Welcome to USD1benchmarks.com

Introduction

Benchmarks are how professionals turn a foggy landscape into a readable map. In traditional finance, investors compare a bond fund to short-term Treasury measures or weigh a payment network against service-level targets. In the same spirit, USD1 stablecoins benefit from clear, neutral yardsticks that help people evaluate stability, usability, and operational quality.

This page offers a comprehensive, hype-free framework for benchmarking USD1 stablecoins. It is educational material intended for developers, analysts, risk officers, and policy audiences who need a grounded way to compare choices. The site belongs to the wider “USD1” family of descriptive domains. It does not promote a product or brand. The term USD1 stablecoins on this page always means any digital token that aims to remain redeemable one to one for U.S. dollars held in cash or equivalent instruments. It does not refer to any single issuer.

Throughout, we define jargon in plain English on first use. We also include numbered citations to primary sources so you can validate the concepts and align them with policy guidance and industry standards.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

Why benchmarks for USD1 stablecoins matter

USD1 stablecoins appear simple on the surface: one digital token equals one U.S. dollar. The reality is multifaceted. A token might maintain parity during quiet periods yet wobble when markets are stressed. It might convert quickly back to dollars at small sizes but not at scale. Some issuers publish deep, frequent disclosures; others provide only occasional snapshots. Benchmarks separate narratives from measurable outcomes.

Several public bodies have highlighted the importance of robust risk management, disclosures, and supervision in this area. The Financial Stability Board’s recommendations emphasize governance, reserve quality, redemption, and transparency for global arrangements.^[1] The U.S. President’s Working Group report calls for strong prudential standards, clear redemption rights, and risk controls.^[2] The Bank for International Settlements has explained both the potential and the risk channels of stable-value tokens, especially during stress.^[4] Market regulators have also noted the cross-border nature of crypto markets and the need for consistent outcomes.^[5] These perspectives underscore why benchmarking is not optional; it is how builders and users demonstrate that claims match reality.

A good benchmark is:

Specific: tied to a measurable property such as “time to redeem at $1 million” rather than vague notions of safety.
Comparable: computed the same way across tokens and venues so differences truly reflect performance, not measurement quirks.
Repeatable: feasible for independent parties to replicate using open procedures and documented data sources.
Relevant: aligned with how people actually use USD1 stablecoins in payments, trading, savings workflows, and settlement pipelines.

A neutral definition and scope

For clarity, we use the following neutral definition:

USD1 stablecoins are digital tokens designed to be redeemable one to one for U.S. dollars.
Issuer means the legal entity that creates or redeems the token.
Reserve assets are the cash and equivalent instruments held to meet redemption demands.
Redemption is the process of returning tokens to the issuer to receive U.S. dollars back.
On-chain means recorded on a public or permissioned blockchain network.
Off-chain means occurring within traditional banking or capital markets infrastructure.
Benchmark means a standard for comparison used to assess quality or risk (a benchmark is a defined measurement rule, not an endorsement).

The scope here includes fiat-redeemable designs, not algorithmic constructs that lack cash or equivalent reserve assets. Some jurisdictions classify fiat-redeemable tokens as e-money or similar objects; we point to public sources in the references so readers can align with their local framework.^[6]^[7]^[10]

A practical benchmarking framework

Below is a framework you can apply across USD1 stablecoins. Each category focuses on outcomes and evidence rather than brand claims.

1) Liquidity and market quality

Liquidity (the ability to convert size quickly without moving price much) is a first pillar. For USD1 stablecoins, consider three layers:

Direct redemption liquidity: How quickly and predictably a holder can redeem tokens for U.S. dollars through the issuer at different sizes.
Secondary market liquidity: The depth and stability of trading pairs on major venues in both crypto-to-crypto and crypto-to-fiat routes.
Path liquidity: The combined ease of moving from a starting asset to USD1 stablecoins, then to another destination asset or to cash, across chains and venues.

Key indicators:

Quoted spread (difference between best buy and best sell quote) on liquid venues.
Slippage (price impact when executing a trade) measured at standard sizes such as 10 thousand, 100 thousand, and 1 million U.S. dollars.
Depth near one dollar on both sides of the order book (the set of resting buy and sell orders).
Volume persistence across time windows to detect liquidity that vanishes during stress.
Chain transfer fees and confirmation time (how long it takes until a transfer is final enough to rely on).

Why it matters: Tokens that are easy to trade at scale tend to maintain parity better when markets are busy. Poor liquidity can amplify normal frictions into volatility.

2) Redemption and reserves

Redemption mechanics are the core promise of USD1 stablecoins. Several dimensions deserve attention:

Eligibility and access: Who can redeem directly, and what registration steps are required.
Processing time: Median, 95th percentile, and worst-case settlement duration from redemption request to receipt of U.S. dollars.
Fees: Total out-of-pocket fees including bank wires.
Reserve composition: Proportions of cash, short-term Treasury bills, overnight reverse repo, or other high-quality liquid assets.
Maturity and duration alignment: Whether assets mature quickly enough to honor redemptions without forced sales.
Segregation and legal structure: Whether reserves are held in segregated accounts and whether arrangements are bankruptcy remote (assets legally protected if the issuer becomes insolvent).
Concentration risk: Diversification across banks, custodians, and service providers.

Policy sources emphasize redemption rights, high-quality reserves, and strong governance for fiat-redeemable tokens.^[1]^[2]^[3] In addition to public disclosures, review the frequency and depth of independent attestations (an accountant’s examination that checks selected assertions against standards).^[8]

3) Transparency and assurance

Transparency means timely, decision-useful information. Benchmarks to consider:

Reporting cadence: How often the issuer publishes reserve snapshots and performance updates.
Granularity: Whether disclosures provide asset categories, maturities, and counterparties with enough detail to assess risk.
Assurance scope: Whether attestations cover existence, ownership, valuation, and restrictions, and whether procedures align with recognized standards such as SSAE 18 in the United States.^[8]
On-chain proof signals: If applicable, public addresses for treasury wallets, real-time mints and redemptions, and cryptographic proofs that help reconcile liabilities to assets.
Change logs: A documented history of material changes to policies or controls.

Transparency does not eliminate risk, but it makes risk legible, which enables oversight and market discipline.

4) Transfer and settlement performance

Settlement performance refers to the practical reliability of moving USD1 stablecoins from point A to point B. Indicators include:

Average confirmation time on supported chains.
Finality characteristics (how long until transactions are effectively irreversible).
Failure rate (how often transfers require manual intervention).
Bridge exposure when moving across chains through third parties.
Fee variability during peak activity.

These are essential for payments, trading, and treasury automation workflows. Where latency and predictability matter, even small differences in confirmation time or failure rate can have outsized operational effects.

5) Risk controls and compliance practices

A resilient arrangement rests on strong governance and controls. Evidence to look for:

Board and risk committee responsibilities with clear lines of accountability.
Counterparty management for banks, custodians, brokers, and technology vendors.
Operational resilience planning and testing, including incident response.
Financial crime controls and screening appropriate to the product.
Customer asset protections and clarity of rights.
Cybersecurity maturity aligned with widely recognized frameworks to reduce operational risk.^[9]

Policy references stress that governance, controls, and clarity of rights are foundational for tokens used at scale.^[1]^[2]^[5]

6) Resilience and stress behavior

How a token behaves during stress is as important as quiet-period performance. Benchmarks:

Depeg severity (how far and for how long market price departed from one dollar) during specified historic windows.
Redemption elasticity (how much redeemed over a short window without abnormal delays).
Reserve adaptability (ability to meet outflows without fire sales).
Communication speed (time from incident to public status update).
Post-event stabilization (duration to return to normal spreads and slippage).

Stress benchmarks should be replayable with public data where possible, and otherwise grounded in documented reports or attestations.

Methodologies and calculation notes

The usefulness of a benchmark depends on methods that others can reproduce. Below are practical approaches you can adapt.

Liquidity and market quality

Quoted spread: Capture best buy and sell quotes every minute across selected venues. Compute the average difference over a session. If using multiple venues, compute both venue-level results and a consolidated view weighted by trade activity.
Slippage: Simulate a marketable order that crosses the book for fixed sizes such as 10 thousand, 100 thousand, and 1 million U.S. dollars. Record the executed price relative to one dollar. Repeat across clock time, then publish median and high-percentile results.
Depth near one dollar: Sum displayed resting orders within one cent on both sides of one dollar. Track both absolute depth and depth scaled by typical daily turnover.
Volume persistence: Compute the share of activity that occurs outside the busiest hours to detect fragmentation or short-lived spikes.
Transfer cost: For each supported chain, record the average transaction fee paid during normal and busy intervals, plus the time from broadcast to confirmation.

Redemption and reserves

Redemption time: From a sample of test transactions or documented records, measure the time from redemption request submission to receipt of U.S. dollars in a bank account. Publish median, 95th percentile, and worst observed outcomes.
Fee schedule verification: Parse posted schedules and verify against actual charges from sample redemptions.
Reserve composition: Map the reported asset categories to a standardized taxonomy: cash, overnight repo, Treasury bills by maturity bucket, and other. Where available, record weighted average maturity and counterparty concentration.
Stress redemptions: During volatile periods, compute the largest daily redemption amount as a percentage of circulating supply, then cross-reference the issuer’s reported reserve change and cash sources.
Concentration: List top banking partners and custodians, and compute exposure as a share of reserves.

Transparency and assurance

Cadence: Count days between reserve reports and attestations.
Assurance scope: Extract which assertions were tested (existence, ownership, valuation, restrictions) and which standards were applied. SSAE 18 reports provide a structured way to describe control testing in U.S. practice.^[8]
Change logs: Track policy changes with dates and briefly summarize what changed.

Transfer and settlement

Confirmation measurement: For each chain, send small test transfers across typical conditions and record the time until the transaction is confirmed to the number of blocks considered safe for operational purposes.
Failure tracking: Record how many transfers failed or required manual resubmission over a rolling window.
Bridge exposure: Document third-party bridges used, their security models, and any known incidents.

Risk controls and resilience

Governance review: From public documents, identify board oversight, risk committee charters, and escalation processes.
Operational testing: Document whether the issuer publishes results of disaster recovery tests or breach simulations.
Event response: During stress, capture the time between incident detection and the first public communication, plus the cadence of updates thereafter.
Depeg analysis: Compute the maximum departure from one dollar on liquid venues and the time to re-convergence. Align the window with public time-stamped reports for traceability.

Practical examples

Below are illustrative examples expressed in plain English. They are not endorsements of any token or venue.

Example 1: Liquidity at scale
You want to convert 1 million U.S. dollars of USD1 stablecoins into bank dollars today. You first request a direct redemption with the issuer. If the queue is short and the wire cutoff has not passed, funds may arrive the same business day. If direct redemption is not available to you, you might instead sell USD1 stablecoins for U.S. dollars on a regulated exchange. The benchmark to record is the realized slippage from one dollar, plus the time to settle proceeds into your bank account.
Example 2: Cross-chain settlement
Your treasury needs to move USD1 stablecoins from a layer two network to a different chain for a supplier payout. You benchmark the total time from initiation to the supplier’s receipt, including any bridge leg. You also record fees, the number of intermediaries involved, and failure rate if retries are needed.
Example 3: Stress playback
During a volatile weekend, you measure the largest departure from one dollar across several venues and the duration until the price returns to parity. You align the window with public status updates from the issuer to gauge communication speed and market impact.
Example 4: Redemption fee realism
A posted fee schedule might look low, but you benchmark real-world costs by including bank wire charges and any minimums. You report the all-in cost per redemption size band so that small and large users can see their likely experience.
Example 5: Transparency cadence
You build a calendar of reserve reports and attestations for multiple issuers of USD1 stablecoins. You then publish the average and high-percentile gap between publications. That tells users whether disclosures arrive frequently enough to be decision-useful.

Data sources and verification

Reliable benchmarks depend on trustworthy data. Sources include:

Issuer disclosures: Reserve composition reports, attestation letters, fee schedules, and policy documents. Look for standardized attestations that follow recognized assurance standards to reduce ambiguity.^[8]
Public blockchains: On-chain transfer data can corroborate mint and redemption flows, wallet balances, and settlement timing.
Trading venues: Order book snapshots and trade prints show market quality and slippage behavior.
Independent research and policy: Publications from central banks, standard-setting bodies, and market regulators provide context for what “good” looks like at system scale.^[1]^[4]^[5]^[10]
Security frameworks: Recognized cybersecurity references help interpret operational controls.^[9]

Verification practices:

Triangulate: Do not rely on a single data feed. Compare issuer disclosures, venue data, and on-chain records.
Time-stamp: Archive snapshots with timestamps so others can replay calculations.
Document: Publish your methods clearly enough that another analyst can reproduce the results.

Geo and policy considerations

Policy approaches differ by jurisdiction. The European Union has established a comprehensive regime for crypto assets, including categories that cover fiat-redeemable tokens used for payments, with supervisory roles and safeguards.^[6] The International Monetary Fund has summarized policy elements that countries consider when crafting rules for crypto assets, including reserve quality, redemption rights, and operational risk controls.^[7] In the United States, the President’s Working Group and related agencies have outlined core principles such as strong prudential standards and clear consumer rights.^[2] The Federal Reserve’s public discussion of money and payments highlights the interplay between digital forms of the dollar, payments safety, and innovation.^[10]

For benchmarking purposes, the takeaway is straightforward: whichever jurisdiction you operate in, align your indicators with the local rule set. For example, if a regime requires segregated reserve accounts or daily reporting thresholds, incorporate benchmarks that test those requirements directly. Keep a running “policy compatibility” note alongside each metric so readers know when a result speaks to a specific rule in their region.

Red flags checklist

Benchmarks can also surface warning signs. Consider a result a caution signal when you find:

Material disclosure gaps: Reserve details are sparse or infrequent, and independent assurance is missing.
Unusual redemption frictions: Extended processing times, frequent suspensions, or inconsistent eligibility.
Concentrated counterparties: A very high share of reserves with one bank, custodian, or repo counterparty.
Persistent depegs: Price departures from one dollar that last beyond typical settlement cycles without credible explanations.
Opaque cross-chain flows: Heavy use of bridges without clear visibility into security assumptions or controls.
Inadequate incident reporting: Security or operational events with slow or incomplete public updates.

None of these automatically mean a product is unsafe, but each deserves deeper analysis and, ideally, corroborating data.

How to build your own benchmark dashboard

A public dashboard makes benchmarks visible and fosters accountability. You can assemble one with these pragmatic steps:

Define the scope first
Choose the tokens, chains, and venues you will cover. Document exclusions, such as venues with insufficient data quality or tokens that lack reliable disclosures.
Write down each metric in plain English
For every indicator, state the exact recipe. Example: “Median time to receive U.S. dollars after a redemption request during business hours via U.S. wires.”
Automate data collection carefully
Pull order book snapshots at a fixed cadence, record transfer confirmations, and collect published disclosures. Where automation is not possible, build a simple manual process with peer review.
Show both medians and tails
Decision-makers care about typical outcomes and the rare but costly extremes. Publish 95th percentile and worst observed results alongside medians.
Version your methods
When you improve a recipe, keep the old version available so readers can compare historical series on a consistent basis.
Disclose limitations
Be candid about blind spots, such as missing over-the-counter activity or incomplete cross-chain coverage.
Connect results to policy
Where appropriate, annotate charts with references to relevant policy expectations or standards so that readers see how tests map to supervisory themes.^[1]^[3]^[5]

Frequently asked questions

Is this page promoting any specific token?
No. The term USD1 stablecoins here is generic and descriptive. The goal is to help readers measure outcomes, not to endorse any product.

Are algorithmic designs covered?
No. The scope centers on fiat-redeemable designs with cash or equivalent reserve assets that back redemption for U.S. dollars.

What about yield from reserves?
Benchmarking can track whether issuers retain all income or pass some to users via fee reductions or other mechanisms. The key is to avoid conflating revenue with safety. Reserve quality and redemption predictability come first.

How do I compare tokens across chains?
Create chain-specific transfer and confirmation benchmarks, then present a consolidated view that highlights differences. Note any bridge dependence explicitly.

Where can I learn more about assurance standards?
Start with the professional standards for attestation engagements. They explain what it means for an independent accountant to examine specified assertions and how scope can vary.^[8]

Glossary

Benchmark: A standard for comparison. In this context, a documented method for measuring a property of USD1 stablecoins.
Attestation: An independent accountant’s examination of specified assertions, performed under professional standards, resulting in a report.^[8]
Redemption: Sending tokens back to the issuer to receive U.S. dollars in return.
Reserve assets: Cash and equivalent instruments held to meet redemptions.
Liquidity: The ability to convert value quickly at or near one dollar with minimal price impact.
Order book: The set of resting buy and sell orders on a trading venue.
Slippage: The difference between the expected price and the executed price when a trade moves through available quotes.
On-chain: Recorded on a blockchain network.
Off-chain: Executed within traditional financial infrastructure.
Bankruptcy remote: A legal arrangement that protects assets if an issuer becomes insolvent.
Finality: The point at which a transaction is effectively irreversible for operational purposes.
Bridge: A mechanism for moving tokens across blockchains, often with its own security assumptions.
Concentration risk: Exposure that becomes high when reserves or operations depend heavily on one or a few service providers.
Governance: The structures and processes that set accountability and oversight for an issuer.

References

Financial Stability Board, “High-level recommendations for the regulation, supervision and oversight of global stablecoin arrangements” (July 2023). https://www.fsb.org/2023/07/high-level-recommendations-for-the-regulation-supervision-and-oversight-of-global-stablecoin-arrangements/
U.S. President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, FDIC, and OCC, “Report on Stablecoins” (November 2021). https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/StableCoinReport_Nov1_508.pdf
New York State Department of Financial Services, “Guidance on the Issuance of U.S. Dollar-Backed Stablecoins” (June 2022). https://www.dfs.ny.gov/industry_guidance/industry_letters/il20220608_stablecoin
Bank for International Settlements, “Stablecoins: risks, potential and regulation” (BIS Quarterly Review, September 2019). https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1909f.htm
IOSCO, “Policy Recommendations for Crypto and Digital Asset Markets” (November 2023). https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD745.pdf
European Banking Authority, “Regulation and policy for crypto assets under MiCA” (overview page). https://www.eba.europa.eu/regulation-and-policy/crypto-assets
International Monetary Fund, “Elements of Effective Policies for Crypto Assets” (2023). https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Policy-Papers/Issues/2023/02/23/Elements-of-Effective-Policies-for-Crypto-Assets-530092
AICPA, “Attestation Standards (SSAE)” overview. https://www.aicpa.org/research/standards/auditattest/ssae.html
National Institute of Standards and Technology, “Cybersecurity Framework” (general portal). https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Money and Payments: The U.S. Dollar in the Age of Digital Transformation” (Discussion Paper, January 2022). https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/money-and-payments-discussion-paper.htm