurisdictionOperating license / charter
Tether USDTBVI + El Salvador (since2025); no US licenseNone US; El Salvador Digital Asset Service Provider; offshore-first
Circle USDCBoston, US (NYSE-listed CRCL)US MTL all-states + NY DFS BitLicense + EU MiCA EMT + Singapore MPI
Sky USDSDAO governance (no single legal entity)DAO; protocol-level operation; legal structure intentionally diffuse
Ethena USDeBVIOffshore; explicitly carved out of GENIUS payment-stablecoin scope as “synthetic”
First Digital FDUSDHong KongHK trust; HKMA stablecoin license pending (2026-Q3 expected; delayed from Q2 over Sun-affiliate dispute)
WLFI USD1US (BitGo SD State Trust as issuer)BitGo SD State Trust charter
PayPal PYUSDUS (Paxos NY DFS Trust as issuer)Paxos NY DFS Trust
Stripe USDBUS (Bridge as Stripe subsidiary)Bridge MTL + state charters; EU + Japan licensure pending
Ripple RLUSDUS (Standard Custody NY DFS Trust as issuer)Standard Custody NY DFS Trust; Ripple OCC National Bank Charter application2026-Q1 (pending)
M0 MUS foundation + multi-issuer (decentralised governance)$M DAO token + multi-jurisdiction issuer compliance

The regulatory-home pattern shows four categorical structures: (a) US trust-issuer (PYUSD, RLUSD, USD1, partially USDC) — the most regulator-friendly path; (b) US operating company (USDC, USDB) — full payment-services licensure; (c) offshore (USDT, USDe) — explicitly outside GENIUS payment-stablecoin scope; (d) DAO / multi-issuer (USDS, M) — intentionally diffuse. The HK trust route (FDUSD) is a fifth category — designed for Asia-Pacific compliance with HKMA but not GENIUS.

Matrix D · Custodian and audit firm

IssuerCustodianAudit / attestation firmCadence
USDTMixed bank relationships (not publicly comprehensive)BDO Italia (Cantor Fitzgerald confirmation2024)Quarterly
USDCBNY Mellon (Circle Reserve Fund)Deloitte + Circle Reserve Fund SEC reportingMonthly + SEC filings
USDSMulti-vault smart-contract architectureOn-chain transparency + RWA vault attestationsContinuous on-chain + per-vault
USDeOff-chain perp custody (Copper, Ceffu, others) + on-chain USTChaos Labs + multiple attestation partnersMonthly
FDUSDFirst Digital Trust HKPrescient AssuranceMonthly
USD1BitGo Trust CompanyBitGo internal attestation (limited disclosure)Monthly
PYUSDPaxos in-house + bank depositsWithumSmith+BrownMonthly
USDBBridge custodial; partial BUIDL via BNY (through BUIDL underlying)BPM LLPMonthly
RLUSDStandard Custody (NY DFS Trust)BDO USAMonthly
MM^0 smart-contract template + SecuritizeOpenZeppelin + Trail of Bits + Certora smart-contract auditsContinuous + audit per issuer

The audit firm tier is visible: Deloitte (USDC) > WithumSmith+Brown (PYUSD) > BDO USA (RLUSD) > Withum (PYUSD) > BPM LLP (USDB) > Prescient Assurance (FDUSD) > BitGo internal (USD1) > BDO Italia (USDT quarterly). The custodian tier is similarly stratified: BNY Mellon (USDC) > Paxos NY DFS Trust (PYUSD) > Standard Custody (RLUSD) > BitGo (USD1) > Bridge custodial (USDB) > FDT HK (FDUSD) > Tether mixed bank relationships (USDT). The bilateral concentration of BNY Mellon as custodian for USDC + BUIDL + indirectly USDB (via BUIDL routing) + indirectly USDS (via BUIDL RWA vault) is now the largest single custody concentration in the USD stablecoin supply chain.

Matrix E · Transfer mechanism (mint/burn vs swap vs hybrid)

IssuerTransfer mechanismCross-chain mechanism
USDTMint/burn at issuer level; per-chain wrapped USDTMulti-chain native + Tether bridges
USDCMint/burn at Circle; native on every supported chainCCTP V2 burn-and-mint across18+ chains (no wrapped versions)
USDSVault-based mint/burn against collateral; DAO-governedNative on Ethereum, Base, Solana (2026-Q1)
USDeMint via collateral deposit (ETH spot + perp short); redeem by closing positionEthereum-only (delta-neutral basis requires deep ETH perp)
FDUSDMint/burn at First Digital TrustMulti-chain wrapping; Justin Sun reserve dispute affects custody-chain trust
USD1Mint/burn at BitGoMulti-chain wrapping
PYUSDMint/burn at PaxosMulti-chain wrapping; Solana primary (~80%)
USDBMint/burn at BridgeMulti-chain wrapping; Tempo L1 in development
RLUSDMint/burn at Standard CustodyDual-launch XRPL + Ethereum native; expansion planned
MMint/burn via M^0 unified contract template; white-label per issuerM^0 multi-chain template

The transfer-mechanism bifurcation is between centralised mint/burn (every issuer in the table except USDS and USDe) and DAO / collateral-vault-based mechanisms (USDS, USDe). USDe is uniquely synthetic — it does not hold $1 of UST per $1 of USDe issued; it holds ETH spot + short ETH perp positions such that the net delta-neutral position is approximately worth $1. USDS is uniquely decentralised-collateralised — it mints against multi-asset vaults rather than1:1 reserve. USDC’s CCTP V2 burn-and-mint architecture is the cleanest cross-chain mechanism — every chain’s USDC is Circle-issued native, not a wrapped variant.

Matrix F · Yield distribution and economics

IssuerIssuer reserve yieldHolder receives yield?Distributor share
USDTTether retains ~all UST/loan yield; ~$1.5T/year profitNon/a (no formal distributor share)
USDCCircle retains, splits50-50 with CoinbaseNo (GENIUS §501 forbids SC issuer paying yield)Coinbase50%share (~$1B/year2025)
USDS / sUSDSSky retains protocol fees; sUSDS staked variant receives5-8%APY (Spark SSR rate)Yes via sUSDS staking (routes around §501)DAO governance
USDe / sUSDeEthena Labs retains some; sUSDe staked variant receives12-18%APY in bull cyclesYes via sUSDe stakingn/a (DeFi-protocol-distributor mix)
FDUSDFirst Digital retains; Binance receives undisclosed non-yield incentives (market-maker preferences)NoBinance (informal)
USD1WLFI / BitGo retains UST yield; channelled to WLFI token holdersNo (USD1 holders get nothing; yield routes to WLFI token)WLFI token distribution mechanism
PYUSDPaxos retains nominal; 80-90%of yield to PayPalNoPayPal80-90%share
USDBStripe retains100%of yield (no distributor split — Stripe is both issuer and distributor)Non/a (vertically integrated)
RLUSDStandard Custody / Ripple retainsNoRipple internal economics
MM^0 charges bps fees; white-label issuer captures most yieldNo (white-label issuer determines)Per-issuer model

The yield-distribution economics are the canonical case for the50-50 distributor-realignment model: distributors capture50-90%of USD stablecoin economics because they control consumer reach. USDB is the unique exception — Stripe retains100%because Stripe is both issuer and distributor (vertically integrated). USDe and USDS are the only products where the SC holder receives yield directly (via the staked variant) — both route around GENIUS §501 by structuring yield as a separate-product staking opportunity rather than as direct SC interest. USD1 is the most unusual — yield routes to WLFI token holders (political-supporter economic reward) rather than to USD1 holders.

Matrix G · Chain coverage

IssuerPrimary chainsTotal chains live
USDTThrone (~58%) + Ethereum + BSC + Solana12+
USDCEthereum + Base + Solana +18 more via CCTP18+ native (all via CCTP)
USDSEthereum + Base + Solana (2026-Q1)3 primary
USDeEthereum-only1 (basis trade requires ETH perp depth)
FDUSDBNB Chain (~55%) + Ethereum (~40%) + Solana (5%)3
USD1BNB Chain + Tron + Ethereum + Solana4
PYUSDSolana (~80%) + Ethereum + Decision3
USDBEthereum + Base + Tempo L1 (planned2026-Q3)2 (3 planned)
RLUSDXRPL + Ethereum2
MEthereum + Base + Arbitrum + Solana (planned)3 (4 planned)

Chain-deployment specialisation is itself a signal of consolidation: each issuer places focused bets on1-3 primary chains. USDC’s CCTP V2 is the broadest reach (18+ chains); USDe is the most concentrated (Ethereum-only); FDUSD and USDT lean to BSC/Tron (Binance and EM-remittance chains respectively); PYUSD made the 2024-05 strategic break to Solana-primary that no other top-10 stablecoin had previously done; USDB / Tempo L1 is the first vertically-integrated stablecoin-and-chain stack (Stripe + Paradigm building both).

Matrix H · Distribution channel

IssuerPrimary distribution channel
USDTGlobal gray-circle exchanges (Binance, OKX, Bybit) + EM remittance (LATAM, Africa, MENA)
USDCCoinbase + Binance + global CEX + institutional treasury + DeFi (Aave, Compound, Morpho)
USDSDeFi-native (Spark Protocol, MakerDAO heritage protocols); USDS Solana for new-user reach
USDeDeFi perps + delta-neutral funds + crypto-degen wallets
FDUSDBinance main pair only (BTC/FDUSD ~$1.5B/day); single-distributor risk
USD1Bridge (Stripe) + political-network distribution + sovereign treasury allocations
PYUSDPayPal (~400M active accounts) + Venmo + PayPal World cross-border P2P
USDBStripe5M+ merchants (vertically integrated; B2B-merchant default)
RLUSDRippleNet200+ banks + ODL corridor + Bitstamp (post-Robinhood acquisition)
M8+ white-label issuers (long-tail stablecoin operators)

The distribution-channel pattern reveals complementary niches rather than direct overlap: USDT owns gray-circle EM; USDC owns compliant institutional + DeFi; PYUSD owns consumer P2P retail; RLUSD owns bank-to-bank cross-border; FDUSD owns Binance trading-pair market; USDB owns B2B merchant rails; USDS / USDe own DeFi degen + native-yield seekers; USD1 owns the political-network niche; M^0 owns the long-tail “want our own SC but cannot run reserves” market. This is the picture of bimodal competition with niche differentiation rather than direct head-to-head competition.

Matrix I · GENIUS Act §501 compliance status

Issuer§501 reserve-quality compliance§501 issuer-licensing complianceUS institutional distribution access
USDTFails (mixed reserves; BTC/Gold)Fails (no US trust / issuer license)Blocked — international gray-circle continues
USDCPassesPasses (Circle MTL + NY DFS BitLicense)Full access — white-circle benchmark
USDSBorderline (RWA vault + BUIDL indirect); decentralised governance argues “no issuer to license”Decentralised governance argues out-of-scope; untested in courtTenuous — depends on Treasury / SEC interpretation by2027-2028
USDeClassified as synthetic; explicitly carved out of payment SC scopeOut of payment SC scopeOut of scope — different regulatory category
FDUSDPasses on paper (UST + cash + MMF); reserve-custody disputedNo US license (HK trust); GENIUS-compliant only via foreign-issuer recognition routeBlocked from US institutional — Asia/Pacific market
USD1Passes (UST + cash via BitGo Trust)Passes (BitGo SD State Trust)Full access; political-credibility risk to GENIUS §501 neutrality
PYUSDPassesPasses (Paxos NY DFS Trust)Full access
USDBPassesPasses (Bridge subsidiary; Stripe US licenses)Full access
RLUSDPassesPasses (Standard Custody NY DFS Trust); OCC National Bank Charter pendingFull access
MM^0 template passes per issuer; varies by white-labelPer issuerPer issuer

The GENIUS §501 compliance status bifurcates the market into:

  • Passing: USDC, PYUSD, RLUSD, USD1, USDB, M^0 (per issuer) — full US institutional access
  • Failing on reserves: USDT (mixed reserves; offshore strategy)
  • Failing on licensing: FDUSD (HK trust without US recognition)
  • Out of scope: USDe (synthetic), USDS (decentralised; legally contested)

This matrix is the single most consequential dimension because it determines which issuers can offer institutional services (treasury management, asset-management custody, settlement for tokenized securities) in the US. The five “passes” issuers will collectively define the institutional USD-on-chain market by2028. The “fails” issuers will continue but in gray-circle EM (USDT) or Asia-Pacific (FDUSD) markets.

Why these dimensions

The nine matrix axes (supply, reserves, regulatory home, custodian, audit firm, transfer mechanism, yield distribution, chain coverage, GENIUS §501 compliance) were chosen because they map to the gating variables in post-GENIUS USD stablecoin market structure:

  1. Supply — measures realised scale (only metric LPs care about).
  2. Reserves — determines GENIUS §501 reserve-quality compliance (binary).
  3. Regulatory home — determines GENIUS §501 issuer-licensing compliance.
  4. Custodian — determines BNY-concentration risk and supply-chain dependencies.
  5. Audit firm — determines transparency tier and institutional acceptance.
  6. Transfer mechanism — determines cross-chain reach and operational architecture.
  7. Yield distribution — determines the economic split between issuer and distributor (the binding business-model variable).
  8. Chain coverage — determines accessible TAM.
  9. ** GENIUS §501 compliance status** — determines US institutional distribution access (binary).

Together, these nine variables explain why USDT and USDC have $210B combined supply (concentration), why PYUSD/RLUSD/USDB/USD1 are the new “passing” entrants (regulatory geometry), why USDS and USDe are structurally different products (different reserves model, different regulatory classification), and why M^0 represents the consolidating long-tail layer (neutral infrastructure for niche issuers). The matrix view exposes the structural map that per-issuer narratives obscure.

Reading the matrix

  • The post-GENIUS market is bimodal: USDT and USDC own ~85%; the remaining ~15%is split among eight legitimate challengers + M^0. The challenger wave did not dilute USDT/USDC — it killed the weak tail (BUSD, TUSD, GUSD, USDP) and crystallised a small but legitimate second tier.
  • The economic value sits with distributors, not issuers — confirmed by Coinbase50%of USDC, PayPal80-90%of PYUSD, Binance market-maker preferences in FDUSD, and Stripe’s100%retention as the only vertically integrated case (USDB). For pure issuers without distribution lock-in (Paxos brand-only USDP, Gemini GUSD), the business is dying.
  • Reserve-asset quality is the regulatory moat — issuers that can run a narrow-UST reserve get GENIUS-compliant institutional access; issuers that cannot get the international gray market. USDT’s mixed reserves earn higher yield (~$1.5T annual profit) but block US institutional access.
  • The three “categorically different” products are USDS, USDe, M. USDS is decentralised-collateralised (vault model, not1:1 UST); USDe is synthetic delta-neutral (no UST per token); M is neutral infrastructure (not a brand). These three should not be directly volume-compared to PYUSD or USDC — they serve fundamentally different markets and regulatory frameworks.
  • The BNY Mellon concentration is now systemic: custodian for Circle Reserve Fund (USDC) + BlackRock BUIDL (which backs USDB, USDS RWA vault indirectly, OUSG via Ondo). A BNY operational disruption would cascade across the compliant-USD-on-chain stack.
  • PYUSD’s2024-05 Solana-primary migration was the first time a top-10 stablecoin treated Solana as primary rather than secondary. USDC’s CCTP V2 broad reach + PYUSD Solana migration + USDB Tempo L1 announcement together mean multi-chain native deployment is now the table-stakes architecture.
  • USD1’s political-brand model is unique in routing reserve yield to WLFI token holders (political-supporter economic reward) rather than to USD1 holders. This is the cleanest GENIUS §501 workaround (yield goes to a separate token, not the SC), but it raises significant questions about §501 “neutrality” and the integrity of thethree-circles MRA framework.
  • FDUSD’s HKMA license delay (originally Q2, now Q3 2026) and the Justin Sun reserve-custody dispute mean FDUSD is the most fragile of the top-tier ($3B MCap is large but single-distributor + custody-dispute is a risk profile not present in PYUSD/RLUSD).

Sources