Peg Canary Score is a forward-looking stress indicator, not a depeg confirmation. The live risk score detects an active depeg; Peg Canary Score catches the structural and market conditions that typically precede one — often 6–48h before price breaks.

Peg Canary System vs the Live Risk Score

Dimension	Live Risk Score	PCS Score
What it detects	Active depeg — price is already moving	Pre-depeg stress — conditions building before price breaks
Update frequency	Every 5 minutes	Daily (or on-demand)
Primary inputs	Price, slippage, persistence, oracle, supply spike	Supply flows, pool balance, liquidity erosion, whale concentration, blacklist events, yield anomaly
Lead time	Confirms an event in progress	Warns 6–48h before price breaks in historical incidents
When to act on it	Exit / reduce NOW	Review position, increase monitoring, prepare contingencies
Score range	0–100 (higher = active risk)	0–100 (higher = pre-stress)
Tier labels	ok / watch / warning / critical	CALM / WATCH / ALERT / DANGER

Threat Bands

The 11 Pre-Depeg Signals

Each signal is normalized to 0–1 before weighting. Missing signals are skipped and all remaining weights are renormalized to sum to 1.0, so data gaps never inflate the score.

Signal	Weight	What It Measures	Max Threshold
`supply_velocity`	17%	Recent mint pressure — minted_24h as a % of total_supply. A sudden supply surge is the leading pre-depeg signal: issuers mint aggressively to meet redemptions, or attackers exploit uncapped minters.	≥10% of supply minted in 24h → 1.0
`liquidity_erosion`	12%	% drop in liquidity vs the 7-day average. Pool depth quietly shrinks before a depeg as LPs detect risk and exit early. A 50%+ drop in depth signals impending slippage collapse.	≥50% liquidity drop → 1.0
`pool_balance_drift`	11%	DEX pool imbalance — how far the stablecoin’s share has drifted from 50%. A balanced Curve/Uniswap pool sits at ~50%. Heavy one-sided selling pushes the ratio toward 80–90% before price breaks.	100% or 0% pool share → 1.0
`price_confidence`	10%	Inverted price source confidence. Low confidence = fewer reliable price sources feeding the market. Single-source pricing is a fragility indicator.	low → 0.7 · fallback → 0.9 · single_source → 0.4
`cross_source_divergence`	10%	Spread across multiple price data sources. Divergence above 5% means market participants are seeing different prices — a precursor to arbitrage breakdown.	>10% spread → 1.0 (5%→0, 10%→1.0)
`whale_concentration`	7%	Top-10 holder % of total supply. Concentrated holders can trigger a bank-run cascade — when whales exit, redemption pressure overwhelms liquidity and price breaks.	<20% = 0.0 · 50% = 0.5 · ≥80% = 1.0
`blacklist_activity`	8%	Freeze/blacklist events on this token contract in the last 7 days. Issuers typically freeze large addresses during active investigations or after detecting suspicious behaviour — a leading compliance signal.	5+ events in 7d → 1.0 (1 event → 0.3)
`mint_burn_flow`	8%	Bank-run gauge from the supply flows tracker (±100). Negative = unusual redemption pressure. When burning significantly outpaces minting, the market is voting to exit.	-100 (max burn pressure) → 1.0 (≥0 = 0.0)
`mint_role_centralization`	8%	Single EOA holding MINTER_ROLE — the structural vulnerability exploited in the USR March 2026 incident (~$80M minted from ~$200K collateral by one compromised key). An uncapped single-key minter is a systemic risk regardless of current price.	critical (single EOA) → 1.0 · warning (2 minters) → 0.5
`tvl_supply_divergence`	5%	On-chain supply materially exceeds reference per-chain circulating supply. Tokens created on-chain but not reflected in circulating data = potential unbacked minting or bridge mint accounting error.	≥20% on-chain excess → 1.0
`yield_anomaly`	4%	APY spike above the 30-day rolling average. A sudden APY jump (issuers boost yield to retain depositors during stress) is a counter-intuitive but historically reliable pre-depeg signal.	3x baseline APY → 1.0

Reading PCS in the API Response

Each token entry you get from /rwa/peg-canary carries the score plus two signal fields — and you should not read them on the same scale:

Field	Scale	Use it for
`drivers[]`	`normalized` is always 0–1 (alongside `weight`, `contribution`, and the raw input as `raw`)	Severity bars, cross-signal comparison, anything you show to users
`sub_signals`	Mixed per-key scales — diagnostic telemetry	Debugging and data QA — don’t render these directly

You get nine keys in sub_signals, in three groups:

Driver-backed, 0–1: supply_velocity, mint_burn_flow, cross_source_divergence, and blacklist_activity carry the same normalized value you find in drivers[].
Raw pipeline inputs, per-key units: pool_balance_drift is the pool share ratio, liquidity_erosion is the % change in liquidity vs the 7-day average (it can be negative), yield_anomaly is the current APY, and whale_concentration is the top-10 supply percentage.
Always null: price_confidence is a source-confidence label (high / medium / low / fallback) upstream, so the numeric payload carries it as null — read its normalized 0–1 value from drivers[] instead.

Expect any key to be null when its input was unavailable. mint_role_centralization and tvl_supply_divergence never appear in sub_signals — you can only read them through drivers[].

Never render sub_signals values on a 0–100 severity scale. A raw liquidity_erosion of 3.55 (a 3.55% liquidity change) scaled ×100 draws a full-width red bar on a token whose PCS reads 1/100 · CALM. For anything visual or comparative, use drivers[].normalized.

Case Study: USR March 2026

The mint_role_centralization signal was added directly in response to the Resolv incident. An attacker who gained access to the single EOA holding MINTER_ROLE minted ~$80M USR from ~$200K of collateral in one transaction — the off-chain service was the only constraint, and there was no on-chain cap. PCS would have flagged this vault with a DANGER pre-stress score based on the mint_role_centralization signal alone, before any price impact.

This is also why the Risk Rating structural risk component includes a mint_cap_status adjustment: an uncapped minter adds +10 pts to structural risk regardless of current PCS readings.

Getting Started

Guides & Walkthroughs

Risk Ratings, Scoring, and Documentation

SDK

Integrations

Essentials

Glossary

Peg Canary Score (PCS)

Peg Canary System vs the Live Risk Score

Threat Bands

The 11 Pre-Depeg Signals

Reading PCS in the API Response

Case Study: USR March 2026

​Peg Canary System vs the Live Risk Score

​Threat Bands

​The 11 Pre-Depeg Signals

​Reading PCS in the API Response

​Case Study: USR March 2026

Peg Canary System vs the Live Risk Score

Threat Bands

The 11 Pre-Depeg Signals

Reading PCS in the API Response

Case Study: USR March 2026