Usual Money (USD0)

Q: What are the main risks or weaknesses of Usual Money (USD0)?

Weakest category is Fiat Independence (1.3): because USD0 is, by design, a USD stablecoin backed entirely by US Treasury Bills. Every element -- unit of account, collateral, oracle feeds, and systemic risk profile -- is 100% tethered to the US dollar. There is no transition path to fiat independence and no interest in one; the project views permanent fiat integration as a feature, not a limitation.

Q: What makes Usual Money (USD0) unique from an M69 perspective?

Strongest category is Issuance Model (3.2): because USD0's collateral-deposit minting is genuinely debt-free, permissionless redemption provides real two-way supply elasticity, and the model avoids the lending-based issuance trap of projects like DAI. However, the score is capped by the complete absence of any real-economy signal in the issuance mechanism.

Q: How is Usual Money (USD0)'s M69 Score calculated?

Usual Money (USD0) scores 2.5/5.0 overall. Pillar scores: Monetary Sovereignty 2.5, Civilizational Durability 2.3, Universal Adoption 2.7. Strongest: Issuance Model (3.2). Weakest: Fiat Independence (1.3).

Region	Global
Status	Active

M69 Score

M69 Alignment2.5

Weakly aligned

1.02.03.04.05.0

Monetary Sovereignty2.5

Issuance (3x) + Stability (2x) + Fiat Indep. (2x)

Civilizational Durability2.3

Sovereignty + Governance + Resilience

Universal Adoption2.7

Traction (2x) + Inclusivity

Iss Mod3x

3.2

Stability2x

2.7

Fia Ind & Int2x

1.3

Traction2x

2.7

Sovereignty

2.2

Governance

2.2

Resilience

2.4

Inclusivity

2.6

Scored against the Money2069 Manifesto — see methodology. Higher = more aligned.

Key Findings

Strongest category is Issuance Model (3.2)because USD0's collateral-deposit minting is genuinely debt-free, permissionless redemption provides real two-way supply elasticity, and the model avoids the lending-based issuance trap of projects like DAI. However, the score is capped by the complete absence of any real-economy signal in the issuance mechanism.

Weakest category is Fiat Independence (1.3)because USD0 is, by design, a USD stablecoin backed entirely by US Treasury Bills. Every element -- unit of account, collateral, oracle feeds, and systemic risk profile -- is 100% tethered to the US dollar. There is no transition path to fiat independence and no interest in one; the project views permanent fiat integration as a feature, not a limitation.

The USD0++ depeg crisis of January 2025 is a defining governance failure.The team unilaterally changed redemption rules from 1:1 to a 0.87 floor without a governance vote, directly contradicting the protocol's stated principle that the DAO should set such parameters. This single event depresses scores across Governance, Resilience, Sovereignty, and Inclusivity, as it demonstrated that insiders can override stated rules when expedient.

Usual's genuine innovation -- redistributing stablecoin yield to token holders -- is significant but M69-irrelevant.From a traditional finance perspective, sharing T-Bill yield with users rather than extracting it is a meaningful improvement over Tether/Circle. But from the M69 framework's perspective, redistributing the returns on fiat government debt does not advance monetary sovereignty, spending power stability, or fiat independence.

Despite 124K holders and strong institutional partnerships, traction is primarily incentive-driven and DeFi-confined.No merchant acceptance, no unit-of-account usage, and heavy dependence on USUAL token emissions for adoption mean the project's real-world monetary impact is minimal. The cultural narrative ("yield belongs to users") resonates but has not produced organic, non-financial community commitment.

Big takeaway: Usual Money is a well-executed incremental improvement on the Tether/Circle model -- redistributing fiat-system returns rather than creating a genuinely new monetary system. For M69 alignment purposes, a more equitable wrapper around USD Treasury Bills is still just a wrapper around USD Treasury Bills.The project scores at the boundary of "Weakly aligned" precisely because it innovates on distribution while leaving the fundamental monetary architecture unchanged.

Detailed Rating Breakdown

Framework v0.2-alpha · Rated 2026-04-12

Usual Money is a decentralized fiat stablecoin protocol that issues USD0, a USD-pegged stablecoin backed 1:1 by tokenized US Treasury Bills (T-Bills). Launched in 2024 by French co-founders Pierre Person, Adli Takkal Bataille, and Hugo Salle de Chou, Usual's core innovation is redistributing T-Bill yield to USUAL governance token holders rather than retaining it as profit (unlike Tether and Circle). The protocol also issues USD0++ (now bUSD0), a 4-year locked bond variant, EUR0 (euro stablecoin), and ETH0 (ETH-denominated product). Usual raised $17M across seed and Series A rounds from Binance Labs, Kraken Ventures, IOSG Ventures, and others. From an M69 alignment perspective, Usual Money is fundamentally a fiat-denominated, fiat-backed stablecoin that shares its reserve yield more broadly than legacy issuers. While yield redistribution via the USUAL token represents a meaningful improvement over Tether/Circle's extractive model, the protocol remains structurally dependent on USD denomination, US Treasury Bills as sole collateral, and centralized RWA infrastructure. The USD0++ depeg event in January 2025 -- where the team unilaterally changed redemption rules from 1:1 to a 0.87 floor without proper governance consultation -- exposed significant governance weaknesses and eroded trust. The protocol includes blacklist functionality, pause capabilities, and upgradeable proxy contracts controlled by admin roles, limiting sovereignty and censorship resistance. With approximately 124K wallet holders and $560M market cap as of early 2026, Usual has achieved meaningful but modest traction primarily within DeFi circles, with no evidence of merchant adoption or unit-of-account usage. The project scores well on traction indicators (active team, growing ecosystem, institutional backing) and has demonstrated a genuine innovation in stablecoin economics through community yield redistribution. However, its total fiat dependency, centralized control mechanisms, lack of privacy features, and the governance failures exposed during the USD0++ crisis fundamentally limit its M69 alignment.

Issuance Model3x

3.2

Code	Question	Score
IM-01	Is issuance permissionless?USD0 minting requires the USD0_MINT role assigned to specific contracts. Users can mint by depositing approved RWA collateral through the DaoCollateral contract, but the collateral whitelist is permissioned. Semi-open with rule-based but restricted minting. [1][2]	3
IM-02	Is new supply created through debt?USD0 is minted 1:1 against deposited T-Bill tokens. This is a collateral-deposit model, not a debt/borrowing model. Users deposit RWA tokens and receive USD0 in return. No lending or borrowing is involved in the primary issuance. [1][2]	4
IM-03	Is issuance tied to measurable real-world economic activity?USD0 supply is backed by US Treasury Bills, which are financial instruments, not real-economy activity indicators. There is no link to labor output, economic indices, or productive capacity. Supply expands when users deposit T-Bills, not based on economic signals. [1][2]	2
IM-04	Does the issuance model have a supply cap or hard ceiling?USD0 has no hard cap; supply expands as more T-Bill collateral is deposited. However, there is no mechanism to contract supply based on economic demand -- contraction relies on user-initiated redemption. No circuit breakers or economic elasticity. Uncapped but collateral-limited. [1][2]	3
IM-05	Can supply contract (burn/redemption) as well as expand?Users can redeem USD0 for underlying RWA collateral via the DaoCollateral contract. The USD0_BURN role enables burning. Contraction is permissionless for holders but relies entirely on user-initiated redemption, not automatic contraction. [1][2]	4

Spending Power Stability2x

2.7

Code	Question	Score
SPS-01	What mechanism does the protocol use to target spending power stability?USD0 maintains its peg through 1:1 T-Bill backing and arbitrage incentives. When USD0 trades below $1, arbitrageurs can buy cheap and redeem for $1 of T-Bills. When above $1, new minting is profitable. There is no algorithmic adjustment -- stability relies entirely on arbitrageurs and market forces. [1][2]	2
SPS-02	What benchmark is used to measure spending power?USD0 targets 1:1 parity with the US Dollar. The USD is a single reference that delivers moderate stability but with meaningful inflation (~3-4% annually). No broader spending power basket is used. [1][2]	2
SPS-03	How transparent and verifiable is the stability measurement?Usual integrates Chainlink Price Feeds and Chainlink Proof of Reserve for on-chain verification of collateral backing. Oracle data is partially on-chain with public methodology. [1][2]	4
SPS-04	What is the protocol's historical deviation from its stability target?USD0 itself has maintained close to $1 peg since launch in mid-2024, though it briefly dipped during the January 2025 USD0++ crisis. With less than 2 years of live data and the adjacent USD0++ depeg to $0.89, this represents moderate deviation. [1][2]	3
SPS-05	Does the protocol distinguish between short-term volatility and long-term purchasing power drift?USD0 targets short-term price stability (daily $1 peg) only. There is no mechanism to address long-term purchasing power erosion from USD inflation. The protocol explicitly borrows the USD's inflationary trajectory. [1][2]	3
SPS-06	Is the stability mechanism accessible globally?USD0 is deployed on Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, and BNB Chain via LayerZero. The stability mechanism (arbitrage-based) is accessible to anyone with DeFi access. However, direct minting/redemption of underlying RWAs may require KYC with fund administrators. [1][2]	3

Fiat Independence & Interoperability2x

1.3

Code	Question	Score
FI-01	What is the protocol's unit of account?USD0 is hard-pegged 1:1 to the US Dollar. The name itself is "USD0." The unit of account is entirely borrowed from the USD. [1][2]	1
FI-02	What is the fiat composition of the protocol's collateral or reserves?USD0 is 100% backed by US Treasury Bills -- sovereign debt instruments denominated in USD. Collateral providers include Hashnote (USYC), M0, USDtb, and Ondo. This is 100% fiat-backed. [1][2]	1
FI-03	Does the protocol depend on fiat banking infrastructure to function?The underlying T-Bill tokens (USYC, etc.) require banking infrastructure for custody and settlement of the actual Treasury Bills. While on-chain operations function without banks, the fundamental collateral chain depends on traditional financial infrastructure. [1][2]	2
FI-04	Are the protocol's price feeds and oracles fiat-denominated?Chainlink Price Feeds used by Usual are USD-denominated. The ClassicalOracle component aggregates pricing data in USD terms. All price references are fiat-denominated. [1][2]	1
FI-05	What happens to the protocol if the primary fiat currency it references collapses or depegs?If the USD collapses, USD0 collapses by design -- it is hard-pegged to USD and backed by USD-denominated T-Bills. There is no recovery path or fiat-independent fallback. The protocol's entire value proposition is USD exposure. [1][2]	1
FI-06	Does the project have a credible transition path from fiat-dominated adoption to fiat-independent operation?No transition path from fiat dependency exists. The project's entire design centers on being a better USD stablecoin. Fiat integration is treated as permanent and desirable, not transitional. [1][2]	1
FI-07	Can local or sectoral currencies be denominated in or settle against this currency?USD0 is a monolithic USD stablecoin. No mechanism exists for local currency issuance or composability. EUR0 exists as a separate product but is not a local currency expression of USD0. [1][2]	1
FI-08	Does the protocol define open standards for interoperability with other monetary systems?USD0 interoperates via standard DeFi infrastructure (LayerZero for cross-chain, Curve/Uniswap for liquidity). No protocol-specific monetary interoperability standard is defined. [1][2]	3

Traction2x

2.7

Code	Question	Score
TR-01	Is the project still active?Fully active and operational as of April 2026. Continuous product launches (EUR0, ETH0, sUSD0), governance proposals (UIP-7, UIP-11), and exchange integrations ongoing. [1][2]	5
TR-02	How long has the project been in existence?Usual Labs founded in 2022, USD0 launched mid-2024. Approximately 2 years of existence, less than 2 years of live operation. [1][2]	2
TR-03	How many active users does the project have?Approximately 124K unique wallet holders on Ethereum per Etherscan data. Multi-chain deployment may push total higher but no consolidated figure available. Falls in the 100K-1M range. [1]	4
TR-04	How many businesses or organizations accept the project's currency?No evidence of merchant or business acceptance for payments. USD0 is used exclusively within DeFi protocols (Morpho, Euler, Curve, Pendle) as collateral and liquidity -- not as a payment instrument for goods/services. [1][2]	1
TR-05	Is the currency used as a unit of account?USD0 is never used as a unit of account. It is always quoted as equivalent to 1 USD. No prices, contracts, or wages are denominated in USD0. It functions purely as a USD proxy. [1][2]	1
TR-06	Is the founder or core team still actively working on the project?Pierre Person (CEO), Adli Takkal Bataille (DEO), and Hugo Salle de Chou (COO) remain active. The team is publicly accountable, regularly publishing blog posts and governance updates. [1][2]	5
TR-07	What partner organizations or institutions support or integrate the project?Extensive partnerships: Binance, Coinbase, Morpho, Euler, Curve, Pendle, Chainlink, LayerZero, Ondo, Hashnote, M0. Well over 10 independent partners across DeFi, CEX, and infrastructure sectors. [1][2]	5
TR-08	Is the project covered or recognized by credible external sources?Covered by Blockworks, The Block, CoinDesk, CoinMarketCap, Binance Square. ChainArgos published a detailed case study. No peer-reviewed academic research found. Significant niche/specialist media coverage. [1][2][3]	3
TR-09	Is adoption organic -- not dependent on subsidies, incentives, or mandates?Adoption is heavily incentive-driven. USUAL token emissions incentivize USD0 deposits. The yield redistribution model is itself an incentive mechanism. Binance Launchpool drove significant initial adoption. Limited evidence of organic demand independent of yield farming. [1][2]	2
TR-10	What is the growth trend over the past 12 months?Mixed. TVL peaked at $355M within 3 months of launch but experienced significant decline after the USD0++ depeg in January 2025. USD0 market cap is ~$560M as of early 2026. The USUAL token declined from higher levels to ~$0.012. Growth in product offerings but turbulent user metrics. [1][2]	3
TR-11	Does the project have a coherent narrative and cultural identity that drives long-term commitment?Usual has a clear narrative: "stablecoin yield should go to users, not issuers." The "100% community-owned" framing resonates. However, community engagement is primarily transactional/financial. The USD0++ depeg damaged trust significantly. Cultural identity is developing but fragile. [1][2]	3

Sovereignty

2.2

Code	Question	Score
SO-01	Can any single entity shut down the project?The Usual Labs team controls admin roles (DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE) with pause and blacklist capabilities. The underlying RWA providers (Hashnote, etc.) could freeze or redeem collateral. Regulatory action against the French entity or RWA providers could shut down operations. A single coordinated effort is feasible. [1][2]	2
SO-02	Is the project's core infrastructure permissionless and self-hostable?Smart contracts are deployed on public blockchains and are open-source (audited by multiple firms). However, the protocol depends on permissioned RWA infrastructure, specific oracle feeds, and the team-controlled admin roles. Core protocol is partially open-source but depends on permissioned infrastructure. [1][2]	3
SO-03	Is the project subject to the jurisdiction of a single nation-state?Founded by French nationals with Usual Labs as the primary entity. Pierre Person is a former French MP. While DeFi operations are global, the legal entity and team are concentrated in France. Regulatory action in France/EU would materially impair the project. [1][2]	2
SO-04	Does the project control or custody user funds?USD0 itself is non-custodial -- users hold their own tokens. However, the underlying RWA collateral is custodied by third-party fund administrators (Hashnote, etc.). The protocol can pause transfers and blacklist addresses. Hybrid model: user-held tokens but custodial collateral chain. [1][2]	3
SO-05	Is the project resilient to key-person risk?Three co-founders (Person, Takkal Bataille, Salle de Chou) hold critical roles. Progressive decentralization roadmap exists but full decentralization not expected until 2027+. Until June 2028, USUAL* insiders retain 50% voting rights. [1][2]	2
SO-06	Does the project depend on any third-party service that could be revoked?Critical dependencies on: RWA providers (Hashnote/USYC, M0, USDtb, Ondo) for collateral, Chainlink for oracle feeds, LayerZero for cross-chain, Ethereum for settlement. If any RWA provider revokes access or fails, collateral backing is impaired. [1][2]	2
SO-07	Can the project be censored -- can specific users or transactions be blocked?Yes. The USD0 contract includes BLACKLIST_ROLE enabling blacklist() and unBlacklist() functions. Sanctioned addresses (OFAC/FATF) are actively blocked. Censorship capability exists and is actively used for compliance. [1]	2
SO-08	Does the protocol protect transaction privacy as a monetary right?No privacy features. Standard ERC-20 on public Ethereum -- all transactions are publicly visible. Chainlink integration adds further transparency. No privacy-preserving mechanisms exist. Pseudonymous like all Ethereum tokens. [1][2]	3
SO-09	Does the technology enforce the project's monetary rules such that governance cannot silently override them?Contracts use upgradeable proxy pattern (OpenZeppelin transparent proxy). Admin roles can pause, blacklist, and upgrade contracts. While role-based access control provides some separation, the admin can upgrade contract logic, effectively enabling silent rule changes. Limited technological enforcement. [1][2]	2

Governance

2.2

Code	Question	Score
GO-01	How are decisions about the project made?Usual has a governance framework with Usual Improvement Proposals (UIPs) and Snapshot voting. USUALx holders have 80% and bUSD0 holders 20% voting power. However, governance was bypassed during the January 2025 USD0++ floor price change. Mix of formal and ad-hoc decision-making. [1][2]	3
GO-02	Who has voting or decision-making power, and how is that power distributed?Until June 2028, USUAL* (insider soulbound token) holders retain 50% voting rights. After that, governance shifts to USUALx/USUAL holders. Current concentration: insiders hold outsized power through USUAL* tokens despite 90/10 allocation headline. [1]	2
GO-03	Is the governance process -- and the monetary mechanism itself -- transparent and publicly auditable?Snapshot votes are public. Smart contracts are audited and on-chain. However, the USD0++ floor price change was implemented without proper prior governance vote, revealing that critical decisions can be made behind closed doors. Partially transparent. [1][2][3]	3
GO-04	Can governance be captured by a small group or hostile actor?USUAL* holders (insiders) control 50% of governance until 2028. Token voting with USUAL means a well-funded actor could accumulate voting power. The 90/10 allocation helps but insider control through USUAL* is structural capture by design. [1]	2
GO-05	How are upgrades and changes to the protocol or project proposed and executed?UIPs can be submitted by token holders, discussed publicly, and voted on via Snapshot. However, execution is controlled by the core team's admin roles. The January 2025 incident showed upgrades can be pushed without full governance approval. [1][2]	3
GO-06	Is there a separation between governance over monetary policy and governance over operational decisions?No formal separation exists. The same governance process (or lack thereof) applies to all decisions. The USD0++ floor price change -- a monetary policy decision -- was handled no differently than an operational update. [1][2]	2
GO-07	Does the project have a constitution, charter, or set of immutable principles?No formal constitution or immutable principles exist. The project has a mission narrative ("100% value to community") but this is not protected by any binding governance mechanism. The floor price change demonstrated that stated principles can be overridden. [1][2]	2
GO-08	Can the project's issuance rules be changed, and are monetary policy changes subject to stronger constraints than operational changes?Issuance rules are embedded in upgradeable smart contracts. The admin team can change contract logic via proxy upgrades. No special constraints exist for monetary policy changes vs. operational changes. The unilateral USD0++ floor price change is direct evidence of this. [1][2][3]	1

Resilience

2.4

Code	Question	Score
RE-01	Has the project survived a major crisis or adversarial event?The January 2025 USD0++ depeg was a significant crisis. USD0++ fell to $0.89 (11% below peg). The team responded with emergency parameter changes (0.87 floor, dual exit mechanism) rather than the system handling it automatically. Required emergency intervention to survive. [1][2][3]	2
RE-02	Does the project have redundancy in its critical infrastructure?Multiple RWA collateral providers (Hashnote, M0, USDtb, Ondo) provide some collateral redundancy. Chainlink oracles offer data redundancy. Multi-chain deployment (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, BNB Chain) adds infrastructure redundancy. Some redundancy but key admin roles are single points of failure. [1][2]	3
RE-03	Can the project recover from a catastrophic failure?Smart contracts are open-source and audited. On-chain state is recoverable. However, if underlying RWA providers fail, collateral recovery depends on traditional legal/financial processes outside the protocol's control. Partial recovery possible. [1][2]	3
RE-04	Is the project's design simple enough to be maintained and understood long-term?The protocol has moderate complexity: RWA tokenization, multiple products (USD0, bUSD0, ETH0, EUR0), governance token mechanics, yield distribution, cross-chain bridges. Multiple audit cycles (16 audits from 8 firms) suggest significant complexity. Requires domain expertise. [1][2]	3
RE-05	Is the project dependent on a specific technology that could become obsolete?Built on Ethereum (major, widely-supported stack) with multi-chain deployments via LayerZero. Dependent on Ethereum's EVM ecosystem but migration paths to other EVM chains exist. Standard Solidity contracts. [1][2]	4
RE-06	How does the project handle economic stress (bank runs, liquidity crises, collateral crashes, inflation/deflation shocks)?The protocol has a Counter Bank Run (CBR) mechanism that reduces collateral returns during market stress. Redemption fees can be adjusted up to 25%. However, the USD0++ depeg showed these mechanisms were insufficient -- the team had to manually intervene with new rules. Stress mechanisms exist but failed in practice. [1][2]	2
RE-07	Does the project have sustainable funding for long-term maintenance?$17M raised (seed + Series A). Protocol generates revenue from T-Bill yields and redemption fees. Revenue switch activated January 2025. Current model: 70% retained / 30% to locked USUALx holders. Revenue model exists but sustainability unproven at current TVL levels. Funded for 1-3 years likely. [1][2]	3
RE-08	Can the system operate across extreme latency, disconnected networks, and multi-century timescales?Standard EVM smart contracts require low-latency global connectivity. No design for high-latency or disconnected operation. Dependent on current internet infrastructure and Ethereum's consensus mechanism. [1]	2
RE-09	Is the system designed for a world where AI agents are primary economic actors?Standard ERC-20 and smart contract interfaces allow AI agents to interact via existing infrastructure. No human-specific requirements for core monetary functions (minting requires RWA deposit, not KYC at the protocol level). Not specifically designed for AI but compatible. [1][2]	3

Inclusivity

2.6

Code	Question	Score
IN-01	Can anyone in the world participate regardless of nationality, wealth, or status?USD0 is accessible via DeFi on multiple chains without KYC for basic holding and trading. However, direct minting/redemption of underlying RWAs may require KYC with fund administrators. Sanctioned addresses are blacklisted (OFAC/FATF). Open to most but with compliance exclusions. [1][2]	3
IN-02	What is the minimum cost to start using the project?Primary deployment on Ethereum mainnet where gas fees can be $5-$50+. L2 deployments on Arbitrum, Base, BNB Chain reduce costs to <$1. No minimum balance requirement for holding. Moderate cost due to Ethereum gas fees for mainnet operations. [1][2]	3
IN-03	Does the project actively serve underbanked or financially excluded populations?No specific design choices or outreach for underbanked populations. The protocol targets DeFi-native users and yield seekers. T-Bill yield distribution benefits token holders but is not designed for financial inclusion. The emphasis on compliance (KYC for RWA access, OFAC blacklisting) actively excludes some populations. [1][2]	2
IN-04	Does the project distribute economic benefits -- including seigniorage -- broadly, or concentrate them among insiders?Usual's headline claim is "90% to community, 10% to insiders." USUAL token allocation: 64.5% community incentives, 8.5% airdrop, 7.5% Binance Launchpool, 7.5% DAO, 5.68% investors, 4.32% team, 2% liquidity. This is genuinely broad distribution. However, USUAL* insider tokens retain 50% governance power until 2028, and the revenue switch sends 70% to protocol (not users). Mixed picture. [1][2]	3
IN-05	Does the project treat all participants equally under the same rules?Meaningful inequality exists. USUAL* holders (insiders) have 50% governance power until 2028 despite holding only 10% of tokens. The USD0++ floor price change applied different exit rules (1:1 with yield forfeiture vs 0.87 unconditional) creating tiered treatment. Early participants/insiders operate under different rules. [1][2]	2
IN-06	Does the project require identity documentation or surveillance to participate?Pseudonymous by default for holding/trading USD0 on DEXs. KYC required for direct RWA minting/redemption with fund administrators. Blacklisting of sanctioned addresses is active. Core DeFi functionality works pseudonymously. [1][2]	3
IN-07	Does the project have mechanisms to prevent wealth concentration over time?No anti-concentration mechanisms. Staking rewards (USUALx) are proportional to holdings, actively encouraging concentration. Longer lock-ups (up to 12 months) grant up to 8x multiplier on revenue share, benefiting those who can afford to lock capital longer. Design features passively encourage concentration. [1][2]	2

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Usual Money (USD0) and what problem does it solve?

How is money created in Usual Money (USD0)?

USD0 minting requires the USD0_MINT role assigned to specific contracts. Users can mint by depositing approved RWA collateral through the DaoCollateral contract, but the collateral whitelist is permissioned. Semi-open with rule-based but restricted minting.

How does Usual Money (USD0) maintain stable spending power?

USD0 maintains its peg through 1:1 T-Bill backing and arbitrage incentives. When USD0 trades below $1, arbitrageurs can buy cheap and redeem for $1 of T-Bills. When above $1, new minting is profitable.

Is Usual Money (USD0) independent from fiat currencies?

USD0 is hard-pegged 1:1 to the US Dollar. The name itself is "USD0." The unit of account is entirely borrowed from the USD.

Who controls Usual Money (USD0) and can it be shut down?

The Usual Labs team controls admin roles (DEFAULT_ADMIN_ROLE) with pause and blacklist capabilities. The underlying RWA providers (Hashnote, etc.) could freeze or redeem collateral. Regulatory action against the French entity or RWA providers could shut down operations.

How widely adopted is Usual Money (USD0) today?

Approximately 124K unique wallet holders on Ethereum per Etherscan data. Multi-chain deployment may push total higher but no consolidated figure available. Falls in the 100K-1M range.

Is Usual Money (USD0) still active and growing?

Fully active and operational as of April 2026. Continuous product launches (EUR0, ETH0, sUSD0), governance proposals (UIP-7, UIP-11), and exchange integrations ongoing.

What are the main risks or weaknesses of Usual Money (USD0)?

Weakest category is Fiat Independence (1.3): because USD0 is, by design, a USD stablecoin backed entirely by US Treasury Bills. Every element -- unit of account, collateral, oracle feeds, and systemic risk profile -- is 100% tethered to the US dollar. There is no transition path to fiat independence and no interest in one; the project views permanent fiat integration as a feature, not a limitation.

What makes Usual Money (USD0) unique from an M69 perspective?

Strongest category is Issuance Model (3.2): because USD0's collateral-deposit minting is genuinely debt-free, permissionless redemption provides real two-way supply elasticity, and the model avoids the lending-based issuance trap of projects like DAI. However, the score is capped by the complete absence of any real-economy signal in the issuance mechanism.

How is Usual Money (USD0)'s M69 Score calculated?

Usual Money (USD0) scores 2.5/5.0 overall. Pillar scores: Monetary Sovereignty 2.5, Civilizational Durability 2.3, Universal Adoption 2.7. Strongest: Issuance Model (3.2). Weakest: Fiat Independence (1.3).