Comparisons with others

This page was written in July 2023, and some data might be outdated at the moment of reading. Please contact us via Telegram or Discord if you have any questions or requests for other comparisons.

Compared to USDT/USDC/BUSD and other centralized stablecoins.

• USDPro is censorship-resistant whereas centralized stablecoin issuers can freeze any wallet at any moment.

• The collateral held at the banks might be at risk (similar to what happened with SVB and Circle/USDC).

• USDT’s collateral structure is opaque and there is no clear proof that Tether even has the money backing USDT.

USDPro cannot be frozen. When it comes to the backing, there is total transparency as anyone could verify the collateral on-chain. Furthermore, the protocol's gains are used to benefit the end users whereas centralized stablecoin issuers reap all the profits.

Compared to DAI

• An important proportion of DAI’s collateral consists of centralized assets such as stablecoins and RWAs. The asset issuers have control over DAI's collateral and can destabilize or even destroy the system.

• On all other chains, except Ethereum mainnet, DAI is available in the form of bridged-wrappers that make DAI on other chains susceptible to bridges or censorship risks. This is not the case for StableUnit as USDPro natively supports multiple chains.

• StableUnit also has a superior liquidation mechanism enabling an additional revenue source for the protocol and in turn, to users. It also allows the protocol to accept a wider range of assets.

• StableUnit is more capital efficient through its Async MEV-Resistant liquidations and through the integrations to other reputable protocols (Liquidity as a Service)

• Benefits are shared with USDPro holders via in-wallet-yield whereas, for DAI, it is directed only towards MKR holders.

• The system supports built-in low slippage forex system, that may play a much bigger role in the future DeFi.

Compared to Frax

• Frax uses USDC for the majority of its collateral. This creates a dependency on Circle which can easily break Frax.

• Frax relies on FXS for part of its collateral, a token it issues, and that follows the same mechanism UST/Luna had.

• Frax only benefits stakers, hence not distributing value to the end-user (secondary market buyers).

Compared to GHO

• GHO will be minted through the AAVE protocol so all the risks of centralized assets in the collateral such as USDT, USDC, etc. apply.

• Users who acquire GHO on the secondary market (e.g: Uniswap) will not benefit from any protocol gains.

• StableUnit has superior liquidation mechanisms (the estimated loss on liquidations for AAVE is 5-7% compared to 0.4% for StableUnit)
• StableUnit was built to natively support different currency denominations and forex.

Compared to CrvUSD

• CrvUSD employs the innovative Lending Liquidation AMM Algorithm (LLAMMA), a mechanism that could gain popularity in the future. StableUnit is ready to adopt this approach if necessary (by updating its vault structure). However, the current CDP model used by StableUnit has been extensively tested and proven reliable over the years.

• CrvUSD inherits the significant risks related to centralized assets of Curve (USDT, USDC, etc.) similar to DAI. If the 3CRV pool is attacked by a centralized stablecoin issuer, the risk spreads to CrvUSD. For StableUnit, the risk is isolated on asset basis.

• CrvUSD doesn’t offer any yield incentive for the end-users.

Compared to Liquity (LUSD and forks)

• StableUnit offers a unique value proposition: a portion of the protocol gains are distributed directly to the stablecoin holders' wallets without rebasing. There is no need to stake, farm, etc. Considering that the vast majority of constituents are simply coin holders and not minters/lenders, this provides a significant advantage to the average users.

• By accepting only one base asset for collateral, LUSD and its forks face scalability limitations. Variety of assets in StableUnit collateral encompasses a broader range of possible use-case scenarios as well as better hedging against market volatility, offering better peg guarantees. Big capital locked via yield optimizers such as Convex, Tokemak or Aura can be used as collateral in StableUnit.

• For other types of collateral and currency denominations, LUSD requires hard or unauthorized forks. In contrast, StableUnit natively supports multiple stablecoin denominations (e.g., USDPro, EUROPro) with a wide variety of assets as collateral, as well as compatibility with multiple chains. This addresses ecosystem fragmentation and delivers an enhanced user experience and low slippage built-in forex capabilities.

• LUSD forks do not natively support high-frequency stabilization. To address this issue, they require external pools against other stablecoins, which consume additional capital and dilute governance token holders. StableUnit's asynchronous liquidation mechanism automatically accumulates stablecoin liquidity in a sustainable way that doesn't require constant governance token dilution and accumulates protocol owned liquidity over time.