Executive summary
This report evaluates RLUSD’s eligibility as a component of Ethena’s USDe backing asset portfolio. RLUSD is a U.S. dollar denominated stablecoin issued by Standard Custody & Trust Company, LLC (“SCTC”) regulated by the New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) and a wholly owned subsidiary of Ripple Labs Inc. As of 13 March 2026, total circulating supply stands at approximately $1.56 billion across Ethereum and the XRP Ledger, underpinned by $1.42 billion in verified reserve assets (last attestation is dated January 2026).
The analysis incorporates bimonthly reserve attestation snapshots, Ethereum and XRPL supply observations, DEX price observations, DEX TVL and volume series across Curve Finance and Uniswap v3, holder concentration data, CEX orderbook snapshots across five venues captured synchronously at 13:39 UTC on 13 March 2026 and lending protocol data from Aave V3 and Morpho.
Key finding: RLUSD is eligible as a USDe backing asset, subject to the six conditions enumerated in conclusion. With Ethena onboarding directly with Ripple Prime for minting and redemption, the primary SCTC channel is confirmed available, removing secondary market exit capacity as the binding constraint. An initial position cap of $300 million is recommended, anchored to direct primary channel access via Ripple Prime, the $1.17B near liquid reserve (T-bills and MMF) providing 3.9× coverage, and a mandatory Aave deposit structure that creates a $616.4M combined secondary buffer sufficient to cover the full position in the tail freeze scenario Any cap above $300 million requires a full reevaluation incorporating refreshed receive attestation data and an assessment of Ethena’s concentration. The DEX VWAP price series confirms exceptional peg stability in the mature regime with 90.5% of days within ±10 bps of par and worst trough −13.2 bps (July 2025, 23 day episode, full recovery). No structural breach of ±100 bps ever recorded. The newly integrated lending data reveal that Aave V3 holds $581.0M in RLUSD (46.9% of Ethereum side supply) across three contract addresses and RLUSD’s current Aave utilisation (35%) generates a supply APY of approximately 0.85-1.0% versus 1.6-4.0% for peer stablecoins, a yield drag that is material to Ethena’s backing asset return profile.
Issuer profile and legal structure
SCTC is a New York limited purpose trust company operating under a charter issued by the NYDFS. Limited purpose trust companies in New York are subject to capital requirements, regular NYDFS examinations, mandatory reserve disclosures and conduct standards codified in the New York Banking Law. SCTC’s obligations in respect of RLUSD are governed by the NYDFS Guidance on the Issuance of U.S. Dollar Backed Stablecoins (DFS Letter, June 8, 2022), which prescribes eligible reserve asset classes, segregation requirements and attestation frequency.
SCTC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ripple Labs Inc., the payments technology company associated with the XRP digital asset. The parent subsidiary relationship introduces a concentration risk, where adverse events at Ripple Labs (including regulatory actions, litigation outcomes or liquidity pressures at the parent level) could impair SCTC’s operational capacity independently of the reserve position. RLUSD reserves are legally segregated and cannot be commingled with Ripple Labs’ proprietary assets, providing structural insulation against parent level insolvency, but this does not eliminate operational dependency risk.
| Parameter | Details |
|---|---|
| Full Issuer Name | Standard Custody & Trust Company, LLC (“SCTC”) |
| Legal Entity Identifier | 9845000BY41D5F191333 |
| Regulatory Authority | New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) |
| Charter Type | Limited purpose trust company |
| Parent Entity | Ripple Labs Inc. (wholly owned subsidiary) |
| Native Blockchain(s) | XRP Ledger (native), Ethereum (ERC-20) |
| ETH Contract (Proxy) | 0x8292Bb45bf1Ee4d140127049757C2E0fF06317eD |
| ETH Contract (Implement) | 0x9747a0d261c2d56eb93f542068e5d1e23170fa9e |
| XRPL Issuer Address | rMxCKbEDwqr76QuheSUMdEGf4B9xJ8m5De |
| Whitepaper Version Date | November 26, 2025 |
| Smart Contract Audit | OpenZeppelin (results publicly available on Ripple GitHub) |
| Access Model | Institutional/Enterprise only (B2B); Mandatory KYC/AML onboarding with SCTC |
A material smart contract governance risk is that Ripple retains the unilateral right to fork the RLUSD contract at will. A fork could result in token migration, contract deprecation, or address level disruption without requiring holder consent, and is not mitigated by the OpenZeppelin audit, which addresses code security rather than governance rights.
Reserves
RLUSD maintains a one to one peg to the U.S. dollar through a fully reserved model. In accordance with the NYDFS DFS Letter, reserve assets are restricted to four eligible classes:
- U.S. Treasury Bills (residual maturity ≤3 months): high credit quality, daily price transparency and laddered maturities.
- Government Money Market Funds: funds investing exclusively in U.S. government securities, with same day liquidity.
- Overnight Reverse Repurchase Agreements: permitted in the November 2025 whitepaper but not observed as a discrete line item in any of the 26 attestations reviewed.
- Cash Deposits: held at FDIC insured, NYDFS approved U.S. depository institutions, for the exclusive benefit of RLUSD holders.
All non cash reserve assets are held in custody at The Bank of New York Mellon (BNY Mellon) under arrangements providing legal separation from SCTC’s proprietary assets. BNY Mellon is stated as custodian in the November 2025 whitepaper, attestation reports describe holdings at “regulated U.S. financial institutions” without naming the custodian. SCTC is required to maintain a minimum 3.0% reserve buffer such that total reserve market value equals at least 103% of all RLUSD in circulation at all times. A mark to market decline of up to 2.91% (= 1 - 1/1.03) would exhaust the buffer before par coverage is breached. Given the short dated, government only eligible universe, this scenario is remote but not structurally impossible during sharp short rate movements.
| Asset Class | Typical Range | Risk Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Treasury Bills | 40 - 59%(mean 46.1%) | T bill laddering observed; 1-2 CUSIPs early 2025 then 16-18 CUSIPs Jan 2026. Duration risk minimal (≤3M maturity). |
| Gov Money Market Funds | 28 - 35%(mean 36%) | MMF share spikes are temporary, reflecting settlement lag between T bill maturities and reinvestment. Same day liquidity available. |
| Cash Deposits (FDIC) | 13 - 21%(mean 19.1%) | Cash spikes coincide with large mint events; deployed into T bills over 2-5 business days. FDIC insurance provides a per institution floor. |
| Timing Adjustments | rare (2 events) | Deducted from reserve when RLUSD is purchased but not yet minted at snapshot. Leading indicator of imminent large mint events. |
Aggregate near liquid fraction (T bills and MMF) with 82.1% across all 26 attestations, available for same day or next business day redemption. The June 30, 2025 observation of 0% T bills / 85% MMF reflects a T bill maturity cycle with delayed reinvestment. The T bill portfolio’s growth from 1-2 CUSIPs in early 2025 to 16-18 CUSIPs by January 2026 reflects construction of a professional laddered maturity schedule consistent with institutional grade duration management.
Issuance and redemption
RLUSD is exclusively distributed to enterprise partners through a B2B model where retail participants and non approved entities cannot mint or redeem directly with SCTC. Access requires completion of SCTC’s institutional onboarding, including KYC/AML due diligence conducted by Ripple’s compliance teams. For Ethena, this means any position in RLUSD must be backed by a maintained and active institutional relationship with SCTC. Expiry, suspension, or termination of that relationship would eliminate the ability to redeem at par and would force reliance on secondary market liquidity. Ethena has confirmed direct institutional onboarding with Ripple Prime for minting and redemption of RLUSD, which activates the primary channel and eliminates dependence on secondary market liquidity as the stress exit path, subject to SLA terms being formally documented. Per SCTC’s terms, sending RLUSD to another blockchain address automatically transfers and assigns to that holder, and any subsequent holder, the right to redeem for an equivalent amount of U.S. dollars, but only so long as the holder is eligible to, and does, become a Customer. For Ethena, this means that redemption rights are technically portable with the token but are practically gated by SCTC’s onboarding approval at the point of redemption, a holder who has not completed institutional onboarding holds a redemption right in name only.
The minting workflow follows six sequential steps: (1) institutional customer deposits USD fiat into a designated SCTC partner bank account, (2) SCTC’s issuer stack detects the inbound deposit, (3) SCTC transfers funds into the RLUSD reserve account, (4) automated compliance verification of the destination wallet, (5) SCTC signs and broadcasts the minting transaction and (6) blockchain confirmation updates the customer’s wallet. The timing adjustments observed in the reserve data (-$50M, March 31, 2025 and -$80M, November 24, 2025) arise because Step 3 can precede Step 6 within the same snapshot window. These are transient bookkeeping items.
Three redemption process features are material to Ethena’s risk assessment. First, fiat settlement timelines are not contractually specified to a fixed business day standard in the publicly available whitepaper. Ethena should obtain written SLA confirmation from Ripple Prime specifying the applicable settlement timeline, any per day redemption volume limits and procedures applicable during compliance freeze scenarios (this documentation is a condition of the cap upgrade above $300M). Second, SCTC retains unilateral authority to freeze RLUSD tokens in any wallet pending compliance review, which could delay or block emergency liquidation. Third, each institutional account may register a maximum of three bank accounts, potentially limiting large multibank settlement arrangements.
Attestation governance
Reserve examinations are conducted monthly by an independent U.S. licensed CPA under AICPA AT-C Sections 105 and 205 (management asserted examination format). Each report covers two snapshot dates (typically mid month and month end) at 5:00 PM Eastern Time, yielding 26 discrete observation points across the 13 reports reviewed. Reports are published approximately three to four weeks after the second snapshot date.
| Period | Auditor | Snapshots | Reserve Range | OC Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan - Jul 2025 | BPM LLP | 14 snapshots | $105M -$623M | 3.33% - 8.16% |
| Aug 2025 - Jan 2026 | Deloitte & Touche LLP | 12 snapshots | $690M - $1,447M | 3.55% - 6.29% |
The transition from BPM LLP to Deloitte & Touche LLP in August 2025 is analytically significant beyond the procedural change of auditor. Deloitte’s engagement introduced explicit definitional criteria, including formal definitions of “Outstanding Stablecoin Units” and “DFS imposed Conditions” which provide a materially stronger basis for independent evaluation. The upgrade is consistent with governance maturation expected of an issuer transitioning from the $100M to the $1B+ reserve tier. All 26 snapshots across both auditors returned unqualified compliance statements. No reservation, qualification, or adverse finding was observed across the full sample.
Quantitative analysis
Reserve collateralisation
Reserve market value grew from $105.3M (24 January 2025) to a peak of $1,447.1M (14 January 2026), a 13.7× expansion in twelve months. The mean overcollateralization (OC) ratio across 26 snapshots is 4.63%, with a minimum of 3.33% (July 31, 2025, when outstanding supply was $603M) and a maximum of 8.16% (January 31, 2025, when outstanding supply was still $107M). The OC ratio compresses structurally as supply scales under a minimum buffer model, but has remained consistently above the NYDFS mandated 3.00% floor across all 26 observation points.
| Metric | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| OC Ratio (mean) | 4.63% | Across all 26 attestation snapshots |
| OC Ratio (min) | 3.33% | 31 July 2025 (outstanding supply $603M) |
| OC Ratio (max) | 8.16% | 31 January 2025 (outstanding supply $107M) |
| NYDFS (min buffer) | 3.00% | Never breached across the observation window |
| TBills and MMF (mean) | 82.1% | Near liquid, available same/next business day |
| Cash (mean) | 19.1% | Temporarily elevated after large mint events |
| Reserve MV Peak | $1,447.1M | 14 January 2026 |
| Custodian | BNY Mellon | Legal separation from SCTC confirmed |
To assess whether large issuance events create observable stress in reserve composition, OLS regressions of presnapshot ETH net flow onto Tbill, MMF and cash shares were estimated. Cash share is the only statistically significant dependent variable, confirming that large mint events leave newly subscribed fiat elevated as a cash balance before deployment into T bills, typically within two to five business days. T bill share and MMF share show no statistically significant relationship with pre mint flows, indicating the reserve manager does not systematically preliquidate existing positions in anticipation of inflows. This cash first deployment pattern is consistent with portfolio management and is not indicative of reserve stress.
Supply and flow dynamics
The Ethereum ERC-20 supply grew from near zero at inception (December 2024) to a peak of 1,238.7M RLUSD. Over the full observation window, 1,586.1M tokens were minted and 355.5M burned (macro size events ≥100K threshold), yielding cumulative net inflows of 1,230.6M tokens. Total circulating supply across both chains reached a maximum of 1,588.7M RLUSD. Mint activity is persistent but not daily with 24.2% of trading days (137 of 566) registered a mint event, with a median batch of 8.0M (90th percentile 26.0M; maximum 65.0M). Macro burns occurred on 7.8% of days (median 2.5M and maximum 39.0M). The pronounced mint to burn asymmetry confirms supply growth driven by institutional demand expansion.
Authoritative XRPL supply data is derived from SCTC’s issuer obligation records (346 daily observations, 2 April 2025-10 March 2026). XRPL supply has ranged from 55.4M to 355.0M RLUSD (mean 159.4M) and represents 10.6%-32.1% of total cross-chain supply (mean 18.2%). XRPL issuance is highly episodic with only 55 of 346 daily observations register a non zero obligation change, reflecting large institutional batch allocations to the XRP Ledger ecosystem. The largest single day XRPL change was 88.65M tokens (in both minting and burning directions). For Ethena, XRPL supply dynamics do not directly affect the Ethereum side collateral or DEX exit capacity but are a relevant input to total concentration calculations.
Peg stability
The peg analysis distinguishes two regimes with a launch period of 15 days (19 December 2024 to 2 January 2025) and a mature period of 436 days thereafter through March 2026.
| Metric | Launch Regime (15 days) | Mature Regime (436 days) |
|---|---|---|
| Mean Price | $0.99882 | $0.99987 |
| Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) | 48.3 bps | 3.8 bps |
| Maximum Drawdown from $1.00 | 198.4 bps ($0.9802, 26 Dec 2024) | 78.7 bps ($0.9921, 21 Jan 2025) |
| % Days within ±10 bps | 6.7% | 93.3% |
| % Days within ±50 bps | 66.7% | 99.8% |
| % Days within ±100 bps | 93.3% | 100.0% |
| Return distribution skewness | -1.20 | -2.76 |
| Excess kurtosis | 1.53 | 42.3 |
| Notable events(dev ≥25 bps) | 8 (launch phase) | 8 mature events all resolved ≤3 days worst −78.7 bps |
In the mature regime, 8 notable peg events were identified (|deviation| ≥25 bps). All 8 resolved within three days and five resolved within one day. The worst event is $0.9921 on January 21, 2025 (-78.7 bps) which recovered within two days. The November 6, 2025 event (+33.4 bps and resolved in one day) is the only notable breach during the Deloitte attestation period. The extreme excess kurtosis of 42.3 reflects the overwhelming concentration of observations near par, with rare but sharp deviations that are corrected swiftly, which is consistent with institutional market making. No mature regime event has ever breached ±100 bps.
Onchain transfer actively and cross-chain structure
As of the report date, RLUSD has a total circulating supply of approximately $1.56 billion across 50,093 onchain holders and 5,184 trailing 30 day active addresses. Monthly onchain transfer volume is $5.46 billion (monthly turnover of 3.49× supply), confirming active transactional circulation. The structural bifurcation between the two chains is analytically significant.
| Metric | Ethereum | XRP Ledger |
|---|---|---|
| Share of Outstanding Supply | 79.8% ($1.24B) | 20.2% ($315M) |
| Share of Monthly Transfer Volume | 85.3% | 14.7% |
| Share of Total Wallet Addresses | 15.0% | 85.0% |
| Average Wallet Size | $165,700 | $7,400 |
| Average Transfer Size | $209,000 | $1,700 |
| Monthly Supply Turnover | 3.73× | 2.54× |
| Mean Daily Filtered Volume | $83.3M (median $47.9M) | $3.1M (median) |
| Mean Daily Avg Transfer Size | $268,000 (median $146,000) | $671 (median) |
| Functional characterisation | Institutional balance sheet; large block settlement | High frequency retail payments and distribution |
Data quality note: 142 XRPL daily transfer rows (25.0% of the prefilter sample) were excluded because avg transfer exceeded $1M which is inconsistent with total RLUSD supply on XRPL at those dates and indicative of data artifact rather than genuine economic activity. XRPL metrics above reflect the filtered 425 observation sample
Ethereum functions as the institutional balance sheet network with fewer holders with much larger balances, fewer but much larger transfers, and the overwhelming majority of notional value settled. XRP Ledger functions as the distribution and payments network with many more accounts, smaller average position, high transfer count at low ticket size. For Ethena, any institution sized exit, treasury rebalance or collateral liquidation is in practice an Ethereum side liquidity event and XRPL liquidity is not a material input to stress capacity analysis.
Holder concentration
Holder concentration is high on both chains. On Ethereum, the single largest holder is the Aave V3 aEthRLUSD contract at $381.7M (30.8% of Ethereum side supply), making a DeFi lending protocol the dominant RLUSD custodian on Ethereum, which is structurally distinctive feature not present in most comparable stablecoins at this stage of adoption. The top two ETH addresses account for approximately $485.1M (39.1%): the Aave aEthRLUSD contract ($381.7M) and the Aave horizon address ($103.4M). Aave V3 additionally holds two further Ethereum addresses ($99.9M Core and $99.4M Horizon), bringing its total Etherscan footprint to $581.0M (46.9% of ETH supply). On XRP Ledger, the largest holder controls approximately $97.0M (30.8% of XRPL supply) with the top two XRPL holders together representing approximately 50% of XRPL supply. These concentration levels imply that coordinated or simultaneous large redemptions by top holders could create meaningful queue pressure on the SCTC redemption mechanism, even if the reserve itself is fully liquid. At $300M, Ethena’s position represents approximately 24.2%% of Ethereum side supply and 19.2% of total supply which approaches the threshold at which Ethena would constitute a systemically significant single holder. This concentration level makes mandatory Aave deposit structure and active position monitoring conditions of deployment.
Note: Aave V3 holds RLUSD across three Etherscan addresses totaling $581.0M. The two Core addresses ($381.7M + $99.9M = $481.6M) align closely with the calculated Core undrawn liquidity of $479.4M (deposits $599.3M minus borrows $119.9M), confirming consistency between market data and onchain balances. The Horizon address ($99.4M) is directionally consistent with the $91.5M calculated undrawn Horizon balance, with the $7.9M difference attributable to accrued interest.
DEX liquidity
DEX based secondary market liquidity is concentrated in RLUSD/USDC pairs on Curve Finance and Uniswap v3. From near zero at inception, combined DEX TVL grew to $41.4M as of 11 March 2026, with a 30 day average of $39.6M and a 90 day average of $39.7M, indicating a TVL plateau that has been sustained since approximately October 2025. Curve Finance constitutes 97.6% of combined TVL on a 30 day average basis ($38.6M Curve and $0.9M Uniswap), making it the sole material venue for secondary market price discovery and emergency exit capacity.
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| DEX TVL Current (11 Mar 2026) | $41.4M |
| DEX TVL 30 day Average | $39.6M |
| DEX TVL 90 day Average | $39.7M (plateau with no material expansion evident since Oct 2025) |
| DEX TVL All-Time Peak | $53.5M (17 December 2025) |
| Curve Finance share (30d avg) | $38.6M (97.6% of combined TVL) |
| Uniswap v3 share (30d avg) | $0.9M (2.4% of combined TVL) |
| Mean Daily DEX Volume | $12.1M |
| Median Daily DEX Volume | $6.8M |
| Maximum Single Day Volume | $108.8M |
| Cumulative DEX Volume (full sample) | $5.08B |
| Mean Daily Trade Count | 119.5 |
| Mean Daily Unique Traders | 61.3 |
| Average / Median Trade Size | $80,007 / $52,323 (max single trade: $21.0M) |
The mean average trade size of $80,007 (median $52,323) and the maximum single day trade of $21.0M suggest institutional participants use the DEX for medium sized block transactions, not solely retail flow. Nonetheless, DEX TVL represents the binding secondary market exit constraint in a scenario where the primary SCTC redemption channel is unavailable. Given confirmed Ripple Prime access, this scenario is now a tail risk rather than the central planning assumption. At current 30 day average TVL of $39.6M, Ethena could realistically exit 20-30% of mean daily volume per day ($2.4M-3.6M/day) without significant slippage, implying a 30 day normal conditions exit capacity of $72M-$108M. Under a correlated stress scenario (10% of mean daily volume), the 30 day capacity contracts to approximately $36M.
DEX price
A 421 day daily price series covering 16 January 2025 through 12 March 2026 provides the most granular view of RLUSD’s peg performance across both the launch and mature regimes. Two independent price series are tracked which are a volume weighted average price (VWAP) derived from DEX trade data and the CoinPaprika aggregated price index. Their divergence and convergence patterns are analytically informative.
One observation (January 22, 2025) registers a VWAP of $2.4409, which is self-evidently not a genuine market price but reflects a data artifact. CoinPaprika records $1.0002 on the same date, corroborating the artefact interpretation. This observation is excluded from the statistical analysis below but is documented as indicative of the data quality risks inherent in measuring very young, illiquid tokens.
Excluding the January 22 outlier, the 420-observation clean series produces the following statistics:
| Metric | VWAP Series | CoinPaprika Series |
|---|---|---|
| Observations | 420 | 421 |
| Date Range | 16 Jan 2025 - 12 Mar 2026 | 16 Jan 2025 - 12 Mar 2026 |
| Mean Price | $1.000855 | $1.000232 |
| Mean Deviation from Par | +8.55 bps | +2.32 bps |
| Maximum Price | $1.06724 (+672 bps; 23 Jan 2025) | $1.00174 (+17.4 bps) |
| Minimum Price | $0.99868(-13.2 bps; 12 Jul 2025) | $0.99814(-18.6 bps; 10 Oct 2025) |
| Standard Deviation | 0.00454 | 0.00043 |
| % Days within ±10 bps of par | 90.5% | 95.7% |
| % Days within ±25 bps of par | 97.9% | ≈100% |
| % Days within ±50 bps of par | 98.1% | 100% |
The VWAP series has a persistent slight positive bias (+8.55 bps mean) relative to CoinPaprika (+2.32 bps mean). This is mechanically expected since VWAP is trade weighted, so large swaps through the Curve AMM consume pool depth and transact at prices incrementally above the pool mid, a dynamic not present in the broader venue set that CoinPaprika aggregates. The difference is not evidence of systematic mispricing but reflects the structural feature of AMM pricing where larger swaps execute at progressively higher prices along the invariant curve.
Lending protocols integration
RLUSD has achieved rapid institutional adoption in decentralised lending, a trajectory with direct implications for both exit liquidity and yield performance if Ethena carries a RLUSD position.
As of 12 March 2026, Aave V3 holds RLUSD across three Ethereum contract addresses, the main aEthRLUSD Core contract ($381.7M, 30.8% of ETH side supply), a second Core contract ($99.9M), and the Horizon contract ($99.4M), totaling $581.0M (46.9% of ETH side supply). The Etherscan balances represent unborrowed RLUSD physically held in each contract, consistent with the undrawn liquidity figures derived from market deposit and borrow data. Morpho holds a further $20.3M (1.63% of ETH supply). Combined, these two lending protocols account for $601.3M (approximately 48.5% of Ethereum side RLUSD supply). This degree of lending protocol concentration at a sub 18-month token age is unusual and reflects aggressive institutional supply side deployment.
From a risk perspective, the concentration in Aave creates a structural secondary exit venue. Aave’s V3 Core market holds $599.3M in total RLUSD deposits against only $119.9M in active borrows (utilisation 20%), leaving approximately $479.4M in undrawn RLUSD available for withdrawal. The Aave Horizon market adds a further $191.3M in deposits against $99.8M in borrows, contributing $91.5M in available RLUSD. Collectively, the Aave platform holds approximately $570.9M in undrawn RLUSD, which, while not a direct exit venue for Ethena, establishes that the Aave pool possesses the liquidity depth to absorb or facilitate large scale RLUSD transactions in non stress conditions.
RLUSD’s supply APY on Aave is structurally suppressed relative to peer stablecoins due to its materially lower utilisation rate. Over 315 daily observations (from the point of meaningful RLUSD deposit on Aave), the mean RLUSD supply APY was 0.85%, with a median of 0.88%, against a maximum of 2.70% and a minimum of 0.10%. The most recent reading (10 March 2026) was 0.92%.
| Metric | USDC | USDT | USDe | DAI | RLUSD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean Supply APY(Jan 2025-Mar 2026) | 4.03% | 3.87% | 3.03% | 3.30% | 0.85% |
| Latest Supply APY (10 Mar 2026) | 1.72% | 1.60% | 0.79% | 1.32% | 0.92% |
Note, the mean APY series runs from January 2025, when USDC and USDT were consistently earning 3-5% in a high rate environment, while RLUSD only listed on Aave in Q2 2025. The relevant period matched comparison is the March 2026 spot rate, where RLUSD’s 0.92% APY sits below USDC’s 1.72% and USDT’s 1.60%. The gap narrows in a declining rate environment, but RLUSD’s APY deficit relative to USDC and USDT is fundamentally a utilisation problem, not an interest rate problem.
RLUSD’s utilisation rate on Aave Ethereum has improved steadily from near zero at listing to a current reading of 34.6% (11 March 2026) and a March 2026 month to date average of 32.5%. However, it remains a significant distance behind peer stablecoins.
| Period | RLUSD | USDC | USDT | USDe | DAI | Avg Peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 Q2-Q3 (avg) | 23.8% | 82.2% | 81.0% | 73.5% | 82.7% | 79.9% |
| 2025 Q4 (avg) | 27.3% | 79.0% | 78.2% | 60.4% | 79.5% | 74.3% |
| 2026 Q1 (MTD) | 32.5% | 66.3% | 64.1% | 46.8% | 57.2% | 58.6% |
| Latest (11 Mar 2026) | 34.6% | 67.9% | 65.8% | 47.3% | 56.9% | 59.5% |
The utilisation gap is structurally linked to supply growth outpacing borrow demand. RLUSD’s deposits grew from $100M to $790M across the Aave ecosystem (Core and Horizon combined) in approximately nine months, while borrow demand (which requires RLUSD to be a preferred borrowable asset for loop strategies, yield farming, or leveraged positions) has grown more slowly. RLUSD is predominantly used as collateral to borrow other assets rather than as a borrowable asset itself, a pattern consistent with its institutional positioning as a high quality USD collateral token.
The positive trajectory (from 15% in April 2025 to 35% in March 2026) is encouraging. If the current trend extrapolates linearly, RLUSD could reach 45-50% utilisation within 6-12 months, at which point the supply APY differential versus USDC would narrow to within 50-80 basis points at prevailing rates.
As of 10 March 2026, Aave’s platform wide available liquidity data shows the following undrawn balances across major stablecoins:
| Asset | Deposits (Eth Core) | Borrows (Eth Core) | Available Liquidity |
|---|---|---|---|
| USDT | $6.06B | $4.50B | $2.04B platform-wide undrawn (highest stablecoin depth) |
| USDC | $4.76B | $3.95B | $1.42B platform-wide undrawn |
| USDe | $0.81B | $0.51B | $0.86B platform-wide undrawn |
| RLUSD | $0.60B (Core) and $0.19B (Horizon) | $0.12B (Core) and $0.10B (Horizon) | $479M (Core) and $92M (Horizon) undrawn |
| DAI | $0.16B | $0.14B | $25M available; high utilisation constrains depth |
RLUSD’s low utilisation rate produces a counterintuitive advantage in available liquidity terms. At 20% utilisation in the Core market, roughly $479M of deposited RLUSD is unborrowed and available for withdrawal by depositors. This is not exit liquidity for Ethena in the conventional sense (Ethena would need to hold a deposit position to access it), but it confirms that the Aave pool is not liquidity constrained.
Morpho operates a permissionless isolated market structure with fundamentally different dynamics from Aave’s pool model. As of 12 March 2026, the Morpho protocol holds $20.3M in RLUSD (1.63% of Ethereum supply per Etherscan), deployed across five RLUSD denominated loan markets. The two active markets with meaningful supply are:
- weETH/RLUSD (86.0% LTV): $20.65M supply, $18.32M borrowed, $30.89M collateral. Utilisation at 88.7% (materially above the Aave average) indicating genuine borrow demand where weETH holders prefer RLUSD as a borrow asset for yield or leverage strategies.
- syrupUSDC/RLUSD (91.5% LTV): $4.17M supply, $3.57M borrowed, $5.17M collateral. Utilisation at 85.6%, suggesting similar borrowing rationale with syrupUSDC collateral.
Three additional RLUSD markets (sUSDe/RLUSD, wstETH/RLUSD, cbBTC/RLUSD) are live but have minimal deployment. Total RLUSD supply across all Morpho markets is approximately $24.8M.
The comparison with dominant Morpho stablecoin markets is instructive. USDC and USDT dominate by scale (cbBTC/USDC markets alone exceed $1.5B in supply), but the top ranked USDC and USDT markets operate at 85-95% utilisation. This suggests that when RLUSD is deployed in appropriately structured Morpho markets with suitable collateral, borrow demand is strong. The capacity constraint is supply side with RLUSD’s Morpho footprint ($24.8M) remains de minimis relative to USDC’s multi billion presence, limiting the scale at which Morpho is currently a viable secondary venue for RLUSD placement.
CEX liquidity
A synchronised orderbook snapshot across five centralised exchanges (Bitstamp, Gemini, Kraken, Binance, and Bitget) was captured at 13:39:52 UTC on 13 March 2026. This snapshot provides a point-in-time measure of executable secondary-market depth that complements the DEX TVL and Aave pool liquidity data analysed in preceding sections. Together, these three venues constitute the secondary market exit infrastructure available to Ethena in the event the primary SCTC redemption channel is unavailable (with confirmed Ripple Prime onboarding, these venues serve as contingency depth rather than the primary exit pathway).
The five exchanges exhibit highly heterogeneous liquidity profiles. Binance is the dominant venue by far, accounting for the overwhelming majority of ask side depth. Kraken offers the tightest spread at 0.10 basis points while the remaining exchanges quote at 0.60-1.00 bps, all of which are commercially negligible for institutional scale transactions.
| Exchange | Best Bid | Best Ask | Spread (bps) | Bid Depth ±10bps | Ask Depth ±10bps | Total Book Depth |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bitstamp | 0.99995 | 1.00001 | 0.60 | $1.20M | $1.04M | $10.56M |
| Gemini | 1.00000 | 1.00010 | 1.00 | $0.28M | $0.09M | $0.63M |
| Kraken | 0.99999 | 1.00000 | 0.10 | $0.51M | $0.51M | $6.06M |
| Binance | 0.99960 | 0.99970 | 1.00 | $3.45M | $8.76M | $12.37M |
| Bitget | 0.99980 | 0.99990 | 1.00 | $0.38M | $0.32M | $32.19M |
| COMBINED | $5.79M | $10.82M | $61.80M |
The combined order book at this snapshot carries $61.8M in total notional depth across all five exchanges. However, the depth structure is structurally asymmetric, the ask side ($55.4M total) is approximately 8.7× deeper than the bid side ($6.4M total). Bitget alone accounts for $31.7M of total ask depth, an unusual skew that warrants scrutiny. At the relevant slippage thresholds for a $300M position exit:
| Slippage Threshold | Combined Bid Depth | Combined Ask Depth | Binance Bid | Binance Ask | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ±10 bps (±$0.001) | $5.79M | $10.82M | $3.45M | $8.76M | Binance 59.6% of bid; 81.0% of ask depth |
| ±50 bps (±$0.005) | $6.28M | $11.03M | $3.52M | $8.83M | Depth largely exhausted near ±10bps; shallow ladder |
| ±100 bps (±$0.010) | $6.35M | $11.11M | $3.52M | $8.83M | Marginal incremental depth; book is thin beyond ±50bps |
The critical exit relevant metric is bid side depth. To sell (exit) a RLUSD position, Ethena must find buyers. The combined bid side across all five CEXs at this snapshot is $6.4M total, with $5.79M within ±10 bps of par. Binance accounts for $3.45M of that, leaving a fragile $2.34M distributed across four smaller venues. The depth ladder is also shallow (depth at ±50 bps is only 8.4% more than at ±10 bps ($6.28M vs $5.79M)), indicating very thin resting orders below the top of the book.
This bid side thinness is the most material finding from the CEX snapshot. It means CEX venues, taken alone, can absorb only $5-6M in RLUSD sell pressure before meaningful slippage begins. A $300M position cannot be unwound through CEX channels without substantial price impact, and even a $50M position would exhaust available bid side depth within the same session. The CEX order book is better characterised as a price discovery mechanism and source of incremental exit liquidity rather than a primary exit channel for institutional scale positions.
Conclusion
RLUSD satisfies the criteria for inclusion as a USDe backing asset. The regulatory foundation is the strongest presently available for a U.S. domiciled stablecoin. Reserve quality is demonstrably high, all assets are restricted to short dated T bills, government MMF, and FDIC insured cash. All 26 reserve examinations have returned unqualified compliance findings and the 3.00% OC buffer has never been breached. Peg performance in the mature regime (93.3% of days within ±10 bps, maximum drawdown 78.7 bps and maximum recovery time three days) is consistent with peer stablecoins of comparable institutional pedigree.
The primary eligibility risk factors are not reserve related but operational and market structure: (i) a primary redemption SLA that remains unspecified in writing despite confirmed Ripple Prime onboarding (the settlement timeline, per day limits, and freeze scenario procedures must be documented as a condition of the $300M cap is activated), (ii) SCTC’s unilateral freeze authority which, if triggered, would block the Ripple Prime channel simultaneously with any onchain position, making it the operative tail scenario for cap sizing, (iii) Ripple Labs parent company concentration risk, (iv) secondary market liquidity that, while growing, remains insufficient as a standalone stress exit for positions above $50M (CEX and DEX combined depth of $45.4M provides only 0.15x coverage of a $300M position; the operative assumptions for the recommended cap is Ripple Prime primary channel across supplemented by Aave deposit structure, which provides $616.4M in combined secondary buffer covering the full position in the tail freeze scenario); (v) a lending protocol yield profile that constitutes a meaningful drag on Ethena’s backing asset return profile relative to USDC and USDT alternatives and (vi) Ripple’s unilateral right to fork the RLUSD contract, which could result in token migration or contract deprecation without holder consent. None of these factors is disqualifying at the $300M scale given confirmed Ripple Prime access, but they collectively motivate written SLA documentation as a condition of deployment at this scale.
The binding stress scenario for cap sizing, given confirmed Ripple Prime onboarding, is a compliance freeze of Ethena’s specific wallet by SCTC under its unilateral freeze authority, which would block primary redemption and force secondary market reliance irrespective of Ripple Prime access. In a freeze scenario, Curve Finance TVL ($39.6M 30 day average) supplemented by CEX bid side depth provides approximately $45.4M in combined secondary exit capacity (0.15x of a $300M position) leaving $254.6M residual that would require 212 days of staged secondary liquidation under stressed conditions without Aave deployment. If Ethena’s position is structured as an Aave deposit, the $571M in undrawn RLUSD liquidity provides a secondary exit buffer of $616.4M (2.1x of the $300M position), fully covering the position even in a freeze scenario.
| Liquidity Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| 30 day Average DEX TVL(Curve and Uniswap) | $39.6M |
| 90 day Average DEX TVL | $39.7M |
| DEX TVL All Time Peak | $53.5M (17 December 2025) |
| Mean / Median Daily DEX Volume | $12.1M / $6.8M |
| 30 day Exit Capacity Normal (20-30% of mean daily vol.) | $72M - $108M |
| 30 day Exit Capacity Stressed (10% of mean daily vol.) | $36M |
| Aave Available Liquidity (Core and Horizon combined) | $571M (contingent on Ethena holding as Aave deposit) |
| CEX Bid-Side Depth ±10 bps (5 exchanges, 13 Mar 2026 snapshot) | $5.79M |
| Combined CEX and DEX Secondary Exit Depth | $45.4M |
| Primary Channel Liquidity (T Bills and MMF) | 82.1% of reserves ($1.17B at current scale; same/next day) |
| Proposed Initial Cap as % of Outstanding Supply | 19.2% ($300M / $1.56B total supply) |
The initial cap of $300 million is anchored to confirmed direct primary channel access via Ripple Prime and the $1.17B near liquid reserve, which provides 3.9× coverage at this scale. The 13 March 2026 CEX orderbook snapshot adds $5.79M in bid side depth within ±10 bps of par across five exchanges, augmenting the $39.6M 30 day average DEX TVL. Under the primary Ripple Prime channel, a $300M position redeems within the applicable SLA window (target T+1 to T+2). In the tail scenario where the primary channel is frozen, secondary market capacity of $45.4M alone covers only 0.15x of the $300M position. However, with the position mandatorily structured as an Aave deposit, the %517M in undrawn Aave liquidity adds a combined secondary buffer to $616.4M, providing 2.1x coverage of the full $300M position and eliminating the staged secondary liquidation problem. At $300M, Ethena represents approximately 19.2% of total outstanding RLUSD supply and 24.2% of Ethereum side supply which is a materially concentrated position that approaches systemic significance and makes active monitoring of holder concentration a standing condition of deployment.
Any cap above $300M requires a full reevaluation. At that scale, Ethena’s position would represent approximately 25% of Ethereum side supply, moving into territory where Ethena itself becomes a primary driver of RLUSD market dynamics. A reevaluation would need to incorporate a refreshed reserve attestation, updated secondary market depth, confirmation that the Aave pool capacity has scaled proportionally, and a reassessment of queue pressure risk on the SCTC redemption mechanism.